Talk:Gold trim guilds

i created a pretty epic page imo.--'ÑöẊĭƑý 21:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Move

I don't think we should move it to the category; most of these guilds don't have a guild page, yet they're still notable enough to list down. A move to, say, "List of guilds with gold cape trims" would be better. Thoughts? -- Brains12 \ talk 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

List makes sense. Other option would be to create the article "Gold trim" explaining what one is and listing the guilds that have it on the same page. Misery 15:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Or even a trim article covering all three trims.- TheRave (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this page doesn't belong in mainspace. The colors are already explained on Cape.(edit) Also, if a list of gold trim guilds is going to be created, it should not just be a snapshot of current guilds, but a list of all guilds that have achieved a gold trim since the beginning of the game. -- Wyn 15:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Gold trims are permanent. This list is complete. The only way to lose a gold trim would be to delete the guild, and that usually doesn't happen (many get sold, some get held onto as keepsakes). All we have to do is add guilds to the list as they win monthlies. -Auron 13:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If this is going to remain in the namespace, it should be turned into more of an article, providing the viewer with more than just a simple list. An explanation of what having a gold trimmed cape means, links to additional information on the Tournaments, and pvp play, etc. Or at least included as part of a broader article on the subject in general. -- Wyn/talk 05:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not add when they were earnt and numbers (for guilds with multiple gold trims)? Divine 18:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

KMD

Add on monday. That is all.--72.230.63.96 16:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We're not actually british. And why is there not a European flag to put there? More guilds could use that but KMD. Ego 18:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a European flag image... File:European flag.png. -- Wyn 18:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I was just checking the templates list and I couldn't find one, sorry my bad. Anyway, thanks. Ego 20:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So

How many of these guilds actually have people in them who still play? 63.199.243.247

2, [rawr] and [NOW]; although NOW plays under different guild names like [BOSS] and [KK]--72.230.63.96 19:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

rawr

All previous gold capes were removed from rawr. So they should only be counted with 1 cape. It was not a temp removal. Was a permanent removal until re-earned. 69.230.201.154

you sir, are completely wrong.--72.230.63.96 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Reason for placement

The order the guilds are in is base on their cape counts, starting with gold. [rawr] has 10 at the moment, thus making them the leader. Skip them and look at all the guilds with 1 gold trim. The reason they are in the order you see them is like so: all have 1 gold trim, then the amount of silver trims is looked at. whoever has more silvers goes ahead of the others in the 1 gold trim order. then next bronze is looked at. although this isnt a silver trim catalog, it's just showing the order of their winnings i guess you could say.--'ÑöẊĭƑý 14:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sold gold trim guilds

Decided to make this for those who would like to know which of the gold trim guilds have been sold. This page must stay in discussion as it is not appropriate or relevant to the main page. Feel free to ask questions and such if you need to.

Delta Formation [DF]

Team Everfrost [eF]

---

War Machine [WM] NO, WM HAS NOT BEEN SOLD, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO GET THIS SHIT IDEA OUT OF YOUR MIND, PLANESWALKER IS, AND WILL ALWAYS BE LEADER. SOMETIMES LEADERS SWITCH BECAUSE OF INNACTIVITY BUT A NON OLD CORE NEVER HAS BEEN LEADER/ WILL BE LEADER!

Feel free to add and discuss below this line

---

---

---

War Machine was not sold.. First Queen and several other members of the original core are still in leadership/officer positions in the guild. The leader of Mistral Edge [Me] is one of these; I've talked to this individual on a regular basis since proph was released. There are several american in WM because of personal/friend invites and such, but it has NOT been sold.--70.225.42.54 10:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How did they manage to sell the guild? If it was me I'd be all "LOL TX 4 ECTOS" and keep my gold trim, thank you very much. Which, really, is what anyone dumb enough to think paying for a cape you can just TexMod in anyway makes you better at the game or skilled or something probably deserves. --Jette 10:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THE FINE ART OF CAPE-LEECHING? 82.75.192.76 10:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand the fine art of "people who hand over thousands of ectos for a gold cape should be ripped off," if that's what you mean. --Jette 10:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads-up, I'm 99% sure that WM is up for sale on ePvP: http://i.imgur.com/MsAc0BG.jpg ...unless there's a korean gold trimmed guild that is not listed as such in the list and currently on the ladder. --87.183.12.74 14:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect. If you had viewed the WHOLE thread, you would notice the seller stated: "the guildname/tag has numbers & korean signs" - Meaning it is not WM/EviL/RenO. The two Korean guilds with actual Korean signs in their name/tag are the two following: 으v트r 9000 [WHAT] 1 USA flag.png United States of America Sold W4ffle F으rm4ti0n [대트슈T] 1 European flag.png Europe Retired But if you were being literal about both the name AND tag having Korean letters... Then: W4ffle F으rm4ti0n [대트슈T] is the guild you are selling.. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Note to those wishing to add to the page...

When a guild wins a monthly they usually do not receive their Gold trim until the following monday. Please don't add them to the list until the monday comes, as they are not officially a "gold trim guild", they are simply a guild who won the monthly. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:NoXiFy (talk).

vD

-> euro guild not german --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:83.135.198.56 (talk).

Germany is in Europe. ~Shard 21:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

-> look at the flags (look at the flag for KMD). stfu --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:83.135.198.56 (talk).

It would be impossible tor a "Euro" guild to be made up of people from different countries, wouldn't it? Other German guilds as well as Finland are up there. ~Shard 21:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you sarcastic? You dont get it I guess. KMD is a EURO guild (people from different euro countries!). They got a EURO flag. Virtual Dragons is a EURO guild, too. They are not all from germany! So they have to get a EURO flag. Btw there are more wrong flags I guess (Uni = not french, StS = not german at all, and EW wasnt german at all, too). Maybe just remove those damn flags or list the guilds for their continents. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:83.135.198.56 (talk).

You have no idea what you're talking about. Stop before you hurt yourself. -Auron 22:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I give this a 6/10. Rage-inducing, but not very subtle. --Jette 22:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In vD, they speak German, call tactics in German... and host a german website. I'm friends with Void and he says its cool to be listed as german, thats it.--'ÑöẊĭƑý 03:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Guilds that still play

The following is a list of gold trim guilds that still participate in GvG's:

• Rebel Rising, under Rebel Rising Directors Cut [rawr]
• Whats Going On
• Straight Outta Kamadan
• Heart Of Ashes And Dust
• History Repeats Itself
• Stealing Society
• The Benecia Renovatio

---

'ÑöẊĭƑý 03:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen [KK] play for a while. Mini Me 18:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

RenO reformed and aren't high ranked so really shouldn't count ^^ They dont have the trim anymore at least--Wingsy 19:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure they do. Mini Me 20:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You never lose a Gold Trim... unless you cheat which has happened once. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:NoXiFy (talk).

This is pointless - [NOW] still plays under different names and you have no criteria for what constitutes "still participating." The core teams for several of the guilds you mentioned change as well, to the point where maybe 2-3 of the members who won the cape(s) are no longer there. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.66.131 (talk).

Images

I have to say that I love the new images that are up.-- Shew 05:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Wyn did a good job. Although I do wish there wasn't so much drama from a certain Sysop, the old picture was fine.--'ÑöẊĭƑý 18:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

yumy

Shouldnt be listed cause 4 ele midline win is no gg 24.150.172.32 02:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. [yumy] is complete shit. I've known Squeav since he was a little h3 'turd and I know as a fact he is fucking terrible. Look at his protting. WTF!? I herd red-bar protting was baed! Not to mention he loves to camp the same weapon set. There is a reason why [yumy] couldn't get gold until now... I wonder why that is...? Lol... Even after all the high-end 'srs bsn's guilds left GvG [yumy] still couldn't get gold for shit for a very long time. Having said that, I think it's time I finally uninstall Guild Wars. This dead horse has run its last mile (PvP-wise). :\ --216.245.202.34 03:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

might aswell remove [rawr][KMD][uni][GeAr] and [Me] then . . . Wicca 09:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't you badmouth my Squeav. I will always love that little korean hooker even if we haven't played together in years --Snakes on a Wii 01:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Newsflash: No one gives a shit. - Mini Me talk 13:43, 28 February 2010

GoLd

+1 for us old cheeseburger lovin' americans, eh? loleuros. >:) |Cynn's Thong| 08:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I get free healthcare and don't have to worry about hurricanes eating my house--94.226.152.47 21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

^ ahaha. :D |Cynn's Thong| 13:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Linking

Can we please link mAT results and guild histories to GW Memorial? After the ladder reset, linking to the official site won't show anything and Anet has stopped covering mAT results. The data and information available at GW Memorial is accurate and updated frequently (unlike gw.com). The information presented for the mAT results is impressive and 100% accurate (and we already have to link to that site for current mATs). I have started cleaning up and correcting the information on the guild pages and had begun the process of updating all the links and utilizing GW Memorial's data instead. It may not be official but it's 100% accurate. Wicca 05:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Should it be noted?

Should we somehow note that GG, GoLd, CAKE, and WHAT are the same guild which simply reforms under a different name after each championship win? While they've won under 4 different names, 4 total championships would make these players the second most successful guild after rawr.--Four Year Strong 03:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The only guilds that are associated with each other are GG and Cake. WHAT and GoLd have some of the same players but it's by no means a reform. 60.234.197.191 10:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's more than some. WHAT and GoLd each contain at least 6 of the 10ish core members that played in GG and Cake. I'd say that's enough to consider them continuations of the same guild.--Four Year Strong 15:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Should it be noted

That none of the trims since Reno matter? :D. Not but seriously, just watching the latest match, this game is so bad that Gold trim shouldn't even be recorded anymore!24.150.174.172 21:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sold gold trim guilds (2)

→ moved from Talk:Sold gold trim guilds — which had been tagged for deletion prior to merging with this article

It's somewhat relevant; it's always been a topic of discussion for players, especially in the PvP community. Gold trims sold for a lot, and probably still do (literally stacks of ecto, or hundreds of dollars, back in the day), and it was always an interesting bit of trivia when the guild that earned it decided they were done and it was time to move on. A few of them, like rawr's smurfs, were made specifically to sell, but many others were just teams of friends that did incredibly well and ended up leaving the game after selling their guild. It might not be the most visited page, but it's interesting to have a full list here if it's accurate (motoko was part of the pvp community back in the day; if he's still around I assume his information on the guilds is accurate). -Auron 12:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I am doing my best to make the list of sold guilds as accurate as possible. I do still play, just not as frequent as I used to. My sources for this information is mainly general public knowledge (eF was obviously sold around and its value diminished due to the sheer amount of players that leeched and bought/sold invites as I believe it was the first or one of the first gold trim guilds to be sold) and hands on personal knowledge (guilds that I personally moderated their trade). There are some guilds that are no longer accessible (Get Good was stolen and then the only account in it was banned) but I don't see a reason to add it to this list or place it on any other list due to irrelevance and the fact the memory of it will be historical and fall into obscurity. I don't believe rawr's smurfs were made for selling - The primary function of their selling was the fact that they were promised "chaos" trim on "Rebel Rising" after so many wins but then Izzy went back on his word - So they just started making alternate guilds to collect trims on. 1 or 2 of them were auto designated to Faith who then sold them off. Prices for gold trims are also very volatile (2000e-8000e) based on their reputation and history - not to mention if the name is half decent. A guild such as [eF] would go for a lot less due to its reputation against per say [iQ]. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Responding to: "Why would this be something we should document? If anything (still don't think so), it would be on the guild pages themselves" - I would normally agree that something like this should not be documented per say - 4 years ago. At that time only 1 or 2 guilds had been sold. But at this stage in the game, as you can see, there are tons of guilds that have been sold. Much more than I think people realize. Wiki is a source of information for the Guild Wars player base that should prepare and educate any Guild Wars player with as much knowledge as possible. While selling gold trims is unfortunate - but profitable - it is something that happens. The list of sold guilds is far too long to have a simple "Trivia" note at the bottom of the "Gold Trim Guilds" page. Therefor I believe it should be a separate article. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If we continue that thought, would it be better to make this page more generic, more "what happened to the gold trim guilds"? So Get Good would be include-able as well, for example. --JonTheMon (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It could be a solution. However, there are many things that cannot be verified at this point in the game other than simply guessing or classifying the guild in more than one category. Example: The rawr smurfs - one or more than one might have been sold - or the guild might have been autodesignated neither which can be verified 100% but it is no longer in core hands so it can be said 100% that one or the other did in fact occur. If anything you could modify the current chart list of gold trims with a new column with a classification "Status" system: Sold, Retired, Banned. Possibly color code the squares if you please. This form could simplify it into one page. That is something I could agree with and try and maintain the status' of each guild. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Example:

Guild	Tag	# of Gold trims	Country	Status
Inadequately Retired	[GoLd]	1	United States of America	Sold

I don't know the coding for background/centering - But I would recommend centering "Sold" in the example as well as color coding the box to a red background. I would say grey would be applicable to retired guilds that still own their gold trim but no longer play/reformed. If we want we can place "Active" with green on active guilds that do play - but that seems to require a regular update so we could just leave those spaces blank. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Gold_trim_guilds - I have modified the page as suggested above. Opinions? Also what is the code to make selective text red? I'd like to make the sold guilds "Sold" status colored red. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the silence. Here's an example of what you'd do:

Guild	Tag	# of Gold trims	Country	Status
Inadequately Retired	[GoLd]	1	United States of America	Sold

And putting it on the gold trim page seems fine to me. --JonTheMon (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the code. I'll put the sold guild notes at the bottom of the gold trim guilds trivia. So I suppose you can delete this page if you'd like. Thank you for your input again! Gladiator Motoko (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sense of the listing sold/not sold?

I was wondering what exactly the motivation of making such a list is. Assuming that the people making it are not sadistic PvPers who want to feel better about themselves by making others feel worse the only reason for it I see is to make the guilds that are not labeled as sold more valueable for future sales? I think an advertisement for in game trades should not have space on the official wikis besides the fact that it is pretty much impossible to verify if a guild has or has not been sold (although it is in most cases obvious if they have been sold). And no, I'm not in any of these guilds as I'm not interested in PvP at this point (I have a "normal" colored trim). But I think this list has been compiled with financial motivations. --87.183.49.8 00:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Primarily it's to show that a guild is... sold or not sold. When you see a member in a guild that hasn't been sold, you know that they're either one of the competitive members that earned the trim or one of their close friends/family. If you see someone in RenO, it could just be any random whoru. It's not as important now as it was back before GW died, but it's still notable enough to scour forums to keep this stuff up to date.

Re: the financial motivations. It's possible? I think Motoko is still somewhat active in GW1 and owns several of these guilds himself (or did at one point). The GW PvP community was always fairly tight-knit though, so when many of the guilds (particularly back in the day) got sold, everyone knew about it. It's hard to find specific evidence for a specific transaction, but it's still somewhat neat trivia for a list of guilds that earned the highest honor in PvP combat in a game built specifically for PvP. -Auron 02:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I own zQ and I own USA. Neither are for sale and that shall stay that way. I see how someone may think it is a financial motivation. You should then also be able to see how someone would view it as any other sort of value (sentimental or competitive). I think it is a neat trivia piece and I would like to keep it as so. There will come a point I won't be able to keep up with it as much as I like. But players who have kept the guild within their core team should have some record to show that. Not every gold trim has the same value and any player familiar with the GvG competitive scene would know that. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Gold Trim Guilds

→ moved from User talk:Silver Edge

Is there a way for you to make it that only a specific set of users who are not mods to have the ability to edit this page? Something to the extent of players like myself and Lemming. I would like to clean it up a bit personally as I will admit it has been quite a few months since I have extensively vetted the list. But I also feel like there might be a better way to represent sold/unsold rather than constantly listing guilds as active or retired. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Protecting the page so that only sysop, and not registred users, can edit it is a bit extreme but it is a good decision. Now we can speak on the real purpose of keeping info about gold trim guilds (which is one of the questions which have been bothering Greener lately). The fact that Greener chose to remove the status may also mean that he consider it unnecessary : there need to be a reason explaining why some people deem the status of gold trimed guilds (retired/sold/active/deleted) to be relevant in some way. What is the most interesting for new players interested in GvG ? The fact that a gold trimed guild is active and teaching. And most of them are not. Why ? Well, what fate ultimately awaits every single gold trimm guild ?--Ruine Eternelle 18:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

From personal experience, I can tell you that the most interesting thing for new players about a gold trim is whether they can leech it or not, not whether they can learn (which generally wouldn't entail a guild's effort, anyway).

The practical use of documenting the status of notable guilds is sort of in line with what you seem to want. Wearing a gold trim in and of itself often means nothing as far as the player's skill level and experience goes, but this is even more true for those who hang around sold guilds with gold. It's a pretty safe bet that they shouldn't be relied upon for anything, especially learning PvP-related information.

Since I'm not convinced new players these days even know that GvG exists, let alone that you can get a gold trim from winning tournaments, it's not that big a deal if the information isn't going to be housed on the main wiki page. I'm not sure why some anonymous crank repeatedly reverting my edit merited the reaction that it did, though. --Lemming (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Just spent two days without power, so just getting many other things done. Briefly:

• Having a gold trim tells only of a guild's past. A six-year old "active" guild tells you no more about its ability to compete than a six-month old "sold" guild.
• If people want to know the quality of a guild in terms of GvG, the wiki should never be a place to go. We document, we don't judge.
• If someone can't figure out that their gold-trimmed guild is terrible at GvG, I fail to see how the wiki's info would solve their actual problems.

Lemming, I do appreciate your hard work, as well as others, in keeping all that documented. One column of information was removed, but I do hope that we continue to see guild victories put up on that page. G R E E N E R 06:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The only two edit protection levels are admins or autoconfirmed users. I think it's possible to set up a filter to only allow certain users to edit a page, but it doesn't seem necessary yet. I'll leave the current protection and its duration in place while discussion occurs and hopefully consensus is reached. In the meantime, if you would like to clean up the list, you can create a copy of it in a sandbox (e.g. [[User:Gladiator Motoko/Sandbox]]). --Silver Edge 09:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Revert warring

is not okay. If you have proof a certain guild is sold, or isn't sold, or whatever, please post it here or in the QQ thread, but don't just revert constantly. This project has merit, just keep the reverting in check. -Auron 23:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The ones people disagree with I will do my best to contact sources I believe to be knowledgeable about the subject. There may be instances where input may disagree with the general consensus (ex: WM being sold or not) - These instances will require more than "he said she said", but will require more extensive verification such as joining the guild and getting a personal view and assessment. I feel at this point, except for one or two guilds I am verifying - I feel the list is fairly accurate. If anyone disagrees with a specific item on this list in the future - Feel free to contact me here, QQ forums, or in game (@Motok O). Gladiator Motoko (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

GoLd is sold

Someone has been reverting it. Just to prove it has been: http://oi43.tinypic.com/2yy38rs.jpg So whoever disagrees with it being sold - Please get over it. Names were blocked to protect identity for obvious reasons. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

AA is not banned?

few minutes ago I saw this guy in gtob: http://i44.tinypic.com/mcpwn9.jpg , another one was running around, so I guess that guild is not completely out of the game.

Seemingly you're correct. Their guild rank hasn't changed so it doesn't seem to be active in pvp, but might be worth labelling as retired. -Chieftain Alex 00:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I heard this last week as well - though I was busy so I could not go view the player with the trim/tag. I will move the guild to "Sold" as the core is no longer in it and the "Banned" title does not seem applicable. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

srs is not sold

srs never got sold,we are just retired. please bring any proof before poiting it out as sold,TWICE!

well i guess it is sold: http://tinyurl.com/nupobd6 and btw could you stop adding legendary emy to [LaG] and [Cake]? thanks --Kamy (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

a guru thread.. you must be kidding.. it was legendary Emy not Amy just saying and yea i will stop that im sorry just got mad about all this stupid s**t

srs is sold. Please provide proof otherwise. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

From Emy Hello, I don't know who's that faggot who keep writing my IGN there but stop that please

DW

Via the QQ forums, I did find that Samuel had DW up for sale here back in August... Rodan (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

rawr

Whats about Rebel Rising Extended Edition [rawr] and Rebel Rising Directors Cut [rawr]? Can't find a source about a sell. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.227.16.153 (talk).

The general knowledge at the time was that those guilds were made specifically to sell. Rawr were still more or less in their prime, but instead of winning a zillionth unnecessary gold trim on the main guild, they started winning it on alt accounts and smurf guilds. I assumed (no proof) that they were sold immediately after the trims were awarded, but who knows? -Auron 12:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Through conversations with Faiths Monk - Who often leeched several rawr guilds, the guilds eventually fell into his hands and he did sell them. The only way I can agree to move them to "Retired" is if someone can invite me to the guild to prove rawr is still in there. Considering I don't know rawr players to have many alts/really care about gw1 anymore - I can't say there is a high chance the guild isn't sold. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Botting and "Toolbox"

The June 2014 mAT has been infested with bots and what is known as "toolboxing". Is there any decision that we could make to classify or note that a guild that has won gold has cheated? Gladiator Motoko (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to submit proof of my accusation of cheating as well. http://oi62.tinypic.com/2ldgmtw.jpg - This picture shows the finals match. The winning team being [avg]. I have selected the target mesmer. The mesmer does not have any damage mitigating or increasing skill damage used on him. You notice the 122 damage obsidian flame. With this flux, you can bring 11 in earth magic for a base of 73 armor ignore damage. Glyph of Elemental Power AND Elemental Attunement would bring earth magic up to 15 with an Obsidian Flame damage of 92. WITH the flux 15% damage the most you can do in the game is 106. Even with a +1 (20%) offhand mod it would only increase the damage to 112. So with that being said - In this flux - 122 damage Obsidian Flame is impossible to do, and there is no other conclusion to be had other than that [avg] cheated to win gold. Toolboxing 100%. Botting most likely. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Since this page is mainly meant to record which guilds have acquired a golden trim, I don't think it's necessary...and probably also confusing to state something like "cheated" instead of the usual "active" or "sold". Don't forget the purpose of stating these is for readers to quickly see what guilds have won gold and if the guild has been sold or not (since this may affect the guild's ultimate value). Now, I'm not implying the suspected cheating does not affect the value, I'm just not of the opinion that stating 'cheated' adds any value to the article. The trivia note should be kept there, though, if the research you do did turns out to be indeed legitimate. SuperRobertWa (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

https://forum.guildwars.com/forum/forums/news/June-26-2014-June-Monthly-Automated-Tournament , therefore [kput] obtains a second goldcape 109.221.87.142 23:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I will remove [avg] from the gold trim list completely. Their fame or infamy have no place on this list. They have to earn their place on this list. Previous guilds have had the mAT outcomes affected due to unfair circumstances - Therefor we can not speculate [kput] won a second gold trim. Any team [avg] beat affected placement in elimination as well as opponents who might have beat them otherwise if it were not for the cheating. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

My two cents: this is a wiki, and the point of the wiki is to document the game. Even if they did it via cheats and bots, they did "win" a monthly tournament - as in, as far as the game was concerned, they placed first. ArenaNet came in after the fact and stripped them of their trim, which is a great thing to note, but they still "won" the tournament and thus should be documented. Since ArenaNet has basically labelled them as cheaters as well, I don't have any problem with the "cheater" tag that was put on before, but our database would be incomplete if we simply skipped a month instead of documenting who "won." -Auron 03:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Auron, for the sake of continuity we should add them as the winner and simply add a footnote that they were stripped of the title. Destructopuppy (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

War Machine

Should Guild:War Machine (historical) be tagged red or not? Lemming tagged it ages ago, and it has been swapped back and forth half a dozen times by random IP's since then. Which one is it? Jeree95 (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Who knows? That red mark is documenting something none of us can truly verify. I still see zero value in it, but that's an argument for earlier sections. G R E E N E R 19:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I last verified that it indeed was still in original owner possession. I see no need to change it to sold unless undeniable proof has been presented. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Then it shall stay as unsold until proven otherwise. I just wanted to ask because it had been switched back and forth by random IP's a lot of times. Jeree95 (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Referencing

Should consider tagging all red-guilds with citable references to: 1) avoid disputes, and 2) to inform readers not-savvy to gold-trim politics. --Falconeye (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, the "sortable" table doesn't work for sorting red/non-sold guilds. --Falconeye (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Reputable information can appear on this talk-page, as how reputable they are would be yet another topic of conversation. As for the sortability, I never noticed that. I'll ponder a way to give an invisible value to those squares without having it counted at ignorable whitespace. G R E E N E R 02:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

A recent new addition >>See Teamquitter thread - EvIL was hijacked<<; how do I verify that? what is teamquitter; who is Evil? etc. As a primarily PvE player, such knowledge is beyond me. --Falconeye (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Correct. The inability to properly vet the information is the main reason why I once removed it, along with the edit warring, limited use (in my eyes), and I'm sure a few other reasons. I am in many ways beholden to the community, though. G R E E N E R 07:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

[Est]

I am not sure who put on the wiki that the guild was deleted, but I have just modded a trade for it, so I can confirm it is not deleted. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thats why I'm suggesting that any controversial edits should be supported by a reliable citabel reference. --Falconeye (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there was a similar "proof" than there is for the deletion of the original [kput], i.e. a screenie from ANet's guild ladder, but I have no idea how it would prove or not prove anything (I don't know how the ladder works exactly). I know it looked very similar to [kput]'s case so I let it be. Think it was written by an anon. Jeree95 (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Protecting this page

One of the ideas behind protecting a page is to ensure that correct information is not vandalized. Does anyone have a shred of concrete evidence to back up the "sold" status? And no, I will not be accepting conjectures and hear-say. If nothing substantial can be provided, I'll do the proper thing to this page, which is to remove the source of the problem, as we cannot ensure that it even contains correct information.

To add, avoid revert wars, this is your warning. G R E E N E R 10:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"This is your warning"... I reverted it twice and then literally said I won't revert it another time. No need to go alpha on me.

As for the sold -column, I think it is relevant, but if you don't give a damn then no use in me doing so either. If Motoko constantly mods guild trades, I would trust his word on EvIL being not in original posession over some random IP just pushing the opposite on this page, especially since they're not even trying to back up their claim. Jeree95 (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Jeree, the "warning" wasn't meant to be directed specifically towards you. In fact, I very much appreciated your edit comment. I should have swung by your talk page to clarify, and for that, I'm sorry. G R E E N E R 20:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I wish there was some sort of way you could mod a page to only allow a select few to edit it. That would solve a lot of issues. I do my best not to have knee jerk reactions when a guild is claimed to have been stolen, sold, auto designated. I would hope you'd have more faith that if someone said "WM" is sold I would take it with a grain of salt. I ask a lot of questions and ask for proof before going anywhere with it. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

"I wish there was some sort of way you could mod a page to only allow a select few to edit it." There is, and it's not appropriate for this page. There is no way to find out which version of the page is accurate, therefore no way to know what to protect.

"EvIL is considered sold until someone can prove otherwise." Considered so by whom?

"Can you not read? Do not touch unless you provide proof." What you're failing to realize is that proof goes both ways. G R E E N E R 05:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Posted before you responded without researching the issue: http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2016/12/1458729587-gw056.jpg - I never did my editing on a whim. Have a little more faith buddy. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

*sigh* This has nothing to do with faith or the lack thereof. Your edits and the other contributors' edits hold equal weight, as neither bothered to back up their claims when editing. G R E E N E R 03:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleting the "sold" column

I'll second Greener's sentiment to get rid of that "sold" column anyway. Imo it doesn't really have a right to exist anyway. What's the point of it? Who gives a monkeys whether an inactive guild, through the inactivity of every single core member, has fallen into the hands of a random unaffiliated invite?

Take The Last Pride: Playing against Evil was great fun 10 years ago. Beating them even more so. But after their failed return, who really gives a thing about them any more? Don't get me wrong, one of the greatest guilds ever. But no relevance today.

Or iQ: Great insightful articles by Ensign. Exposing the flaws of the game mechanics on the highest level by eliminating EvIL in the WC. Relevance today?

Add that to the fact that it's almost impossible to really verify. Steve1 (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If you don't care about monkeys or guild inactivity then you are more than welcome to ignore it and turn your head the other way. The fact is a lot of people do care whether a guild is sold or not and it creates a lot of unnecessary tension in game with people pretending they won a gold after they buy it etc etc.

Don't get me wrong. Both guilds have their place in history and made huge impressions and impacts on the game. I do find it disgusting that people who have wrongly acquired a gold trim to go around parading as if they were the ones who were part of something a lot of gamers admire.

And it isn't hard to prove. Screenshots and even guild invites often disprove many rumors. But when some PvE kid shows up on reddit bragging he was designated iQ leader. Its going to get brought to the attention of everyone. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to track which guilds you believe have been sold or not in some other location. Websites are cheap, and blogs are free. There's also the other wiki which I'm sure you can use. I'm tired of having the official wiki give its "stamp of approval" on unverifiable and contentious information. I'm removing the column. G R E E N E R 05:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Motoko verifies by joining the guilds, even participates - I'm sure - in some of the trades. I think that would be helpful. If need, there can be a subpage and files uploaded to show proof. I am tired of people buying gold guilds and pretending that they have won the gold as well and I prefer the sold list, so that it would quieten the crazy community that is in the game. Things have changed a lot in the gw community. Let's try to help keep some peace. Rodan (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

And all of that can be documented elsewhere; this wiki even has a user space which Motoko can use. Again, I have not seen a shred of verifiable proof from either side of these edit wars. We all want peace, so I removed the point of conflict. G R E E N E R 17:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Motoko has a lot of credibility in this game. And definitely a lot of credibility when it comes to guilds and modding. He has a lot more credibility than you and the random ip addresses do combined. If people want peace then they need to accept the facts and get over a guild being sold. It's unfortunate some kid has to get on his high horse and mod the wiki to his bias. It's people like you with power that sicken me. But I guess since you haven't accomplished anything in this game, this is your sandbox to feel like you matter. 166.137.126.36 18:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. --Silver Edge 09:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

166.137, you seem to be missing the point. This is the wiki, not the game. We document the game, not its internal politics.

Everyone on this wiki is treated equal as editors, random IPs and logged in contributors alike. There is a reason why I try to dig through Special:AbuseLog on a daily basis, looking for any edits which we may have accidentally blocked. We assume good faith. So when some editors are fighting against other editors on a topic that's arguably outside our purview, and no one is stepping up to the plate with facts (which is what we document), I'm left with no choice. G R E E N E R 17:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

How isn't this information relevant to the guild wars community? I own 4 gold trim guilds myself and I encourage and understand the importance of documenting whether guilds have been sold or not. And if not marked as sold at least document that the guild is no long associated with the players who won the trim. It's useful for potential buyers, people who were fans of particular guilds, useful for people to avoid scams, and also useful, so people understand that the people who bought the guild are not stealing valor from said guild by fronting to be core members within that guild. If proof is what you're after re-add the columns and only allow edits with said proof. Add strict criteria and elaborate on what can and cannot be used as proof. Motoko has moderated many guild trades for me and he knows more than anyone about many of these guilds. He is definitely worthy to mark guilds as sold, stolen, or not in the original hands of the core members. It is disappointing to see a stance like this was taken on this particular subject. I expected more! (71.57.124.130 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC))

I propose a compromise: draft an "Status on gold trim guilds" article--packed with as much references/citations as possible. Then we can decide to either redirect all relevant links to it, or move it into a separate main-space article. This article was designed to document guilds that won; keeping tabs of what happened to said guilds after the fact was never intended. --72.67.36.85 06:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

As I have said, all of this can be documented elsewhere, and I have suggested many options. Main space articles are not the place for politics, contentious issues, or items which cannot be verified. All that happens are edit wars with no sides being "right". G R E E N E R 09:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

[cute] Deleted

http://i65.tinypic.com/154aby9.jpg

I was once in the guild with the tag [cute] for a little while in April. The guild had a gold trim and the alliance was extremely active and thriving amongst other luxon guilds. At one point we were in the cavalon alliance but then we either left or were booted. After that I remember we owned another town in a different active alliance. I was a member at the time and recently I logged on to discover I was kicked! What the hell happened I do not know but I have noticed an awkward trend within that guild. Supposably our guild was full of botters. How else could we have maintained over 2-3 million faction with the small player base in the guild. I had joined via invitation from kamadan from an officer recruiting at the time. Although invitations seemed open our actual number and growth was quite small. I thought with open invitations our guild would be a lot bigger; however, I had noticed that the officers and leaders must have only invited a couple people for it to appear active, so it could potentially avoid drawing attention from the bots that were being operated for the purposes of owning a town or perhaps bragging rights amongst other guilds?

I was also informed at different periods of time when I tried to contact certain officers or leaders that the account was shared between four people. So, in my head I have thought perhaps there is many different situations for what could have happened. It is very possible the leader was key logged or there was a disagreement with leadership either way it is sad ending to a guild I enjoyed being apart of. Today I saw [cute] in kamadan and noticed the gold trim was NOT there. I asked how this was possible and the player told me that somebody had deleted it. He had no idea the outcome of the guild other than stating the leader was into some real shady things. I asked for an invite to see for myself if the guild was in fact deleted as of which the player did not mind inviting me. This picture provided is me in the guild and you should note THERE IS NO TRIM. I omitted names to give privacy to those affected by this tragedy though I will provide the leaders name at the time. IGN: Strawberry Shakes

A thing that stuck out to me was the demeanor of the guild from when I was in it. The officers were very trolly and the leader was pretty disrespectful but mind you there were 'several' leaders within the guild though the most pronouned one I knew of was a man named Jake. Supposably he was behind the botting operation as well as other things within the guild. I have also omitted his in game name for privacy as it is not for me create drama if I do not understand the whole story. Though, I will say this Jake character and Norton officer were some of my least favorite players I've encountered in the game. Their demeanor towards other players compared to their friends shifted dramatically. In some instances claiming they were only good to their friends and screw everybody else. So, I really felt misplaced within the guild to begin with. I clearly was a burden to them and was only there for them to hide their faction farming agenda. I mostly kept to myself although attempted to talk to a couple of the officers and leaders at the time though with their attitude I really felt it was best to keep to myself to avoid being kicked. While I had not seen many people kicked it was quite evident that these players did not care one bit about anybody but themselves. Karma perhaps? Either way RIP [cute] was fun to just wear the cape I can't say the players made it a good guild... The alliance however did.

Anyways, with the picture I provided all the evidence I thought would be relevant to prove the guild has been disbanded / deleted. 69.113.144.247 20:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Gold Trim Bug

When a monthly tournament takes place that at least 9 guilds have entered but only 8 or less play the elimination rounds, a gold trim is not awarded to the last remaining guild due to no finals match taking place. When 9+ guilds join a monthly tournament, 4 Swiss rounds take place. At the end of swiss rounds, the top 9-16 guilds are assigned to the elimination bracket based on their seeding. Since the mAT was created based on at least 9 teams, 4 matches are required in the elimination rounds. Finals, Semi-Finals, Quarter Finals, and starting round. However, if only 8 or less guilds are still playing when the elimination rounds have begun - the 8 teams will fill one side of the bracket of 16. The other 8 spots will be left blank. The tournament system does not adjust for this calculation mid-tournament. The 8 guilds will play the first round and 4 victorious teams will remain. The 4 teams will play the quarter finals. 2 teams will remain and play the semi-final. The 1 victorious team will remain pending a match up with the winner from the other 8 "empty side" of the bracket. Because no team filled any of the 8 other slots, no finals match takes place and tournament ends with no gold trim winner. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Bug and notes

Motoko's argument is "The list would be never ending.". That is incorrect. If a guild wins a mAT and gets the gold trim, we add it to the list (as it should be). So the list grows by one line. If a guild wins a mAT but does NOT get a trim due to the bug, we could add one line to the notes section. The article would thus grow by one line regardless of the guild getting the trim or not due to the bug. Winning a mAT is worth a mention. And it's not a guild's fault how ANet implemented the mATs. A tourney win is a tourney win.

Alternatively we could rename the article "season and tournament winning guilds" or some such.

Your edit is driven by a dislike for one particular guild. But this wiki records facts and isn't driven by one single user's personal dislike. So take your personal aversion somewhere else. Steve1 (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The name of this article should reflect its content, and vice versa. The community needs to figure out what aspect of the game it's interested in documenting. I would like to hear some discussion on this topic. Greener (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

My edit is driven by content accuracy. This page is for gold trim guilds, not "theoretical tournament winners". That is a slippery slope if you choose to go that route. The only reason I would keep [avg]'s trivia on the page is that they at one point did have the gold trim and it was officially removed. If [gwam] or [be] had gold trims and they were removed due to cheating, I believe that information would have a place on this page. I have friends in [gwam] and they do not have any issues with the contact accuracy adjustment that has been made. Technically, a finals match does not take place from this bug. No finals match taking place is confirmed by a lack of gold trim taking place. We would have to include all the other tournaments that have taken place in Guild Wars history, which would be a pretty hefty feat. And as far as never-ending, yes it has the potential to be such if you continued this track. This coming August mAT and every mAT afterwords has the potential to run into the issue. You could easily add a guild to the list every month until the end of time if the bug continues to occur. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Greener - I am curious on your view on adding information when a guild accomplishes something deemed "wiki-worthy" that specify's that it was an ill-gained achievement? I know your views on slander on this site, and I do respect that. However, the specific guild in mind is widely known for botting - in all PvP arenas. To put them in the same classification as War Machine or Rebel Rising without at least an asterisk or acknowledgement that it was not a legitimate win would be a huge insult to those who have skillfully won their victories. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The entry for gwam has been here since August 2018 - where has your drive for content accuracy been for the past year?

By your own edits, you are a member of the team which lost the last match of the June 2019 mAT. So you knew that adding y소wn to the gold trim lists was a lie. And you knew that your info on the y소wn page was a lie. And you knew that the pic you posted was fake. (Repeatedly, knowingly and deliberately adding wrong information is called vandalism - no idea why the admins let you get away with that). That has nothing to do with content accuracy. And why should anyone believe any stories about any supposed friends of yours in gwam?

Your argument regarding never-ending doesn't cut it either. Every month we'd have to add exactly one guild to this article: either to the gold trim list or to the notes (unless they had won a gold trim before). Then we just name the page "gold trim and mAT winners" and we don't have to look at historical tourneys. Problem solved.

If the guild is widely know for botting, post the proof and contact ANet. You know how that works from avg. If ANet acknowledges it like with avg then the wiki will also record it.

After the 100,000 series ended, the level of seriousness of players participating in mATs sharply decreased. So anything from 2008 onwards should not be put in the same classification as War Machine or Rebel Rising without at least an asterisk or acknowledgement that it was not a comparable win which otherwise would be a huge insult to those who have skillfully won their victories.

Or even worse after 2011, since "the game is dead" since then.

Where do you draw the line?

gwam and en were the last team left over in the single elimination round of a mAT. Same as dPac last month. The former don't qualify as a gold trim guild, true - but the mAT accomplishment is comparable to dPac, or Ci or yay, minus one more single elim match.Steve1 (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Motoko: I would consider claims and evidence of botting to be hearsay at best, outside of statements from ArenaNet. I.e., I would give them very little consideration or allowance.

Please discuss whether this page is going to document winners of the mAT, or guilds that have a gold trim cape, or another option which the community and wiki can support. Greener (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I was not as active in the community prior to the past few months. I was unaware of the status of the page as well until further investigation.

You are incorrect in regards to the "never-ending". If the same guild won a gold trim for the next 20 months, a new guild/line would not be added for 20 months.

Feel free to create a new different page composing all various tournament/season winners separate from this one. This page is explicitly for guilds with gold trims.

Your argument is laughable. Cheating isn't drawing a line? You would say the game is dead since 2011 is the same as botting in 2019? You seem to be an avid bot supporter. That is very disappointing. Regardless of any of your imaginary "lines", your proposed "lines" have one thing in common. They were all legitimate guilds. [avg] and [be] used illegal programs. Watch the next mAT matches involving their guild and come back here and tell me you didn't think they cheated. If ANet won't hold teams accountable, we as a community must.

@Greener: This isn't hearsay. Watch the matches. 1) https://memorial.redeemer.biz/memorial/match/1040/ - The mesmer bar is suspicious. No legitimate mesmer runs such a bar. You could counter argument saying it is Guild Wars and people can run whatever they want? Sure. 2) Watch the matches. The mesmer has under 10ms ping and is able to reactivley interupt 1/4 casts consistently. Anet does not monitor their game in this aspect anymore. Tickets that have been submitted advise to use the in game system that does not work. And even if it does, it clearly has no bearing on the current mAT as the damage is done by the time the ban hits. It is frustrating to discuss this here with skeptics and non-believers who either don't perform their research or who don't experience the malicious actions of the players in games. All you have to do is experience one match against the team or watch a match of the team to make a sounds conclusion of illegal programming. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

My personal preference would be: keep it as a gold trim list, since that's something special. But add notes for guilds which won a mAT but weren't awarded a gt due to the bug.

Since middle of 2007 the mAT was the only way to acquire a gt and while it's unfortunate that due to a bug the gt wasn't awarded, the accomplishment is almost the same as a gt guild. So that's worth a note in my book.

2nd option: rename it "gold trim and mAT winners". Then we'd have to re-add gwam and en. And then I'd put an asterisk next to them noting down that while they won a mAT like dozens of other guilds on the list they weren't awarded a gt due to a bug.

Keeping it as a gt list without noting the 2 (so far) not-gt mAT winners is something I oppose. Until August 2018 there wouldn't have been a need to distinguish since all mAT winners were also gt guilds. Steve1 (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I acknowledged your 20 mAT wins scenario in a previous response. If said team doesn't get a gt every single time, then we can also note it in one single note.

This isn't your personal page where you decide whether I'm entitled to add notes or not or where you can send me away to create a new page. That's why Greener asked us to discuss how the page should evolve (if at all).

And spare me your personal attacks calling me an avid bot supporter.

Whether I personally think that a guild is botting or not is irrelevant for the wiki. This isn't the International Criminal Court in Den Haag. Steve1 (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Please spare your personal attacks accusing me of bias. If we are making notes of every time a team "should" have a gold trim, we could make a list of endless "What ifs". The bug encompasses this specific issue. The two previously mentioned guilds do not have gold trims and therefor do not belong on this list. Feel free to add notes to their guild page. And the subject of [en] botting isn't an opinion. It is a fact. It is a matter of notating it as such. [rawr] had their trim removed and notated as such for their behavior. There is no reason preventing us from notating a guild's malicious behavior. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"The two previously mentioned guilds do not have gold trims and therefor do not belong on this list." I've repeatedly agreed with this. Unless we change the title of the page. So stop your straw man argument.

And that's why added the note below the list. Steve1 (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The title is fine as it is. The bug has been listed. The guilds in question do not have gold trims. Page is fine as it currently is. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, I can agree to list the guilds in some manner on the page if we can come to an agreement of how current and future ill-won monthly tournament victors will be noted. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It has. Correct. Don't agree: I want the notes for guilds affected by the bug. If not for the bug, they'd be on the list. Therefore note that below the list. Steve1 (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Fire away. I'm all ears. Steve1 (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The list is an achievement list. The only reason 1 of the guilds would be on the list is due to cheating. That should be notated in some shape or form. And botting or cheating is not a term I throw around loosely. These are confirmed cheating players. Would notes as you previously listed as well as a notation in the trivia section be sufficient? Or a general asterisk next to the guild name within the note and an asterisk explanation in the trivia section? Gladiator Motoko (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

We can use ³ to designate guilds which won the tournament yet did not receive a gold trim cape. The reference can state the issue and refer the reader to the bug report in the notes section.

The wiki is not going to be the arbiter of who cheated in a mAT, nor will any of us act as judge or jury. I respect that people have strong feelings and evidence to support their arguments; send them to ArenaNet. If any statement comes back from ArenaNet, we can discuss subsequent steps on our part. Do note that ArenaNet will not comment on the status or actions taken against an individual account. Greener (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Greener. Bug or not; if a guild would under normal circumstances receive gold trim, they should be listed here. It's a bug for a reason. If the gold trim was subsequently removed by whatever means, they should be removed regardless of the circumstances. We can't/won't be the judge on whom cheated or not and as an encyclopedia, we are not responsible with the ins-and-out of cheating to begin with. - Infinite - talk 16:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Imo, your paragraph is self-contradictory: "as an encyclopedia", we record what is, not what should have been. A gold trim guild is a guild with a gold trim. You (anyone) hop in-game and can identify that immediately. That's what a second list or table or notes would be for (also imo). Steve1 (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Kevin asked me to state my preference again. I use that chance to also voice my opinion of alternatives (again):

1) Keep the name "gold trim guilds" and (re-)add gwam and en: Since this is an encyclopedia, this would be a very bad option in my eyes. Neither guild received a gold trim. So adding them to the list would be factually incorrect. Even with superscripts. If ANet retroactively fixes the bug, we add both guilds. Until then they don't have a gt. So unfortunately, I disagree w/ Greener and Infinite. Of the 4 options I'm looking at I think this is the least acceptable one since it would contain factual errors.

2) We change the name to (e.g.) "gold trim guilds and mAT winners". To ensure factual correctness, we'd have to add gwam, en AND avg. After all, all three guilds won a mAT. We then use superscripts on gwam and en and a different one for avg. Since avg have been stripped by ANet for being cheaters, I don't really like putting them on the same list w/ the rawrs, EWs, WMs and EviLs of the world. But as mentioned before: That would be an acceptable option for me.

3) We keep the name, keep avg in the Trivia section as far away from the list as possible ;-p and re-add gwam and en to the Notes section directly below the list. This is by far my most favourite option.

4) We keep the name and the list and don't mention gwam and en on this page: The only difference between e.g. gwam and dPac is one more single elim win for dPac. But that was not gwam's fault. Both teams won a mAT. Without the bug, gwam would also have a gold trim. Therefore they should at least be mentioned accordingly. Therefore I'm also against this alternative. Steve1 (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

When I have time tomorrow, I'll move the page to "Monthly automated tournament winners" and adjust the page accordingly. It's a future-proof name which better reflects the information we currently have posted (e.g. I have no idea why '# of gold trims' was ever seen as a sensible column header). Greener (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

/wall of text

Strongly oppose.

"e.g. I have no idea why '# of gold trims' was ever seen as a sensible column header"

Because it's the most descriptive, easiest to use and most accurate, most sensible (and also short enough) header you could come up with. And it catches the spirit best.

In the NBA "the ring is the thing". In GvG, the gold trim is the thing. So much that even people outside of the GvG community, heck, outside of the complete PvP community were willing to pay to just be a member of a gold trim guild. Some were willing to pay a boatload of money to own a gtg.

Let's go down memory lane to understand how gt were acquired prior to mATs:

EviL and WM won world championships. Those were NOT mATs though.

RenO didn't win a championship at all. They were ranked #1 on the ladder during a special ladder season.

Other guilds ranked #1 when a ladder season ended but did NOT get a gold trim for it.

Now please come up with a good description for all that.

Gold trim

There you have it.

Back to your plan: I strongly oppose it. You would have to remove every guild which didn't win a mAT from 2007 onwards. That's quite a few guilds. And you would be removing some of the most renowned guilds in GvG history. Frankly speaking: I remember the EviLs, EWs, WMs and rawrs out there. I couldn't name the mAT winner of three months ago w/o looking it up.

This page was originally created to list all the famous guilds and kinda compare how many achievements they had amassed. Your move would destroy that.

Alternatively, you could keep the gtg page and additionally create "your" page. You have expressed your concern that there aren't even enough people around to keep one list up to date. So having 2 lists seems like a big mistake. So let's just not do that. But it would actually still be better than "your" move alone!

If moving is what you have to do (and I will continue saying it: That is NOT the best way forward, only second best), then at least choose a name like "gold trim guilds and mAT winners" or "gold trim and mAT winners". Otherwise you'll either have to invest unnecessary work or you'll be encyclopedically incorrect.

A much better option would be what I have suggested twice already: We keep the name, keep avg in the trash can Trivia section as far away from the list as possible ;-p and re-add gwam and en to the Notes section directly below the list / or in a second "list of guilds which won a mAT but didn't receive their gold trim due to a bug" / or a table like that / or a cool 4th option which I haven't imagined.

This whole wall of text got started when Moto and I couldn't agree whether to keep "my" notes. Know what? He already wrote that he could agree to that option (at least under one condition). Here: https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gold_trim_guilds&diff=2640403&oldid=2640402

So the 2 people who started all this rubbish have (under one condition) agreed to another option than you're now putting forward.

Summary: I strongly oppose your plan. It would require quite a bit of unneeded work and it would go against what the GW community was looking for for the past decade (listing gold trims and preserving the great guilds of olden days). Oh, and btw: atm you have exactly zero community concensus for that move: You're the exact only one who favours it.

/end Steve1 (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It would have been simpler to point out that not all guilds listed are winners of a mAT, which is something I overlooked. If you and Motoko have come to an agreement, please feel free to implement it. Greener (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned, it's agreement under one condition:

"Also, I can agree to list the guilds in some manner on the page if we can come to an agreement of how current and future ill-won monthly tournament victors will be noted."

Since his condition won't be met - shall we consider it an agreement anyway? If so, instead of the notes I'd add this (obviosuly open to debate) below the gt list:

The following is a list of guilds which won a mAT but didn't receive a gold trim due to a bug:

Guild	Tag	# mAT wins	Country/Territory
Gods Of Mortalz	[gwam]	1	Europe
Be Advanced	[en]	1	Europe

Then the page won't grow endlessly and with the first gt a guild could be moved up. Steve1 (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A table form looks good to me. Greener (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The cheaters still need to be recognized to some extent. The fact that the mesmer that played for [en] has been banned for botting isn't a sign? That is no one here's "judge and jury" - that is Anet using the banhammer on a cheater. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Make sure you take the next few days to watch any matches for "Until You Quit [ez]" that just won gold. "The Legend Grows" is a botter. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)