Then count the last input made. If Abstractions later changes the stance that is fine and a right. But if someone doesn't say anything new on a stance that was very recent and cast a vote, what was said is their stance. Not that it never existed. It is the same for all other votes in the first thread.
In this reply you demonstrated the reason for this RVR. This kind of thinking treats all the input provided in the thread before this one about the same subject matter as if it didn't exist. Including Abstractions, people cast a vote, and the vote was not in line with the proposal. I am not making an interpretation. I am stating what was seen in the thread.
Abstractions voted in the last thread, at the very last page, when the same proposal was already plain to see multiple times. It was not never said as Strym keeps claiming. Further backing this up, Abstractions also said that the reason to not stop and address other things in the thread was that the subject currently debated in it, although another, was something being argued against a third time after two prior rejections and thus it took all the focus.
I wouldn't make a claim without basis. But bringing everything collected in relation to this, either on the part that concerns me or others like behaviour and this matter, there's significant content. I just think a total vote count is most fair.
Show them disagreeing with "at least".
It was never for the "at least" part of AP. It was about the hax.
In the vast majority of votes cast, there was not an At Least included in the description. The subject was brought up to all in the thread, no one changed their mind or included the stance in their vote. Anyone who clicks in the first CRT that finished on monday will see that everything I said happened, did happen. It's only logical to count the votes as seen instead of assuming on one's own that all the people involved conveniently didn't include a rating that is being argued for. Then ignore the votes as written for any X number of possible reasons we can try and imagine. About why, on top of saying what their vote was, they also didn't go out of their way to write I am not on board with this when you can see that from reading the vote that they have just cast.
This is turning circular, so this is my last reply unless requested by staff. I'm in total agreements with what they decide in the end, what I had to say already has been. I'll leave saying that I have nothing against your person and this is strictly what I think would be better for the thread so. See you somewhere.
This is you assuming they disagreed with it, but they never did, as DDM said, if they did not express anything on it, the most obvious conclusion is that they've been neutral or they simply ignored it.
I largely agree that the matter of vote manipulation is, even in the worst case scenario, very close to a nothingburger. Personally I am more concerned about this aspect of it, given that Strym is recently returning from a ban and ShionAH has also been warned for similar issues in August and February.
All of my replies have been kept civil while constantly under unnecessary aggressive behaviour from the person in question. And from the looks of replies so far, it's not the first instance of bad behaviour from the other two. You can decide as you will when it comes to the thread, but suggesting that I am acting in bad faith here or making this some sort of personal vendetta when looking at the track record of this whole conversation is entirely unwarranted and works on a personal level rather than anything regarding threads. If you want to reject the entire topic, go right ahead. Take whichever grounds you desire on the topic at hand. But raising accusations like that on me based on what you think is the case? Not remotely fair.
I agree with this.
good to see around, but don't worry brother, this is called rules violation report for a reason
Not sure I should comment here but removing n6 rather than removing n3,n4 and n5 is really weird since n6 literally covers all of the topics those 3 threads present. They are also created by the same user and the user was already warned about spamming threads.
I'll add that this user has been rude in every single discussion I've seen them in. Both myself and Lephyr have warned them before.
You're both being fairly aggressive in your phrasing, although he definitely dipped further into outright insulting than you did. Still, I think both parties could do to calm down. Uncertain if a rule violation should be handed out here, I think it's an extremely borderline case, so I'll defer to other staff members on this one.
Actually, if he's been warned before, then action should probably be taken, because he does seem like the aggressor here. I note that these warnings aren't on the Tracker, so if he has been warned in an official capacity, could I ask how many you're aware of? If it's a large number, I'd be fine with action being taken.
Two that I'm definitively aware of. And this makes three.
I permabanned.
I also agree with this but I don't have too much knowledge on the user.
Thanks and sorry to bring this back up as I figured we were done with this but can we check is hollow is a sock of vapourr because he joined just earlier this month, and has only been interested in tokyo revengers, seemingly having knowledge on how we handle our calculations and wiki practices, he also makes comments like this
vsbattles.fandom.com
Oh damn okay this was already brought up, will read now
Jesus christ
My brother in christ the CRT isn't accepted and no crt was linked in the edits so ofc we didn't know there was one.YO PLEASE think and look at the tr general discussion thread before making a report
YO PLEASE think and look at the tr general discussion thread before making a report
Okay, first of all it is not my responsibility to start searching as much thread as possible to verify if the changes applied were accepted or not, besides we have a rule that dictates that you always link the CRT where the changes were accepted when changing the profile stats and it is even more suspicious when Ant himself had reverted the edits you made.
"Okay. That seems fine then, but I think that I reverted several of Hollow's edits earlier today, since they seemed unapproved.
What are your rules ? I just edited a page, how am I meant to tell you what I did to the pages and link the CRT they came from, can you tell me how so I don't do it again in the future ?
The CRT needs to be accepted first which im sure you're aware of, you were specifically told to not do the edits by Ant and had them reverted but still after that chose to say it was accepted anyways.
It was accepted ? Can you read through the CRT ? Firestorm accepted a possibly class 25 ? I even typed it in the little box at the bottom when making edits but they were still reverted ?? Is there another place where I type them or something
When making significative changes you have to link the CRT were the changes has been accepted. Check the below image for reference.
Can u revert my changes backWhen making significative changes you have to link the CRT were the changes has been accepted. Check the below image for reference.
Otherwise your changes will be marked as vandalism or unauthorized changes and will be reverted and depending on the number of changes even reported.
