When the vote split is 7-5 (it's a little hard to tell exactly due to how many pages this has gone for), we do actually usually go for a compromise. We don't run a majoritarian system where the slightest vote advantage enables an uncompromising victory. We act this way from the highest echelons of staff decisions, all the way down to versus threads.
I don't want people to get it into their heads that we operate this way.
Granted....
I do think this discussion has gone on ridiculously long, and Ant has been frustratingly persistent about it.
OK I know I'm not staff and I've been in trouble for this stuff before, but PLEASE let me comment on this, cause I feel it's important.
I HAVE NO INTENTION TO DERAIL.
To put it bluntly: no, it doesn't. The losing side is in no position to try and force a compromise. They were outvoted. Simple as.
Like... Just stop trying, it's not gonna work
I largely don't understand why certain users are picked and chosen to be granted immense amounts of discussion in terms of being brought back.
They were talked about. Staff said no. That's it. That's how it is for 95% of them. It's not as if any of these people have been integral, so their loss does not impact us much, even if we ignored the issue of their repeated conduct.
Just let it rest.
Yes, I know it seems logical (and I agree
BUT DO NOT COUNT MY VOTE AS AGAIN I AM NOT STAFF) to keep Charmander banned. From what I've heard so far, Charmander's done and STILL has the capacity to do a lot of harm or disruption, and we have no observable confirmation beyond reasonable doubt that he would refrain from doing so in future, therefore it seems rational to keep him banned to prevent any potential future similar disruption.
THAT BEING SAID, that isn't my issue here. My main issue is the degradation of the minority votes in this matter.
YES, they are a minority. BUT, we should still hear them out. Both sides have reasonable and logical points in arguing for and against giving Charmander (due to weighing the cost of letting Charmander back in against the benefit of forgiveness) and even if it seems more logical to keep Charmander out cause there's very little room for compromise beyond judging for a temporary (though long) and a permanent ban, there's still some worth in considering forgiveness.
While it makes sense to reduce the decision down to simply one side outvoting the other, that doesn't mean we take the minority lightly or reduce the meaning of their existence in the first place. This is where I agree with Agnaa and Ant in trying to consider the feelings of the minority. Do realise that not every situation is as clear-cut as this. (Again, case by case basis, just as we have discussed on severity of punishments before if you recall.)
https://vsbattles.com/members/mr-bambu.3010/ Mr Bambu gave permission to make this thread regarding what we discussed in his profile wall and in the VSBW RVR thread... so here it is. https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Site_Rules https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Editing_Rules...
vsbattles.com
However, conversely, as I just said, compromise often also depends on context and situation. In this particular case, there is very little room for compromise because any form of compromise would also mean giving power to Charmander who already has tools and resources at their disposal to cause disruption even while being banned and has thus less reason or incentive to be accepted back in. Hence I agree here with Crabwhale and Clover as to ending the discussion and settling on a final choice, though I disagree with reducing the minority to votes alone when they have their own understandable arguments for their choice.
Nuance welp, this sort of stuff occurs for every sort of conflict or debate/argument, even if we disagree with each other due to differences in understanding or personal views it doesn't mean we should resort to insults or other forms of provocation or aggravation or otherwise degrade and devalue each other.
Yeah we have differences, but we also have our similarities too, like all of us being, well, beings existing in the same world. (Personally would prefer believing we are more similar than different and trying to coexist with each other unless any one party has done irreversible and irredeemable harm such as in the case of atrocity criminals.)
Just because there was a majority-minority situation doesn't mean that either side should be discredited (BEYOND the basis of facts and morality at least, of course if there is a gross violation of morality or distortion of facts there's definitely a huge issue regardless of which side has done so) and doesn't mean there's no use in trying to understand each other.
Sorry again for speaking out of turn but I felt this needed to be said and I hope everyone understands what I'm trying to convey.
