This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Thank you for your apology. I understand that your comment was directed towards my argument, not my character, and so I do not take personal offense to it.
Regarding the comment on whether you had read the blog. When you were asked directly whether you had read all the evidence, including specifically denoting whether you had read the blog, you stated this:
Okay, i see intention of somewhat question the validity of my vote saying that i agreed with 2 persons who haven't read the thread, to make it clear, I read the OP, then I read the arguments, then I agreed with Tatsumi and Maitreya's argument, is that hard to understand?
This was after having been repeatedly questioned on whether you had read the blog, giving an evasive answer each time. Being directly asked on how much of the evidence you had read, including whether you had read the blog, and stating the clear list of what you had read (without the blog being included in your list) is an admission that, at that point in time, you had not read the blog. The actively evasive phrasing does not change this fact.
I do not take issue with you personally for this. You are a hard-working staff member, and I believe you have substantiated your productivity before. However, I hold people to a high standard of evidence and respect in discussions. I believe it is a necessity for our wiki to function to its best capacity that staff members with evaluation rights give content revision threads adequate consideration, and I do not believe adequacy was demonstrated here. If we can keep this in mind for the future, then I do not believe there is anything more that needs to be said.
Regarding the comment on whether you had read the blog. When you were asked directly whether you had read all the evidence, including specifically denoting whether you had read the blog, you stated this:
This was after having been repeatedly questioned on whether you had read the blog, giving an evasive answer each time. Being directly asked on how much of the evidence you had read, including whether you had read the blog, and stating the clear list of what you had read (without the blog being included in your list) is an admission that, at that point in time, you had not read the blog. The actively evasive phrasing does not change this fact.
I do not take issue with you personally for this. You are a hard-working staff member, and I believe you have substantiated your productivity before. However, I hold people to a high standard of evidence and respect in discussions. I believe it is a necessity for our wiki to function to its best capacity that staff members with evaluation rights give content revision threads adequate consideration, and I do not believe adequacy was demonstrated here. If we can keep this in mind for the future, then I do not believe there is anything more that needs to be said.