And apparently Elizhaa has also agreed with void manip although it doesn't seem so as all Elizhaa did was affirm what he said about about abilities under contention and gave the go ahead to apply the abilities that were clearly accepted which yes can be taken as an agreement but only to what wasn't under contention. Also one admin quite literally cannot overturn 3 opposing votes.
Just to add, elizhaa never voted, the only thing he did was to say that the changes could be applied but the problem comes in the amount of votes.
Also this is true.
And as one of those who was against the abilities, I want to say that this does not apply, because my points and staff points against abilities were given but even though white sometimes did not count them as valid, he proceeded to make the same counter-argument forcing us to clarify our points again and then doing the same, each one gave their points against and that is why there was no need even to mention "the other party did not respond to my counterarguments" since from the beginning our disagreement was clear and concise.
I'd like to add on that Maitreya (who was leading most of the opposition's reponses) had made a response to one of White's main arguments, 2 staff members (DarkGrath and DarkDragonMedeus) had agreed to that same argument in approval of Void Manipulation's addition but that was after Maitrey's counter response to it (which went unaddressed by any of the revision's supporters). Maitreya had also asked White to remove Void Manipulation and several other controversial abilities so that the less controversial changes could be applied, White did remove those abilities yet Void Manipulation was kept in the op despite it being one of the most contentious topics of that revision.
I obviously disagree with this.
No I did not which is evident by my actual post
An objective reading of this clearly sees me invoking two week grace period given the time between the last response to arguments posited in the thread. I go on to ask if the thread can be passed in its current state (as contectually I removed the other controversial elements I was willing to part with in order to expedite the thread as noted here) with any further contentions being handled in a further CRT.
This is blatantly framing this situation with bias. As noted in my posts to you, void manip was not even relevant to why Gojo wins in that thread (which is CM type 2 as stated by several people which you ignored). I also never tried to invalidate votes as I am not even the OP. Me saying I think someone is wrong and giving my threads is not trying to manipulate votes, especially when I flat out told you that void manip wasn't a factor really being discussed.
I have asked admins and have been told that the opposition has two weeks to respond before grace is considered. I clearly highlighted that sentiment in my post as well that Eilzha said yes to. So unless I am completely misunderstanding her, I don't really see how you are saying I am violating any rules.
Not really as CM type 2 was already accepted, and I didn't hide anything and linked all of my evidence for everyone to see. Not sure how that'd be "underhanded"
Another highly bias attempt to defame me here given I announced I would not be letting up on Void manip several times, and explicitly that I'd be removing those other abilities. I never once said or indicated I would be removing void manip, nor did I mention that when asking if the thread could be closed as is due to grace. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Unless I'm grossly misinterpreting something then yes the void manip stuff was essentially brought up such as here
He made that statement under the assumption that more staff had approved of it to the point that it could actually passed.
Dereck under the very post below that says that they approve of Maitreya's counter response (the one that had not been addressed by any supporters) to the main argument in favor of Void Manipulation that DarkGrath and DarkDragonMedeus had agreed to. If the counter response that staff members agreed to had not been argued against by any supporters, I don't see why the staff voting against Void Manipulation should've had to reaffirm their vote again even after doing so multiple times previously in the thread.
The void I brought up in the thread was in relation to the ontology of his CM type 2 slash, which was accepted in the ontology thread.Unless I'm grossly misinterpreting something then yes the void manip stuff was essentially brought up such as here
and here
which I assume is this here in your ontology blog. Except the problem is you're trying to basically say Sukuna has void manipulations for reasons that were under contest and not accepted in the thread and even your interpretation of Sunyata was under heavily scrutiny in that ability thread due to being way too generous with buddhism scaling or relations.
I'm not gonna go back and forth but I would like to leave my hopefully last word here.
Locked + gave instructions to user
I did not accuse maverick of power abuse. I accused you, immortal dread, . Please correct that.
In this thread that Maverick posted, proposing a discussion rule, you immediately responded before either myself or Dread had responded and said:
So I don't feel that what I said was incorrect or a mischaracterization of your actions. Further, you said:
Which, at that point, includes myself, Dread, and Lonkitt, who agreed with the suggestion of a discussion rule.
I would like to add one thing, he created in the question session a disguised CRT according to @Qawsedf234
Ultima made a comment, and i replied back to him and was waiting for his comment. I informed him about the greater context of the Sailor Moon cosmology and wanted to hear his opinion with the new information.
It had been a month and a half since Ultima provided his disagreement. Threads do not need to remain open indefinitely with two staff disagrees and no agrees just because you really-really-really want Ultima to continue discussing it with you.
Indeed, which is why I am not advocating for a forum ban. However, if your personal scaling philosophy is so drastically at odds with the wiki staff to such an extent that you get five Tier 1 upgrade attempts rejected in a row, it paints the picture that these threads are simply a waste of everyone's time.
Evaluating threads is part of the gig. Given your propensity for pursuing unreliable Tier 1 upgrades, I wouldn't be doing a very good job if I didn't make sure I objected to it. Doing this relentlessly and saying "if staff are getting tired of it then that's their problem and they should just not comment on the threads!" is not an adequate defense here.
So that this is rule will be based on your personal feelings and nothing objective?
This isn't the gotcha you seem to believe it is. It's not uncommon to issue topic bans for users that repeatedly attempt unsound upgrades. You are entitled to your opinions, but for a CRT to pass you must convince staff members that you are correct. You are not entitled to unlimited attempts at doing so.
This is correct, yes.
Where is your evidence that upgrades are unsound? A thread being rejected does not equal the arguments being unsound. The arguments can be logical but simply don't fit in the standards.
I didn't ask you to re-hash my arguments. I asked you give a reason why they were unsound.
I wholeheartedly disagree. However, your objection is noted. For now this should not be cluttered further so that other staff can evaluate the situation.
This is an an extremely unfair accusation.
I accused two staff members and provided reasoning and evidence for it.
In my view I don't think a thread ban is needed the moment. The user is 100% working backwards because they want SM to be Low 1-C, but the arguments and evidence used for each of the threads are different in my view, rather than using the same stuff with some adjustments multiple times.
Thank you very much for your evaluation.
I guess it's a question of "How many CRTs will this play out in?" IMO if the current thread fails he should be asked not to make any more. I've seen you explain the error of his ways in exhaustive detail only to be met with continued ardent resistance in multiple threads. The same goes for Ultima and DT, who also objected to his reasoning.
It's not really a discussion rule given that the argumentation is different each time. I believe that taking 3-4 different paths to attempt the same upgrade is evidential of bias (they want L1-C, and will continually attempt different ways to achieve it) but we cannot simply ban any attempts at a Tier 1 upgrade for the verse, only for specific justifications.
All my arguments are different and use new information, the latest one uses information that this site and has never seen. If a staff accepts it, it will be a brand new argument. It's no difference between 1 user presenting 4 different arguments, and four users presenting 4 different arguments.
