TenSura LN Major Revision - Slime-Verse Salvation, Part 1 - Tier 0 Slime is Real

[Astral_Trinity439]

Bruh, so can you quote part of discussion rule that say staff disagreement can be canceled when even they not say that?

I'm asking you to quote when it was stated that they're not cancelled, why are you asking me to do the reverse? The default assumption is the logical one, not the "conventional" assumption that you're going with.

All vote remain the same if they not say otherwise,

Again, quote the part of the discussion rule. Or, if that's too unconventional for you, go ahead and quote a staff saying that they're not cancelled.[provide the source too of course]

it is illogical and not honest for canceled their vote when they not say it. Because you had some counter doesnt mean staff's vote automatically canceled and being reversed to when he doesnt even comment or make a vote in the thread yet

Your definition of "Illogical" is not making sense here, and completely ignores the possibility that they have either conceded or are not interested in the thread anymore. To simplify it, it ignores too many variables and focuses on solely focuses on the logic that "they are not replying because they disagree" -_-

There are many thread that literally provide counter argument in the lastest reply, but the staff still not change his mind and not reply more, and their vote still remain the same.

What proof do you have that the staff "disagrees" still, other than that false logic of yours?

Even it happen in your own thread qawsed just drop his disagreement and then ignore the thread after that, yet his vote still remain a disagreement even after you provide tons of counter argument

Qawsedf was not the only staff disagreeing in that thread, the others did so as well, so we had a solid reason to not take it as a concession and still treated it as "they disagree". There is no such thing like that in this thread, however.

In any case, I asked you from the start to quote a part of the discussion rules when you're saying something like this, which you aren't. So if you don't quote a part and insert your logic once again without any proof nor without bringing anything new, I will simply ignore it. After all, this is a tier discussion thread, not a rule discussion one.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

you just aren’t allowed to disregard a staff vote no matter what there’s no specific rule explicitly saying this I’m aware of but trying to disregard a vote is vote manipulation

 

[Robo432343]

If he disagrees then he disagrees u gotta respect that

 

[PHANtomFELdway]

you just aren’t allowed to disregard a staff vote no matter what there’s no specific rule explicitly saying this but trying to disregard a vote is vote manipulation

It isn’t disregarding it. If your reasoning for disagreement is put into question why would it still count?

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

there are no such discussion rules but we have a discussion rule where the input of staff members who are knowledgable, especially on tier 0 and tier 1 have better weight in the evaluation
if the majority of them already said they disagree then it is pretty much unanimous regardless of how members try to "Debunk" it


This actually partly the OP's fault as well as stated here

When arguing for changing character statistics, do not assume that the staff will have in-depth knowledge about the fictional franchise in question. Make sure to explain your suggestions in a structured manner that is easy to comprehend. You will not be allowed to change any statistics if people cannot understand what you mean.

The fact that you have to go back and forth to explain the existence of the character falls short of you
and evaluators don't have all the time to check one specific thread all the time.

There is no debunking decision
you can debunk their argument but their decisions remain final unless multiple other staff overweight their decision to lean the evaluation to the other side or they retract and change their initial vote.

so no debunking their last message alone doesn't mean their decision is nullified.

 

[Ryzen7900X]

my guy, this is blatant vote manipulation and is a bannable offense. if he disagrees and gives no reason, even that would count

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

you just aren’t allowed to disregard a staff vote no matter what there’s no specific rule explicitly saying this I’m aware of but trying to disregard a vote is vote manipulation

If he disagrees then he disagrees u gotta respect that

It isn’t disregarding it. If your reasoning for disagreement is put into question why would it still count?

there are no such discussion rules but we have a discussion rule where the input of staff members who are knowledgable, especially on tier 0 and tier 1 have better weight in the evaluation
if the majority of them already said they disagree then it is pretty much unanimous regardless of how members try to "Debunk" it


This actually partly the OP's fault as well as stated here

The fact that you have to go back and forth to explain the existence of the character falls short of you
and evaluators don't have all the time to check one specific thread all the time.

There is no debunking decision
you can debunk their argument but their decisions remain final unless multiple other staff overweight their decision to lean the evaluation to the other side or they retract and change their initial vote.

so no debunking their last message alone doesn't mean their decision is nullified.

my guy, this is blatant vote manipulation and is a bannable offense. if he disagrees and gives no reason, even that would count

As I said

After all, this is a tier discussion thread, not a rule discussion one

If you want to discuss if this is bannable, a rule breaking offense, of what not, take it to its respective thread[the rule violation report thread, or the rule discussion thread[if it exists]] -_-
Edit: I said earlier that Ultima's arguments have been debunked, I did not say that their vote can be disregarded completely, or deny that they're still disagreeing, I simply asked for "proof" that they do. I did not disrespect them. However, if Ultima does take my remark as a disrespect, I sincerely apologize to them.

People just love derailing seeing the changes of even the slighest remark

 

[Digital_Franz]

I don't know why all the unnecessary discussion. It just makes the thread longer.

The thing is, even if Ultima disagreed at first, when new informations are added they can change their minds. That's how it's supposed to be in a CRT, which is there to discuss arguments.

Ultima disagreed but new informations were added that they haven't given their opinion on yet.

The thread is still open so I don't know why all the yap about Ultima's decision.

 

[Trigger]

As I said

If you want to discuss if this is bannable, a rule breaking offense, of what not, take it to its respective thread[the rule violation report thread, or the rule discussion thread[if it exists]] -_-
Edit: I said earlier that Ultima's arguments have been debunked, I did not say that their vote can be disregarded completely, or deny that they're still disagreeing, I simply asked for "proof" that they do. I did not disrespect them. However, if Ultima does take my remark as a disrespect, I sincerely apologize to them.

People just love derailing seeing the changes of even the slighest remark

Hey Astral, I see that the current thread is getting derailed, and it might be hard to get your points across with all the off-topic comments. My advice would be to start a fresh thread, but this time make sure to organize all the new evidence you and the other supporters have discovered. Present everything clearly and back it up with solid sources to avoid confusion.

That way, you can reset the discussion and have the focus purely on the new information. Also, it’ll give admins and other users a clean slate to review your updated arguments without the distractions. Just stay respectful and patient with responses, and avoid engaging with anyone who's just trying to derail things. It’ll help keep things on track.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Hey Astral, I see that the current thread is getting derailed, and it might be hard to get your points across with all the off-topic comments. My advice would be to start a fresh thread, but this time make sure to organize all the new evidence you and the other supporters have discovered. Present everything clearly and back it up with solid sources to avoid confusion.

That way, you can reset the discussion and have the focus purely on the new information. Also, it’ll give admins and other users a clean slate to review your updated arguments without the distractions. Just stay respectful and patient with responses, and avoid engaging with anyone who's just trying to derail things. It’ll help keep things on track.

I good idea, I suppose. I guess iff Ultima doesn't come until by later, I'll just close this one, add all the arguments from here to another CRT of mine I was planning, the 1-A and higher cosmology and tier upgrade. The Low 1-C thing was kind of a side quest I did to pass the time anyways.

 

[Karabach-barabach]

I'm asking you to quote when it was stated that they're not cancelled, why are you asking me to do the reverse? The default assumption is the logical one, not the "conventional" assumption that you're going with.

Again, quote the part of the discussion rule. Or, if that's too unconventional for you, go ahead and quote a staff saying that they're not cancelled.[provide the source too of course]

Your definition of "Illogical" is not making sense here, and completely ignores the possibility that they have either conceded or are not interested in the thread anymore. To simplify it, it ignores too many variables and focuses on solely focuses on the logic that "they are not replying because they disagree" -_-

What proof do you have that the staff "disagrees" still, other than that false logic of yours?

Qawsedf was not the only staff disagreeing in that thread, the others did so as well, so we had a solid reason to not take it as a concession and still treated it as "they disagree". There is no such thing like that in this thread, however.

In any case, I asked you from the start to quote a part of the discussion rules when you're saying something like this, which you aren't. So if you don't quote a part and insert your logic once again without any proof nor without bringing anything new, I will simply ignore it. After all, this is a tier discussion thread, not a rule discussion one.

Don't act like this in our Christian content revision thread, cowboy, else you'll get in a huge trouble

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Don't act like this in our Christian content revision thread, cowboy,

??
I don't know if that was supposed to be a reference or something...
I did, at the end, apologize too...

 

[Trigger]

Don't act like this in our Christian content revision thread, cowboy, else you'll get in a huge trouble

I also don't get this reference...

 

[Mizuki67]

??
I don't know if that was supposed to be a reference or something...
I did, at the end, apologize too...

It is a dead meme probably from minecraft or roblox