Tyranny Across Time: Solaris [Vol. 2, Pt. 1 - Sonic Revision Series]

[CloverDragon03]

@Qawsedf234 That’s just incorrect. Grace is 48 hours after a thread’s creation, as has always been the case. Our ongoing thread about self-evident revisions is the same, being about proposing them to have a grace period of 12 or 24 hours, so evidently that’s what the standard is rather than being some kind of mistake

 

[Dereck03]

@Qawsedf234 That referred to the old wording of the rule and then damage proposed the new rule, literally the new rule says that the grace counts from the creation of the thread and that is what was accepted, if there are discrepancies then simply a CRT to change it should be made.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Grace is 48 hours after a thread’s creation, as has always been the case. Our ongoing thread about self-evident revisions is the same, being about proposing them to have a grace period of 12 or 24 hours

Hmm my mistake then. I always took it as 48 hours once accepted like with the Vsthread rules.

Still this isn't stone walling either. It's just bringing up points of concerns.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Hmm my mistake then. I always took it as 48 hours once accepted like with the Vsthread rules.

Still this isn't stone walling either. It's just bringing up points of concerns.

I think the problem lies in only suddenly bringing up concerns after a thread is already accepted and applied.

 

[Eseseso]

Grace is when the thread's finishing vote is put into place. It's not meant for just thread creation. It's what multiple staff threads were about.

To quote AKM

Wiki page on widely-accepted rule >> Old AKM statement.

 

[Theuser789]

Still this isn't stone walling either. It's just bringing up points of concerns.

That should be brought up either in a new thread or in the general discussion, not in an accepted thread, and not with counter arguments in the range of "I find this lacking."

 

[ShakeResounding]

I want to thank you all for the participation, even if the thread has hit grace. And I will say that I'm at least glad this had the opportunity to be discussed, better late than never in my book. Going back to the post several others have quoted...

K,
TLDR for Sonic Supporters;
Plot Erasure should be removed from Solaris’ page, it falls under his higher-D erasure by default.

After reading the exchange between you and Otto and everyone else, I'm fine with the removal of the ability on this basis. I'll edit my blog to remove Solaris' additions based on the AN when I get the chance, and the parts mentioning the Arabian Nights should be edited out of Solaris' profile as well since that seems to be cool with everybody now?

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

That should be brought up either in a new thread or in the general discussion, not in an accepted thread, and not with counter arguments in the range of "I find this lacking."

Ngl, I share the same sentiment as Theuser here. Even if it's fine from a rule standpoint, understand that this is very frustrating for someone to have their thread delayed when it was already accepted and applied.

Especially when the main countergument is pretty much asking for more proof (alongside some minor points). We got multiple pages of this ongoing,and it's also far from the first time this happens on VBW.

I definitely can see why it came off as stonewalling, because I would've thought the same thing,were this to be a thread made by me or someone who scales a verse I support.

Even if allowed, I think those type of actions should be limited as much as possible. But this is just my opinion. No offense meant towards anyone, let's make that clear.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Theuser789 The job of staff members is not to do your own research on a series, if you seriously believe that every single staff that evaluates any verse absolutely has to research any and all verses in general then to put it blunt, you're out of your mind. Our job on CRTs is to evaluate what the supporters argue for the verse and see if it qualifies in the standard of the wiki. Planck himself also agrees with me on this so don't tell me that I'm alone on this as this is a stupid argument to make. Also good to know you completely ignored the part where I asked other staff members to give their input here as if I'm not settling this discussion with my opinion alone. Though at this point it's hardly worth the effort to continue this debate if everyone's gonna concede to the plot erasure going away.

@ShakeResounding that sounds fine to me, let me know when you're done with the edit so I can close the thread.

 

[Theuser789]

@Theuser789 The job of staff members is not to do your own research on a series, if you seriously believe that every single staff that evaluates any verse absolutely has to research any and all verses in general then to put it blunt, you're out of your mind. Our job on CRTs is to evaluate what the supporters argue for the verse and see if it qualifies in the standard of the wiki. Planck himself also agrees with me on this so don't tell me that I'm alone on this as this is a stupid argument to make. Also good to know you completely ignored the part where I asked other staff members to give their input here as if I'm not settling this discussion with my opinion alone. Though at this point it's hardly worth the effort to continue this debate if everyone's gonna concede to the plot erasure going away.

@ShakeResounding that sounds fine to me, let me know when you're done with the edit so I can close the thread.

Are you purposely ignoring my point? The entire point is that you're acting extremely entitled to go into a completed thread and stonewalling it until you got the proof you wanted. I said in the post that it's okay for a staff member to ask for proof and not know about a series when they are evaluating a thread. I can only assume that your constant misinterpretation and ignorance is purposeful at this point.

Even if you were right, your attitude in this thread was completely unacceptable as everyone could see. If you have a problem in the future, instead of stonewalling a completed thread you should make a new one with actual counter-arguments.

 

[Qawsedf234]

stonewalling it until you got the proof you wanted

Asking for proof isn't stonewalling, neither is disagreeing with popular consensus.

 

[Theuser789]

If stalling a completed thread with no counter-arguments or elaborations isn't stonewalling, I don't know what it is. Can I go in a completed let it stall for pages on end if I just "asking for more proof"?

The only reason this thread got completed is because other people showed up and actually explained why it was wrong. If it wasn't for them this thread would still be going.

 

[Qawsedf234]

If stalling a completed thread with no counter-arguments or elaborations isn't stonewalling, I don't know what it is.

He's asking for proof regarding the situation. I'm not seeing stonewalling behavior at all here.

wasn't for them this thread would still be going.

The thread's still going because it's just not locked. It's already been done.

So I'm closing this. If needed a new CRT can be made.