Yes, it is the Power Graph chart calculation

[Aachintya31]

The Agreement and disagreement Part in the OP is Funny.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

will respond in the morning
nothing worse than a 12:58 AM vs wiki debate

 

[Jasonsith]

So... Even if we assume the y-axis does nothing, it only shows Garou's reactive evolution speed is slower than Saitama's, and the speed gap seemingly widens over time until Saitama subdued Garou and defeated Garou with a "time huh" causality punch. Other than that we cannot actually gauge Saitama as the characters in OPM cannot.

Is that what we are agreeing with...?

will respond in the morning
nothing worse than a 12:58 AM vs wiki debate

I have to go back to work as this is ~13:40 SGT in my time zone.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Someone asks a math professor if it is possible or not

 

[Agnaa]

If the graph really was purely to show the fact that exponential growth occured, the statement would have been enough.

I get how you could have that opinion, but I'm of the opinion that it looks nicer and aids in explanation to have a graph like that. If I were working within a visual medium like a comic, I'd include something like that.

Similarly, even if they wanted to go further by using the graph, but they wanted to use a non zero starting value at Y, there's no reason why they wouldn't have just let Saitama and Garou's lines touch zero, but they specifically leave a gap.

That's a pretty good argument. That significantly reduces my confidence in the argument that the y-axis would be off. But I still don't like deriving a multiplier from a graph rather than a statement.

No doubt that all of these counter arguments are objectively possible, but they would require the creators of the chapter to have been incompetent people who love adding pointless things to graphs for no reason.

Rather, my belief is that the creator just made a graph with merely the idea of "There should be two exponential lines, one lagging behind the other", without precisely measuring out the strength increases at each point. That it's a visual aid on the nature of Garou's exponential growth lagging behind, rather than a sly attempt to communicate to whoever bothers to measure it that Saitama got 58x stronger.

Someone asks a math professor if it is possible or not

If what is possible?

 

[Aachintya31]

Conclusion At this Point IMO-
In Agreement :
1.Many Statements were given in chapter to accept it as a multiplier.
2. Use the calculation ,units are not much required as it is being used as a multiplier.
3. The graph not starting origin defines author's intention to make it a definite multiplier and not some random interpretation.
4. Initial point is SP^2 where garou and saitama became comparable.
5. Garou's knows the flow of energy in universe so definitely understands saitama's growth.

In Disagreement:
1.Against Site Rules
2.Its a vague graph ,nothing clearly defined ,no units and no clear definiton of y-axis.
3.It's clearly not author's intention to make a graph of 58x multiplier and just merely a visual aid.
4.What to use as initial point is an assumption.
5.No one can really examine Saitama True Growth as he is a God Tier Character in his verse and became far stronger than garou later.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Conclusion At this Point IMO-
In Agreement :
1.Many Statements were given in chapter to accept it as a multiplier.
2. Use the calculation ,units are not much required as it is being used as a multiplier.
3. The graph not starting origin defines author's intention to make it a definite multiplier and not some random interpretation.
4. Initial point is SP^2 where garou and saitama became comparable.
5. Garou's knows the flow of energy in universe so definitely understands saitama's growth.

In Disagreement:
1.Against Site Rules
2.Its a vague graph ,nothing clearly defined ,no units and no clear definiton of y-axis.
3.It's clearly not author's intention to make a graph of 58x multiplier and just merely a visual aid.
4.What to use as initial point is an assumption.
5.No one can really examine Saitama True Growth as he is a God Tier Character in his verse and became far stronger than garou later.

That is not how it works here at all. The statements ain’t accepted as being used to get a multiplier.
I starting to think you don’t know which was the counterpoints against the calc being used and which ain’t being used to support those who agree with the calc.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

3. The graph not starting origin defines author's intention to make it a definite multiplier and not some random interpretation.

You just misinterpreted everything and deliberately assume the author’s intention to make it a definite multiplier and not the other way around.

It is for the best if you don’t jump to these conclusions and assume it was accepted as ultimately as there ain’t enough consensus to get the multiplier accepted, but rather get it rejected.

I started to think we should get a separate thread just based on this particular issue alone than having regular users misinterpreted and misconstrued the arguments like you did here .

 

[HammerStrikes219]

That's a pretty good argument. That significantly reduces my confidence in the argument that the y-axis would be off. But I still don't like deriving a multiplier from a graph rather than a statement

It is a large gap though as shown in the scans I provided and that the statement provided that say there is no one left to measure Saitama’s exponential growth and strength and make the graph even meaningless as that is say after the graph was shown.

 

[Aachintya31]

It is for the best if you don’t jump to these conclusions and assume it was accepted as ultimately as there ain’t enough consensus to get the multiplier accepted, but rather get it rejected.

Ok.
Every Argument in Agreement is somehow in Disagreement including that point.

I started to think we should get a separate thread just based on this particular issue alone than having regular users misinterpreted and misconstrued the arguments like you did here .

Doesn't Really Matter votes are ultimately of staff members.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Ok.

Here is what I gonna do next since we been at this for 5 pages with back and forth between regular members as well as opinions from the staff members being mixed in there.

Start over and get a new thread on whatever or not the multipliers being reasoned from a graph should been accepted or not as it stands. It is technically a different topic and actually cause this debate to spawn as a result.
Also it is technically accepted it is against the standards of multipliers as it is being reasoned from something else other than a direct in-verse statement that say it is a stated multipliers which is 58x or less.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

The voting tally might get reset though as the parties involved only want to get the calc accepted while ultimately didn’t bother to address the counter points directly as it has been over a few days without any general consensus among the staff members including @Agnaa as I do find it a bit ridiculous to prolong this thread anyway.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

https://vsbattles.com/threads/whatever-or-not-we-should-let-the-multipliers-being-guesstimate-from-a-graph.140740/

It had been done. This thread should been temporarily closed till we get this issue sorted out.

 

[Agnaa]

You can't just ignore people's votes like that, wtf. They've provided counterarguments that they think are sufficient, don't pretend that they haven't.

And really, a new thread seems pretty pointless. We'd just be rehashing everything said here.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

You can't just ignore people's votes like that, wtf. They've provided counterarguments that they think are sufficient, don't pretend that they haven't.

And really, a new thread seems pretty pointless. We'd just be rehashing everything said here.

I say might get reseted, the staff members tally is still up there.

One Punch Man - That one power graph

vsbattles.fandom.com

Should this calc been accepted in regard to multiplers and exponential growth?

Edit: Tally updated again.

Disagree with the calc’s multiplers specifically: @DontTalkDT, @Andytrenom,
@Jasonsith,

Agree with it: @KLOL506, @Ultima_Reality, @Phoenks,

Neutral: @Qawsedf234 (Say he is neutral, but is fine with the calc being used) @Maverick_Zero_X, @Antvasima (Agrees with Qaw who mentioned to being neutral twice overall)

Unclear: @CrimsonStarFallen (Did agree with specific points made by regular members, but also didn’t elaborate if they agree with the calc or not due to confusing stances between regular members)
@Damage3245 (Didn’t elaborate if he agree with it or not due to one of the more recent reply)

This is how I currently reviewed the votings right now as it has been confusing so far

 

[HammerStrikes219]

You can't just ignore people's votes like that, wtf. They've provided counterarguments that they think are sufficient, don't pretend that they haven't.

And really, a new thread seems pretty pointless. We'd just be rehashing everything said here.

The counter arguments isn’t what I call completely that sufficient tbh. Are they good to have yes, but in my eyes, I do think it actually helps the opposition’s point against the calculation being used in terms of whatever or not the multipliers can been reasoned from a graph which I might add it does violate the standards for that particular matter

 

[ZillertheBucko]

So, "It cannot be anything other than 0, because no one said otherwise".

This is flawed for two simple reasons.

• No matter the metric, in no graph whatsoever is the number "0" the default starting point. Any real number point is.
• It doesn't satisfy the burden of proof.

Also, to anticipate a response like: "Well, you didn't prove it was other number either", I need to remind you that I am not arguing for any specific number, I am saying it could be any given real number, which it could, that's just a fact.



It does. It provides the visual information of Saitama's growth, and the gap between the two. If the gap is measurable or not is irrelevant, because the narrative already show us the gap is quite high.
Of course we can't say "it has to be tens of times", gaps in fiction vary wildly, in some, a 2x gap is enough to speedblitz a person.
Of course, we get the same information through dialogue, but the graph alleviates and ease the understanding of what he is saying.

I’m going to go ahead and say that yes, this is all a very valid possibility, which I cannot just deny, but that’s not the bigger picture here. We actually have to think about what the author’s thought process was when creating the graph. For example, let’s say that y=0 actually started at 100 mystery units instead of 0. Ok, that seems like important information that wasn’t actually stated or implied by anything from the author or graph, but alright.
More importantly, on what the graph according to you would be, there is an enigmatic gap between the bottom line and the sp^2 dot. What does this show exactly, I don’t think you’ve responded to this. Did the author just think “it will help a lot if I show that gap is an unknown amount larger than that unknown and arbitrary bottom line. It’s no coincidence that the one small gap is what makes the calc possible in the first place, hell if the gap wasn’t there I would have never agreed to this in the first place, it would be entirely unquantifiable if it weren’t for that gap between 0 and the first point. Now, for the disagreement to work, you’d have to assume that the author just did something pointless when throwing that in, as the only way it could even mean something is if it started at 0, in which case units wouldn’t matter, and neither would numbers. I’m pretty sure we typically don’t assume the author doesn’t do pointless things tho, which is why I’m compelled to believe that it’s a clear sign of the author very much intending people to interpret the line as 0.

That gap is like an actual ace attorney inconsistency, I can see that you may dismiss it due to being minor, but from any angle you look at it, it should not be there. Sure, graphs are easier to look at then statements, but that doesn’t even begin to explain why there is a gap to show where the sp^2 starts at, when you wouldn’t even really know where it started to begin with due to messed up origin not being y=0. Sure, it could be any value, and sure, that would work for it being a multiplier much lower than 58, but if it weren’t 0 it would render the graph useless, and the fact that there were no units or numbers means it is most likely being overthought. Why can’t it just be a normal graph, the most common kind of graph that a manga reading teenager would see is a graph with the origin as (0,0) and would probably assume that without any other evidence or units in it, that a graph was just like that, the most common kind. There’s no mathematical “standard graph origin” but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a far more common one than the others. Hell, even you had assumed y=0 was where it started without even thinking about it earlier in the thread, which just goes to show my point.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

uthor doesn’t do pointless things tho, which is why I’m compelled to believe that it’s a clear sign of the author very much intending people to interpret the line as 0.

Here is the problem with that. The line isn’t literally 0 and we all know how that will go down as we don’t know the actual author’s intention for this particular aspect.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

If the graph really was purely to show the fact that exponential growth occured, the statement would have been enough.

I get how you could have that opinion, but I'm of the opinion that it looks nicer and aids in explanation to have a graph like that. If I were working within a visual medium like a comic, I'd include something like that.

Fair

Similarly, even if they wanted to go further by using the graph, but they wanted to use a non zero starting value at Y, there's no reason why they wouldn't have just let Saitama and Garou's lines touch zero, but they specifically leave a gap.

That's a pretty good argument. That significantly reduces my confidence in the argument that the y-axis would be off. But I still don't like deriving a multiplier from a graph rather than a statement.

I'm afraid we'll need to make this political about wether or not the standards can accept this or not, as it was only briefly mentioned on the first page

No doubt that all of these counter arguments are objectively possible, but they would require the creators of the chapter to have been incompetent people who love adding pointless things to graphs for no reason.

Rather, my belief is that the creator just made a graph with merely the idea of "There should be two exponential lines, one lagging behind the other", without precisely measuring out the strength increases at each point. That it's a visual aid on the nature of Garou's exponential growth lagging behind, rather than a sly attempt to communicate to whoever bothers to measure it that Saitama got 58x stronger.

maybe fair, but the part about it not intended to be a multiplier is a bit iffy to me, as they even go so far as to compare his future self to his self of the past, by making him throw a casual punch that decimates cosmic garou, who had already countered the consecutive normal punches and done the grb on saitama.
of course, if there were an alternative explanation for the gap between sp^2 I would probably back down, but at this point I just am gonna base most of my argument around that fact, since it's what allows this multiplier to exist to begin with, and is probably the most important feature of the graph next to the lines themself

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Here is the problem with that. The line isn’t literally 0 and we all know how that will go down as we don’t know the actual author’s intention for this particular aspect.

That's a nice argument senator, why don't you back it up with a source?

 

[HammerStrikes219]

That's a nice argument senator, why don't you back it up with a source?

That's a nice argument senator, why don't you back it up with a source?

My dude, don’t dismiss the scans and statements that came from scans provided to us

 

[HammerStrikes219]

maybe fair, but the part about it not intended to be a multiplier is a bit iffy to me, as they even go so far as to compare his future self to his self of the past, by making him throw a casual punch that decimates cosmic garou, who had already countered the consecutive normal punches and done the grb on saitama.

The alternative explanation is that Saitama was growing stronger over the course of the fight against Garou. That is a valid interpretation of the evidence and everything that was shown to us. Do not tried to dismiss it like it is somehow not been shown which was clearly shown to us. Also it is not even comparing Saitama’s future self to his past self.
You are conflating it with the other statements from a Drama CD.

This was discussed in the general OPM discussion thread of all things

 

[GodlyCharmander]

I’m going to go ahead and say that yes, this is all a very valid possibility, which I cannot just deny, but that’s not the bigger picture here. We actually have to think about what the author’s thought process was when creating the graph. For example, let’s say that y=0 actually started at 100 mystery units instead of 0. Ok, that seems like important information that wasn’t actually stated or implied by anything from the author or graph, but alright.
More importantly, on what the graph according to you would be, there is an enigmatic gap between the bottom line and the sp^2 dot. What does this show exactly, I don’t think you’ve responded to this. Did the author just think “it will help a lot if I show that gap is an unknown amount larger than that unknown and arbitrary bottom line. It’s no coincidence that the one small gap is what makes the calc possible in the first place, hell if the gap wasn’t there I would have never agreed to this in the first place, it would be entirely unquantifiable if it weren’t for that gap between 0 and the first point. Now, for the disagreement to work, you’d have to assume that the author just did something pointless when throwing that in, as the only way it could even mean something is if it started at 0, in which case units wouldn’t matter, and neither would numbers. I’m pretty sure we typically don’t assume the author doesn’t do pointless things tho, which is why I’m compelled to believe that it’s a clear sign of the author very much intending people to interpret the line as 0.

That gap is like an actual ace attorney inconsistency, I can see that you may dismiss it due to being minor, but from any angle you look at it, it should not be there. Sure, graphs are easier to look at then statements, but that doesn’t even begin to explain why there is a gap to show where the sp^2 starts at, when you wouldn’t even really know where it started to begin with due to messed up origin not being y=0. Sure, it could be any value, and sure, that would work for it being a multiplier much lower than 58, but if it weren’t 0 it would render the graph useless, and the fact that there were no units or numbers means it is most likely being overthought. Why can’t it just be a normal graph, the most common kind of graph that a manga reading teenager would see is a graph with the origin as (0,0) and would probably assume that without any other evidence or units in it, that a graph was just like that, the most common kind. There’s no mathematical “standard graph origin” but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a far more common one than the others. Hell, even you had assumed y=0 was where it started without even thinking about it earlier in the thread, which just goes to show my point.

Okay, so, again, you say that "If they intended to have any value other than zero, why wouldn't they communicate this?"

I could just reply with the cynical, "well, zero was never communicated either".

But rather, why do we assume the author intended for any value at all? The vary fact it lacks any in all metrics should already support the idea that there is no thought out value, yes?
Because the intent was to show Saitama leaving Garou in the dust, and it accomplishes that eloquently.

Also,

"Where sp^2 starts"?

This was never given to us by the narrative, we attributed this value to the first marking. Of course it's a sound conclusion, but there is no provable intent of scaling sp^2 in any meaningful ways.

Furthermore, I don't believe appealing to popularity ("Most people would interpret 0y as 0") is warranted at all. One cannot claim the graph was meaningless, it had no mathematical purpose in the first place. It only serves the narrative, and it served it's purpose. Thus, if the gap is unknown, that does not matter.
It only matter to us, because we inherently care so much about powerscaling, but to the average viewer, the information they get is, "Saitama is stronger than Garou. Saitama is growing faster than Garou can copy him.",
which is exactly what the graph wants to communicate in the end.

To summarize

• The author did not communicate any values, thus none were necessarily intended.
• The graph serves a narrative purpose, and it serves it well.
• The gap being unknown isn't a flaw, nor does it make the graph meaningless. There was never an intent to measure their powers mathematically.

I believe this debate will lead to a stalemate, so I'll hop out for now. I believe I made my points clear and sound.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Well it doesn’t really matter the specifics of when sp^2 was, since all we really need to know is that it objectively is some time after genos’ death
Anyways
The lack of units thing meaning it wasn’t meant to be a multiplier is slightly subjective, but given the fact that they added a starting point relative to the bottom line I must hard disagree for reasons you are already aware of

It serving a narrative purpose doesn’t mean it can’t also be a multiplier, in fact you could even argue that the multiplier being there makes it even clearer how bad the gap was getting, as a quantifiable large multiplier would make it easier to represent the situation

The gap being there is a conscious decision that the creator would have had to made in order for it to exist, and I’m not saying it makes the graph meaningless. It’s the fact that it exists to begin with

A. It exists to show the power of an sp^2 relative to 0
or
B. It exists for no reason

what I’m getting at here is that by disagreeing, you’re saying that the author intentionally added a useless feature to the graph, which I am not just going to assume without evidence.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

It serving a narrative purpose doesn’t mean it can’t also be a multiplier, in fact you could even argue that the multiplier being there makes it even clearer how bad the gap was getting, as a quantifiable large multiplier would make it easier to represent the situation

The argument there should been a multiplier there in the scans and statements is something I have to fundamentally disagree with.

There wasn’t a specific in verse statement or WOG since the multiplers you are going for that narrative isn’t there at all and isn’t officially supported by the author/narrative of the story at all.

I see no further point in debating this in circles because let’s been honest, while I am neutral, I also do think that those arguing against assigning a multipliers had make their point explicit even more clearly and is actually gaining ground for it since I am neutral leaning toward the opposition.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

The arguement there should been a multiplier there in the scans and statements is something I have to fundamentally disagree with.

There wasn’t a specific in verse statement or WOG since the multiplers you are going for that narrative isn’t there at all and isn’t officially supported by the author/narrative of the story at all.

I see no further point in debating this in circles because let’s been honest, while I am neutral, I also do think that those arguing against assigning a multiplers had make their point explicit even more clearly and is actually gaining ground for it since I am neutral leaning toward the opposition.

idk what any of what you've said means I'm just gonna be real

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Regardless, I don’t see why we can’t settle for a likely or possibly rating
especially considering the fact that Saitama should have been at least 9 times stronger by the end of the fight anyways, because an exponential increase eventually gonna make him insanely stronger

 

[HammerStrikes219]

It will been only far higher with RPL/AD since that still exist. The exponential growth was tied with Saitama’s RPL because it was with a feat is why we shown everything. Also, we ain’t setting for a likely or possible at all.

Just far higher.

Accelerated Development

Accelerated Development is the ability to raise ones statistics and/or abilities at a much faster pace than a normal character in the setting is able to. Users of this ability are able to reap the fruits of their training with far less effort and time than most, with some characters improving...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[HammerStrikes219]

And essentially this entire thread was pointless other than pretty much trying to get a rating out of it when the graph does not have a mathematical purpose. Only to help contribute to the story narrative. That was pointed out to us many times and we still continue to overlooking that fact just to arbitrarily assign a multiplier to a graph that doesn’t have that multiplier stated or shown.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

It will been only far higher with RPL/AD since that still exist. The exponential growth was tied with Saitama’s RPL because it was with a feat is why we shown everything. Also, we ain’t setting for a likely or possible at all.

Just far higher.

Accelerated Development

Accelerated Development is the ability to raise ones statistics and/or abilities at a much faster pace than a normal character in the setting is able to. Users of this ability are able to reap the fruits of their training with far less effort and time than most, with some characters improving...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Uh your contributions so far seem to be “you’re wrong, therefore you’re wrong” kinds of arguments
Like seriously I don’t recall any of your posts actually being arguments, just cause you say it doesn’t make it true

 

[ZillertheBucko]

And essentially this entire thread was pointless other than pretty much trying to get a rating out of it when the graph does not have a mathematical purpose. Only to help contribute to the story narrative. That was pointed out to us many times and we still continue to overlooking that fact just to arbitrarily assign a multiplier to a graph that doesn’t have that multiplier stated or shown.

Source when
(also my brother in Christ you made the thread, and were actively showing bias with the votes, and your op didn’t even bother to mention any arguments)

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Uh your contributions so far seem to be “you’re wrong, therefore you’re wrong” kinds of arguments
Like seriously I don’t recall any of your posts actually being arguments, just cause you say it doesn’t make it true

I going over the entire thread as there was a debate did occurred regarding whatever or not we should get a multiplier from calculating from the graph shown in the story.

Honestly, I want this thread closed for a temporary time till we get more information.

Multipliers

A multiplier is generally some number a different number is multiplied with to get a new number. For our VS Battles use we more specifically refer to a number as multiplier, if that number is multiplied with some statistic of a character or its attacks to get a new statistic for the character...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Uh your contributions so far seem to be “you’re wrong, therefore you’re wrong” kinds of arguments
Like seriously I don’t recall any of your posts actually being arguments, just cause you say it doesn’t make it true

What is your argument? You trying to refute the opposition who have pretty much valid points against trying to assigning a multiplier to a graph that was used to aid in the fact that Saitama was growing stronger after he gotten serious.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Source when
(also my brother in Christ you made the thread, and were actively showing bias with the votes, and your op didn’t even bother to mention any arguments)

The main reasons why I didn’t list the arguments because the points was all over the place and actually pretty much show where the bias are. If you are arguing that I am biased in the voting process, then I want you to take a long look at the previous 5 pages and why I struggle trying to even do a voting tally.

Also the one who suggested we do a voting tally was @Phoenks which in retrospect was a bad idea to accept as quite frankly I regret even making the voting tally anyway.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Anyway, here was the main points to consider.

1. It is against the standards for multiplier, specifically the part of “Attempting to get a multiplier from something else other than a actual stated multiplier” ie the numbers being specifically mentioned via a in verse statement or WOG statement.

2. “Why even trying to put a number on a graph that doesn’t show numbers” and it wasn’t even the intention of the narrator and author

3. There is a considerable gap between Saitama’s rate of growth and Garou’s rate of growth, but only got the exponentially statement for Saitama during their fight

4. There is no measurements on the graph with some arguing we don’t need measurements for it with the authorial intentions making it clear, but what is shown clear that the narrative doesn’t support any multipliers and stuff

Edit: Also say it more than twice.

Post in thread 'Yes, it is the Power Graph chart calculation'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/yes-it-is-the-power-graph-chart-calculation.140500/post-4997958

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Anyway, here was the main points to consider.

1. It is against the standards for multiplier, specifically the part of “Attempting to get a multiplier from something else other than a actual stated multiplier” ie the numbers being specifically mentioned via a in verse statement or WOG statement.

2. “Why even trying to put a number on a graph that doesn’t show numbers” and it wasn’t even the intention of the narrator and author

3. There is a considerable gap between Saitama’s rate of growth and Garou’s rate of growth, but only got the exponentially statement for Saitama during their fight

4. There is no measurements on the graph with some arguing we don’t need measurements for it with the authorial intentions making it clear, but what is shown clear that the narrative doesn’t support any multipliers and stuff

Edit: Also say it more than twice.

Post in thread 'Yes, it is the Power Graph chart calculation'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/yes-it-is-the-power-graph-chart-calculation.140500/post-4997958

Now you’re making more sense
I’ll get to this later

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Now you’re making more sense
I’ll get to this later

Which is the same points being used by other ppl.

Also you technically use the same points already in your recent replies against the counter arguments made by the opposition so I think we let staff members do a review over this thread anyway.

 

[Antvasima]

You can't just ignore people's votes like that, wtf. They've provided counterarguments that they think are sufficient, don't pretend that they haven't.

Agreed.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Agreed.

I didn’t removed the vote tally, but just as a reminder, @Phoenks did propose a vote tally in this specific circumstance.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, even though I would personally prefer if this upgrade is applied, we unfortunately do not seem to have achieved nearly sufficient support for doing so.

@Ultima_Reality

Would you be willing to make an attempt to convince other staff members here of this revision? If not, we seem to have reached a stalemate, and that is obviously not enough to apply this.

 

[Antvasima]

I didn’t removed the vote tally, but just as a reminder, @Phoenks did propose a vote tally in this specific circumstance.

Well, you keep moving me to neutral, even though I have repeatedly stated that I agree with this, so I am not sure if you mishandle any other votes as well