User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20191101112654/@comment-6032121-20200110235218: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
@[[User:Amorkuz]]: Please see my post above. You may ''disagree'' with your ''fellow administrator'' on whether posting kudos on a thread constitutes participating in this thread. But since, as I argued fairly thoroughly, thinking kudos don't count as "participating" is a perfectly ''understandable'' position to hold, could you maybe lay off terms like "deceit" when talking about said fellow admin, when it's likely all a matter of intellectual disagreement/misunderstanding? | @[[User:Amorkuz]]: Please see my post above. You may ''disagree'' with your ''fellow administrator'' on whether posting kudos on a thread constitutes participating in this thread. But since, as I argued fairly thoroughly, thinking kudos don't count as "participating" is a perfectly ''understandable'' position to hold, could you maybe lay off terms like "deceit" when talking about said fellow admin, when it's likely all a matter of intellectual disagreement/misunderstanding? | ||
| Line 7: | Line 6: | ||
(Note that Revan says "thanks to Nate for fighting my corner", thus endorsing everything NateBumber said in ''his'' reply to the question originally asked to Revan himself.) | (Note that Revan says "thanks to Nate for fighting my corner", thus endorsing everything NateBumber said in ''his'' reply to the question originally asked to Revan himself.) | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20191101112654-31010985/20200110235218-6032121]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:33, 27 April 2023
@User:Amorkuz: Please see my post above. You may disagree with your fellow administrator on whether posting kudos on a thread constitutes participating in this thread. But since, as I argued fairly thoroughly, thinking kudos don't count as "participating" is a perfectly understandable position to hold, could you maybe lay off terms like "deceit" when talking about said fellow admin, when it's likely all a matter of intellectual disagreement/misunderstanding?
Please also see User:Shambala108's extremly clear statement that this thread is not exempt from T:SPOIL.
As for User:Revanvolatrelundar then deleting the offending kudos, I think it's fairly clear, given their statements, that this is not an attempt to make a liar out of you, but simply to comply with FANDOM's wishes — as well as your apparent ones: if the potential influence of the kudos on this thread would be to give undue feelings of there being a consensus to the eventual closing administrator, surely removing the kudos before that admin reads through the thread solves that problem?
(Note that Revan says "thanks to Nate for fighting my corner", thus endorsing everything NateBumber said in his reply to the question originally asked to Revan himself.)
