The necessity of Neutral/Opponents on a Verse page?

[Minion_of_Pigsaw]

Hello.
I'm currently working on a verse page overhaul.
Should I add these changes now, or should I leave them in the previous format and let them happen at the same time as all the other verses?

 

[Antvasima]

For the moment you can use the previous format.

 

[Antvasima]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Shadowbokunohero @QrowBarr @Crazylatin77 @Zaratthustra @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @Dereck03 @Therefir @IdiosyncraticLawyer @GarrixianXD @Catzlaflame

I would appreciate some further help here.

 

[Damage3245]

What exactly is left to cover?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I still haven't had a change of thoughts.

 

[Crabwhale]

This thread is old. Anyone mind summing up what exactly was agreed upon? Cause I sure as hell don't remember.

 

[KLOL506]

Primary goal was to completely nuke the Supporters/Opponents/Neutral section and instead copy-paste in the Knowledgeable Members list into each respective verse.

Ant has come up with a compromise solution to postpone the deletion for now and instead focus on getting the Knowledgeable members list into those verse pages first, then delete the Supporters/Opponents/Neutral section completely after two years.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, for practical reasons it is necessary, as we won't be able to find and notify enough knowledgeable members for different verses during our content revision discussions otherwise, and I would also like to rename the Supporters/Opponents/Neutral sections to "Somewhat Knowledgeable Members" in the meantime.

 

[Crabwhale]

Honestly I still remain against the idea of deleting the section.

Like, it's not like it does any harm to the verse page by being there lol

 

[Antvasima]

We will not delete the section, just rename it to "Somewhat Knowledgeable Members", as well as move the sections from the following page to new "Knowledgeable Members" sections placed above them.

Knowledgeable Members List (Verses)

This page is intended to be a list in alphabetical order of every verse page in this wiki, and the members who think that they are highly knowledgeable regarding them. Members who consider themselves as "experts" should have a significant amount of knowledge regarding a franchise, and are...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[KLOL506]

We will not delete the section, just rename it to "Somewhat Knowledgeable Members", as well as move the sections from the following page to new "Knowledgeable Members" sections placed above them.

I mean, this is pretty much the same thing as deleting the section if the terms "Supporters/Opponents/Neutral" straight up don't exist in the page anymore.

And we'd also have to account for removing names that are no longer with us on the wiki, of course.

 

[Crabwhale]

We will not delete the section, just rename it to "Somewhat Knowledgeable Members", as well as move the sections from the following page to new "Knowledgeable Members" sections placed above them.

Knowledgeable Members List (Verses)

This page is intended to be a list in alphabetical order of every verse page in this wiki, and the members who think that they are highly knowledgeable regarding them. Members who consider themselves as "experts" should have a significant amount of knowledge regarding a franchise, and are...

vsbattles.fandom.com

I'm not against the inclusion of a knowledge members section. But I am against altering what we currently have for Supporters/Oppoents/Neutral.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I think the name is bad for the proposed section, too much of a mouthful. Not against the section in general, would've sworn I already said that but I will reaffirm that if it is desired of me.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

That's what I'm mostly saying. "If it's not broken, don't fix it."

 

[DarkGrath]

My thoughts are largely aligned with Crabwhale and DarkDragonMedeus. I don't see any substantial benefit to these suggested changes.

 

[Antvasima]

How about if we only move the "Knowledgeable Members" sections from the following page to the individual verse pages for easier overview then? Would that be a good idea?

Knowledgeable Members List (Verses)

This page is intended to be a list in alphabetical order of every verse page in this wiki, and the members who think that they are highly knowledgeable regarding them. Members who consider themselves as "experts" should have a significant amount of knowledge regarding a franchise, and are...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[DarkGrath]

How about if we only move the "Knowledgeable Members" sections from the following page to the individual verse pages for easier overview then? Would that be a good idea?

Knowledgeable Members List (Verses)

This page is intended to be a list in alphabetical order of every verse page in this wiki, and the members who think that they are highly knowledgeable regarding them. Members who consider themselves as "experts" should have a significant amount of knowledge regarding a franchise, and are...

vsbattles.fandom.com

That should be good.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for your evaluation.

 

[Jinx666]

Honestly I still remain against the idea of deleting the section.

Like, it's not like it does any harm to the verse page by being there lol

My thoughts are largely aligned with Crabwhale and DarkDragonMedeus. I don't see any substantial benefit to these suggested changes.

Its an impractical category system for Verse pages, and can be improved upon. Nothing was ever planned to be a huge substantial change (Likely only seems that way due to it being here for so long) but it would be so much more professional to change it into a section of 'Knowledgable Members', instead of categories people use to say they 'like' or 'dislike' a series. Personal liking should not be considered in any means when it comes to powerscaling, because then thats just playing/encouraging bias as opposed to just being able to say you know how the Verse operates in terms of power. This is the only reason Opponents is used.

Supporters/Neutral/Opponents are terms that can imply or suggest a certain bias for and against a series. There isn't any positive need i can see for someone putting their personal thoughts of what they think about the series on a main verse page. This can be done on their own user profiles. Saying you are 'neutral' on the Verse literally means nothing, and saying you are an 'opponent' suggests you are against the verse. This can be used against people in versus threads when making points (as i saw it happen, and inspired me to make this proposition) by saying they're only voting for X character because they are an Opponent of Y series etc.

This may not be a problem for staff members who know this isnt accurate to how they use it, but it is confusing to the general traffic and regular members from what i've seen. It can do a better job of representing what it is supposed to be used for. It also makes it sound like theres stuff like official competitive tournaments on the wiki where people allign themselves to verses and try to find matchups their characters can win or something, which Vs Battles Wiki doesnt do.

Its been a while since ive even thought abt this thread ngl, but this is just to generally improve terminology on this wiki and make it less confusing. Its pretty much gonna work the exact same as it does now (Inserting your name if you're Knowledgable about a Verse), but removing these external labels that more or less reflect personal feelings towards the verse (And as ive said above, can be misinterpreted or weaponized) would definitely be better to the Wiki's profession.

The only counter arguments against this is that people merely find it fun to call themselves these labels on certain verses and 'if it aint broke dont fix it'
No, of course its not broken, but it doesnt need to be to improve it, and i think we're a bit beyond this given the wiki is meant to serve as fair character and verse profiling. We're definitely the go-to site for the entire power scaling community if they want to learn about a certain series' power, so its imperative to appear as neutral as possible when talking about characters. Personal thoughts and allignments to a series should be put in a user profile and not a main page on the wiki.

 

[DarkGrath]

No, of course its not broken, but it doesnt need to be to improve it, and i think we're a bit beyond this given the wiki is meant to serve as fair character and verse profiling. We're definitely the go-to site for the entire power scaling community if they want to learn about a certain series' power, so its imperative to appear as neutral as possible when talking about characters. Personal thoughts and allignments to a series should be put in a user profile and not a main page on the wiki.

The thing is, I don't even really agree with removing this section of the profiles being considered an improvement. I consider it a clear detriment. We do have the goal of fair and accurate character indexing, yes, but we are also a social community where we provide people with similar interests a platform to engage with each other. These goals both exist, and they aren't mutually exclusive. We can facilitate this community aspect without damaging the accuracy of the profiles.

Having such a section on verse profiles - particularly for supporters, less-so for opponents and neutral parties - helps people connect over shared verses of interest in a way that would be missed if these elements were only expressed on user pages. And it does not damage the accuracy of the profiles within the verse at all to have such a section. While I concur that the use for the opponent/neutral sections is less clear - and seems to largely just be a vestigial of a less focused early wiki - I consider the supporters section to be a clear advantage on the profiles that brings no harm to our users nor diminishes our goals and intentions with the wiki. I much prefer the state of the wiki where such a section remains than the hypothetical one without it.

 

[Jinx666]

The thing is, I don't even really agree with removing this section of the profiles being considered an improvement. I consider it a clear detriment. We do have the goal of fair and accurate character indexing, yes, but we are also a social community where we provide people with similar interests a platform to engage with each other. These goals both exist, and they aren't mutually exclusive. We can facilitate this community aspect without damaging the accuracy of the profiles.

We do, but we don't do it in a way where users 'allign' themselves with verses. We have an entire forum where we connect and use these characters for matchups, however there comes a point where we should not use main wiki pages to express what series we like and dislike, as opposed to series that we know. We don't need both a Knowledgable Members and Supporters/Opponents/Neutral section cause then it becomes redundant, where at least one of those is relevant to the powerscaling aspect of the series and lists members that can say they know what they're talking about, as opposed to ones that may just like a series but not know it enough to confidently debate about. I was one of these people that just put my name on a bunch of verses i liked/briefly looked upon to make pages, and as suhc theres been times i am approached for my input and not confident on giving it.

We don't do anything substantial with 'Supporters' and 'Opponents' (Like debating competitions or events etc.), otherwise then maybe it can be a point

Having such a section on verse profiles - particularly for supporters, less-so for opponents and neutral parties - helps people connect over shared verses of interest in a way that would be missed if these elements were only expressed on user pages. And it does not damage the accuracy of the profiles within the verse at all to have such a section. While I concur that the use for the opponent/neutral sections is less clear - and seems to largely just be a vestigial of a less focused early wiki - I consider the supporters section to be a clear advantage on the profiles that brings no harm to our users nor diminishes our goals and intentions with the wiki. I much prefer the state of the wiki where such a section remains than the hypothetical one without it.

Well i did originally say it was opponents and neutral parts of this that should be removed, and that we can keep supporters, but i now agree we should change its name along the lines of 'knowledgable members'. This was discussed before but I would agree that having a list of names of people that actually know the series (Usually if you know the series, then you like and support it to some degree) is beneficial.
You dont need your name on a page to connect with others that like it, since you usually meet in the actual forum. Just engage with/create discussions about these series and characters, but there is a fine line between liking (or disliking) a series and being knowledgable about it. Its also much better to put this on a Verse page than the super long, plainly formatted list page we have that needs constant updating

What you are talking about would most definitely still be there in a 'Knowledgable Members' section, only with improved terminology that doesn't confuse its use for personal thinkings towards a verse, and discourage people using your chosen allignments to a verse against you. We've had a few examples in this thread of people claiming and calling bias because of it. All i want to know is why we should be keeping Neutral/Opponents when all that serves is to say 'i dont like this verse'? We don't want people to connect with what they dont like preferably.

 

[Therefir]

I have always treated "Opponents" as not necessarily people that dislike the series, but have a more conservative approach when it comes to their ratings.

That being said, I wouldn't be against fusing all three sections into "Knowledgeable Members", it covers every aspect that we need there, plus it's shorter and it looks better.

 

[Jinx666]

I have always treated "Opponents" as not necessarily people that dislike the series, but have a more conservative approach when it comes to their ratings.

I'm not really sure how opponents comes across like that, but i suppose its cause naturally you wouldn't figure there would be a section to put your name in if you 'dislike the series'. But yeah, generally with people that arent members or knowledgable like the staff members, it comes across as a negative way. A section with people who know how to series works is much more practical in general yeah

 

[Lonkitt]

Verse Opponents has always made no sense. Like yeah, let me call a "Naruto Verse Opponent" when he's winning a thread forum match LMAO

 

[Cropfist]

Opponents is useful for knowing who to not bother in revisions

 

[Lonkitt]

Is it really useful though? Hell most of those people take part in those revisions unprompted...

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I have supported upgrades for verses I had my name listed as opponent on multiple times and/or went against reasons for a downgrade. Likewise, I have also done the same thing for supporting downgrades on verses I listed myself as a supporter or went against an upgrade thread. Taste in a series and viewpoint on higher/lower statistics ratings are two completely different correlations not meant to be compared though lots of people do it anyway. It's more "Community friendly" to have those lists. It can also mean inviting supporters to general discussions or fun and games boards meant for addressing distastes for various series.

And being community friendly is a good thing. We went staff and regular users to be on good terms with each other more often rather than not; though cannot force it. And we also want general discussions and what not having more activity as it attracts more visitors, gives us more income via ad revenue and encourages more people to donate to keep it running.

 

[Jinx666]

I have supported upgrades for verses I had my name listed as opponent on multiple times and/or went against reasons for a downgrade. Likewise, I have also done the same thing for supporting downgrades on verses I listed myself as a supporter or went against an upgrade thread. Taste in a series and viewpoint on higher/lower statistics ratings are two completely different correlations not meant to be compared though lots of people do it anyway. It's more "Community friendly" to have those lists. It can also mean inviting supporters to general discussions or fun and games boards meant for addressing distastes for various series.

I don't really understand how its 'community-friendly', and just because you, who are a staff member and know how the system works,use it fairly doesn't mean everyone else who isnt as into the wiki does too. It's confusing for a lot of people, and a ton of people do use it incorrectly.Being a supporter/opponent also leaks more into versus threads than content revision i'd say. Are there any examples you can list that shows how the Supporters/Opponents/Neutral has created a friendlier community (That just a general list of 'Knowledgable Members' wouldnt?

It's much better used as a place to let users know they are knowledgable about the series as opposed to how they 'allign' with the verse. Thats far more efficient and less confusing to everybody.

And either way, being an opponent or supporter of a verse (neutral means nothing) shouldn't even need to be referred to whatsoever when it comes to content threads. When it does, its usually to accuse the other party of being 'biased' in one way or the other

 

[Crabwhale]

Is it really useful though? Hell most of those people take part in those revisions unprompted...

Is it fully useful? Perhaps not.

But I don't really see the value in an undertaking to uproot an entire old system just because it doesn't come in practically handy very much. Some things you can just leave be, and they won't be of any particular harm or benefit. I don't really support a revision of it for revisionism's sake.

Perhaps this is a dab of being stuck in the ways of old, but I don't think it's that. I've been very supportive to other changes to our standard formats when they've made sense and been of benefit. This is at best a net neutral.

 

[Jinx666]

Is it fully useful? Perhaps not.

But I don't really see the value in an undertaking to uproot an entire old system just because it doesn't come in practically handy very much. Some things you can just leave be, and they won't be of any particular harm or benefit. I don't really support a revision of it for revisionism's sake.

Perhaps this is a dab of being stuck in the ways of old, but I don't think it's that. I've been very supportive to other changes to our standard formats when they've made sense and been of benefit. This is at best a net neutral.

Its a general improvement. It isn't efficient to keep this old system around when nothing is done with it, and it only furthers heated discussion/suspecting claims, meanwhile we have a super, super long page of 'Knowledgable Members' for each Verse, that would be so much more easily asccesible and easy to navigate on their respective verse pages.

If you want to let people know how you feel personally about a verse, then it should go on a user profile. If you genuinely put yourself as S/N/O by the wiki's initial terms, then being a Knowledgable Member is in the exact same vein. Change isn't a bad thing, and i don't really see any negatives of this practically. The wiki should constantly be striving to improve itself

 

[Crabwhale]

Change isn't a bad thing, and i don't really see any negatives of this practically.

Notice how I never said it was. Unnecessary change is, I believe, what I was targeting.

Its a general improvement. It isn't efficient to keep this old system around when nothing is done with it

What about it is inefficient in this instance? It isn't particularly efficient but I don't see how removing it is either.

Also I would like to remind you that there is some small utility in marking differences between outright supporters, neutral people, and opponents. Each of these groups adding themselves to a verse page implies familiarity with the work in question. Neutral people can be called to threads to potentially settle disputes, opponents...well, yeah that one's a bit more debatable but as far as I'm concerned being aware of people that could potentially act as naysayers is good.

Now is this a great amount of utility? Not at all, there are at best very situational uses for the system. But even so I regard this very small benefit as being of greater weight than the work of getting rid of entire verse section.

Also this brings me to:

we have a super, super long page of 'Knowledgable Members' for each Verse, that would be so much more easily asccesible and easy to navigate on their respective verse pages.

There's literally nothing stopping you from just inputting the Knowledgeable Members list there as well. You don't have to axe one to keep the other.

 

[Jinx666]

Notice how I never said it was. Unnecessary change is, I believe, what I was targeting.

Never said you did, but i've explained throughout this whole thread why it isnt 'unnecessary'. Its clearing clutter and adapting to change the wiki to a more professional format

What about it is inefficient in this instance? It isn't particularly efficient but I don't see how removing it is either.

Removing it in place of something thats useful is definitely efficient yeah. It removes the negative connotations associated to these labels

Also I would like to remind you that there is some small utility in marking differences between outright supporters, neutral people, and opponents. Each of these groups adding themselves to a verse page implies familiarity with the work in question. Neutral people can be called to threads to potentially settle disputes, opponents...well, yeah that one's a bit more debatable but as far as I'm concerned being aware of people that could potentially act as naysayers is good.

This is not clear in the slightest i'm afraid, a ton of people (like myself in the past) had used it for merely personal feelings. No one calls neutral parties to settle disputes since mods exist, but i'm not sure how effective it is that people can call themselves 'neutral and unbiased' on their own. It just doesn't work effectively, and this can be easily done under blanket term as 'Knowledgable members'. You lose nothing,

Now is this a great amount of utility? Not at all, there are at best very situational uses for the system. But even so I regard this very small benefit as being of greater weight than the work of getting rid of entire verse section.

What uses that cant be under 'Knowledgeable Members'? If people are putting themselves under these three labels, they're effectively deciding how they want to be portrayed in it. And because its super unclear to the casual traffic of the wiki, it causes a ton of confusion. This doesnt have to be the single greatest change in the history of VSBW just to be considered and applied.

Also this brings me to:


There's literally nothing stopping you from just inputting the Knowledgeable Members list there as well. You don't have to axe one to keep the other.

Its pretty obvious why
1. It makes the verse pages unnecessarily long. Froth is not effective, we want pages as streamlined as possible.
2. It's keeping personal information (as perceived by most) on public pages. As fun as it is (Theres literally a whole Joke battles wiki thats been made to separate this from the VSBW), its not something that has a place in a wiki like this
3. It would literally just be a repeat of listed names to the Knowledgable Members list. Who is gonna call themself a 'supporter/opponent/neutral' but not also not consider themself a knowledgable member?
4. If we do that, we're reciprocating that these sections are infact used for how personal feelings towards a verse are played, which wasn't the original intention of the section, and also shouldn't be a factor if we promote fair and unbiased discussion of a verse.

Again, we have user profiles that stores all the info about users. You can still put your name on a verse page you 'support' or even 'oppose', but you're not going by these negative, misinterpreted labels that are only ever used to create heated discussion, and just letting people know you are 'knowledgable' and that they can approach you without any worry you're gonna be overly supportive or overly opposed. This wouldn't be the case for staff members since you're all knowledgable with the site, but the overwhelming majority of visitors and regular members on the wiki completely oevrshadows that, and this change as agreed upon in this thread, makes it far more user-friendly

 

[Vzearr]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

I largely agree with DarkGrath's, Medeus', and Crabwhale's points here.

That said, would it be useful to move the sections from the following page to their respective associated verse pages, while keeping the current Supporters/Neutral/Opponents sections?

Knowledgeable Members List (Verses)

This page is intended to be a list in alphabetical order of every verse page in this wiki, and the members who think that they are highly knowledgeable regarding them. Members who consider themselves as "experts" should have a significant amount of knowledge regarding a franchise, and are...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Jinx666]

I largely agree with DarkGrath's, Medeus', and Crabwhale's points here.

That said, would it be useful to move the sections from the following page to their respective associated verse pages, while keeping the current Supporters/Neutral/Opponents sections?

Knowledgeable Members List (Verses)

This page is intended to be a list in alphabetical order of every verse page in this wiki, and the members who think that they are highly knowledgeable regarding them. Members who consider themselves as "experts" should have a significant amount of knowledge regarding a franchise, and are...

vsbattles.fandom.com

So you want both a Knolwedgable Members Section AND a Supporters/Opponents/Neutral Section?

Cause i don't think repeating the same section basically over, making the Verse Pages longer by default and still keeping personal views for series' on an unbiased wiki page is going to be better than what we've already got. They're too largely similar, and no one effectively learns well enough about a series on their own volition (or wants to learn about it) if they also label themselves 'neutral' or 'opponents' of the verse (implying they dont care/dislike it).

 

[Antvasima]

I am saying that there is a distinction between people who are genuinely knowledgeable about, and people who are only familiar with a verse, and that our current all in one knowledgeable members page is much less practical for our members to localise or notice.

 

[Jinx666]

I am saying that there is a distinction between people who are genuinely knowledgeable about, and people who are only familiar with a verse, and that our current all in one knowledgeable members page is much less practical for our members to localise or notice.

Sure but why do people who aren't confident enough to talk about the verse need to be included on the page for it, by putting themselves in a tier lower than that of knowledgable members? It was agreed already in the thread that the section became obsolete and we shouldn't put usernames on there based on personal preferences to verses since this distorts the unbiased distinctions when it comes to debate threads, and is much more fitting on separate user profiles.

Its just making Verse pages unnecessarily longer with duplicated sections, while still keeping the section that the thread is trying to revamp due to it's lack of fitting for present day

 

[Propellus]

Sure but why do people who aren't confident enough to talk about the verse need to be included on the page for it, by putting themselves in a tier lower than that of knowledgable members? It was agreed already in the thread that the section became obsolete and we shouldn't put usernames on there based on personal preferences to verses since this distorts the unbiased distinctions when it comes to debate threads, and is much more fitting on separate user profiles.

Its just making Verse pages unnecessarily longer with duplicated sections, while still keeping the section that the thread is trying to revamp due to it's lack of fitting for present day

If people are truly unconfident about the verse they feel strongly about, they can easily just speak for themselves if they don't want do take part in whatever makes them feel uncomfortable or rather just take themselves off the S/O/N list. And frankly, I still see nothing wrong with this at all as it provides an easier method for asking other people questions. In other words, you're making an attempt to fix things that aren't even broken

 

[Jinx666]

If people are truly unconfident about the verse they feel strongly about, they can easily just speak for themselves if they don't want do take part in whatever makes them feel uncomfortable or rather just take themselves off the S/O/N list. And frankly, I still see nothing wrong with this at all as it provides an easier method for asking other people questions. In other words, you're making an attempt to fix things that aren't even broken

This is the Vs Battles Wiki, where we first and foremost talk about the power and scalings of series and its characters, as unbiased and fairly as we can among the community. Ergo, one of the issues with including your username on the page solely due to personal beliefs (for neutral and opponents) is unnecessary and only acts against this wiki's intentions. I think Supporters and Knowledgeable Members can go hand in hand, but the latter as we discussed is much better terminology. This is the issue, and something i directly faced in the past when i just ran my name through every Verse i liked and knew vaguely, but wasn't ready to comment or give serious answers to. I have mostly gotten rid of my name, but if terminology like this was put forward at that time, i would not have made this mistake.
Its about efficiency. Just because we can correct any wrong mistakes after X amount of time doesnt make that better than not making those mistakes in the first place.

I dont get your second sentence at all. By all means, Knowledgable Members (which we've dedicated a badly formatted list page that is super long to scroll through, ineffective imo) should be listed on the verse pages for the questions you're talking about, but then whats the use of S/O/N that would only offer answers based on personal viewings and most of the time not as good as Knowledgable Members? If you want to let random wiki traffic know that you simply like or dislike a verse (perpetuates the cycle), you can put it on your user profile.

I genuinely do NOT understand why people think I can't suggest easier and more efficient ways of running things in this wiki (changing up a really old section that only perpetuates bias), just because its not the most broken and incorrect thing the wiki is going through atm. Theres a dozen more reasons we've listed off in this thread as to why this would be better, with the only arguments really being that it isnt a priority (doesn't need to be.) and that its 'fun' (Better to keep fun off of the professionally presented pages that the wiki now holds a MUCH higher standard to as its early days) just doesn't hold up. If there are any more arguments, please bring them to my attention. It's also a big change, i get it, but I genuinely do not think we should be scared off by the workload when its already been stated that this can be perfomed under a mass edit. We dont do anything with the Supporter,Opponent or Neutral labels that are productive.

Like im not saying its 'broken' whatsoever, just hugely inefficient, which should be changed and made better as the wiki now holds itself much better than it did. This thread is already over a year old, theres no rush to get it done, but i'd rather we stop flipflopping all of a sudden once there was a majority decided for it and that the change has already been planned. TLDR - Theres a difference between improving things and 'fixing' them

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that you are trying to fix a feature that is not broken, and that you are currently being an obstructionist when I am offering a much less drastic and more constructive alternative solution.