- 833
- 254
200 messages for a Kirby Thread? Damn.
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Tier 3-A Kirby.
- Thread starter TheJ-ManRequiem
- Start date
- Status
- 12,224
- 1,111
- Thread starter
- #202
Agreed. Agreed.
Yeah , not actual stars.
Maybe, but if so expect the same scrutiny, for everything else, only fair.
Yeah , not actual stars.
Maybe, but if so expect the same scrutiny, for everything else, only fair.
- 4,652
- 1,328
I really don't understand the point of the whole "we've done it before so we can do it now" arguments.
"If we do X revision we'll have to do that to every character who has the same reasoning as X"
If the profiles are wrong, they're wrong. We shouldn't sacrifice accuracy for efficiency.
"If we do X revision we'll have to do that to every character who has the same reasoning as X"
If the profiles are wrong, they're wrong. We shouldn't sacrifice accuracy for efficiency.
- 14,163
- 2,529
Pretty sure we've put the same scrutiny for everything else for a while now @J-Man, if the stars really weren't star sized, that would make this the exception, at least as far as I'm aware.
- 165,368
- 72,657
@ArbitraryNumbers
It is to demand far too much from most of the staff to ask us to continue to argue about the same topics over and over and over in thread after thread after thread, and expect us to get anything new done whatsoever.
It would be an issue of erosion, in which the staff members knowledgeable about the topics would eventually inevitably refuse to give input any more, and a horde of biased regular members would wear the remaining uninformed staff members down to enforce inaccurate statistics.
As such, the Discussion Rules page should definitely remain, both for the sake of efficiency, accuracy, and making sure that half of the staff do not quit in sheer exasperation. This policy is definitely not up for debate. Sorry.
It is to demand far too much from most of the staff to ask us to continue to argue about the same topics over and over and over in thread after thread after thread, and expect us to get anything new done whatsoever.
It would be an issue of erosion, in which the staff members knowledgeable about the topics would eventually inevitably refuse to give input any more, and a horde of biased regular members would wear the remaining uninformed staff members down to enforce inaccurate statistics.
As such, the Discussion Rules page should definitely remain, both for the sake of efficiency, accuracy, and making sure that half of the staff do not quit in sheer exasperation. This policy is definitely not up for debate. Sorry.
- 15,332
- 7,559
Agreed. I can't edit it, though, so you probably should do it.
- 15,332
- 7,559
Okay. I think we can close this now.
- 15,332
- 7,559
I think so.
- Status
