Thread:TheSMASHFan/@comment-12408658-20140104005524/@comment-4814368-20140110173452

I have a significant issue with your demands for a specific procedure to follow. Primarily, you still seem to be the arbiter for when something is "fully resolved". You made all the arguments that you could, and I made mine. As I saw it, there was no more productive dicussion about it to be had, at which point, a decision needed to be made. I believe Ultraman made the right one. I felt I made stronger arguments than you did, you disagreed. Neither parties arguing should be the ones to make the call, it should be everyone else as I see it. That was the point everyone came to. It still seems like you are making demands about how things should be run, mainly that you would prefer to hold a filibuster than leave arguments where they are.

I know your response will likely be that you believe you made stronger arguments, that I nor anyone else proved those arguments wrong, etc. But again, I just believe your perspective on the discussion still seems totalitarian and undermines the idea of equal say that you claim to promote. Sorry to respond, but I felt it was important to say something about statements like "To prevent stuff like this from happening again, I'll make a list of steps to follow during these change disputes", which sound as though you're decreeing how the community should run instead of letting it run itself.