Thread:TheSMASHFan/@comment-12408658-20140104005524/@comment-16072884-20140112005205

Think about what the term "fully resolved" means. It means that the discussion has ended. For example, an argument that ends with one side complaining, name-calling, and not actually responding to anything their opponent says, would clearly be considered "fully resolved". Other types of cases could also be considered "fully resolved".

"Primarily, you still seem to be the arbiter for when something is "fully resolved"." "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." I'm not the only one who is making the decisions to declare them fully resolved, and I'm only reversing people's decisions when they made a verdict at the wrong time. There have been times when we were discussing changes and everyone agreed on one solution and/or no one was arguing, and final verdicts were made over those, and those were good times for the discussions to be 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." How do you know that I made all the arguments that I could? I could have responded to more of the things you said that could have been productive. Decisions should not be made when people are still responding to what others said in the way we were.

"I believe Ultraman made the right one." Ultraman made the decision when we were still arguing over it, long before I got blocked, before it was fully resolved. That was not the right decision to do.

"Neither parties arguing should be the ones to make the call, it should be everyone else as I see it. " It's better if someone not arguing should make the call. However, if the person who made the decision did so at a bad time, then others should be allowed to reverse it.

"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." Maybe I'm suggesting this policy change because our constant usage of "make the changes now and discuss it later" isn't the proper way to do things? If the way the community runs itself doesn't work, then something has to be changed. I've simply suggested something to make the community run better.