[Goober5000]

Only fight battles you can win.

QFT.

And Mobius, if you're going to call something I did vandalism, at least have the sense to do it on an article I actually edited.

As amazing as it feels, I actually agree with several of the points that Mobius makes in that pseudo-article.  Things like the Artemis D.H.'s lack of upgraded stats, the Mentu's lack of beam cannons, the Mjolnir's lack of additional small-caliber turrets, and the Iceni's ever-changing and strangely asymmetric loadout are the sort of inconsistencies that tend to jump out at you. (I'm not so much in agreement over things like the Shivans' duplication of Terran secondaries or the Orion turret.)  I do think these sorts of little factoids are worth mentioning somewhere in the wiki, even in the sort of article that Mobius is proposing, though I would advise against excising as much personal opinion and/or "interpretation from source material" as possible.

Also QFT.

[General Battuta]

Seems like we've reached a decent consensus here?

As long as Mobius doesn't mind editing he can post that article. It's pretty good.

[Snail]

Sorry again for being a ****head here.

[General Battuta]

The fact that you're apologizing for a completely normal piece of debate suggests that you're a decent guy, not a ****head. Don't worry about it.

[Mobius]

As long as Mobius doesn't mind editing he can post that article. It's pretty good.

Well, since my account is frozen, you can easily post it...

EDIT:

Only fight battles you can win.

QFT.

No.

The reason why people with a comfortable number of user CPs keep doing many absurd things (among the notable contributes, of course) is that no one complains about them because they're afraid or something. Abuses shouldn't be authorized, no matter of the individuals who carry on with them.

And Mobius, if you're going to call something I did vandalism, at least have the sense to do it on an article I actually edited.

What a vague and inconclusive response. We are playing Sisiphus on an article and you once came out with this:

Stop making stupid changes and calling them "improvements".

...and now you complain about me claiming that a single edit of yours was a "semi-act of vandalism"? That's tragicomic humour and--- oh, wait... I forgot that abuses are totally legitimate for you. 

[TopAce]

Will you tell us which edit of Goober's was a "semi-act of vandalism"? I didn't see anything at all wrong with his recent edits. Well, yes, he reverted some of your changes, but that's not vandalism.

[General Battuta]

Mobius, stop.

You're digging a hole for yourself.

What people think of you matters. You need to stop damaging your own reputation or no one will listen to you even when you are right.

[Snail]

I am awesame! Treat me like it!

[Androgeos Exeunt]

[Goober5000]

The reason why people with a comfortable number of user CPs keep doing many absurd things (among the notable contributes, of course) is that no one complains about them because they're afraid or something. Abuses shouldn't be authorized, no matter of the individuals who carry on with them.

If you think one of the admins or moderators is abusing his authority (which is a legitimate concern) then you should do one of the following:

1) PM the person in question
2) PM another admin or moderator
3) Post a thread in the feedback forum
4) Click "Report this post"

Posting several dozen posts where you act like a drama queen or a serial complainer is a) not helpful or productive; and b) makes it look like you are primarily concerned about attention for yourself, rather than fairness and justice being upheld.

[castor]

I'm not so sure about "Blog-like descriptions that point out strengths/weaknesses under rare circumstances."

Seconded. That is actually some of the most interesting stuff.

[Snail]

I'm not so sure about "Blog-like descriptions that point out strengths/weaknesses under rare circumstances."

Seconded. That is actually some of the most interesting stuff.

That is stuff like:

"Yeah, so one time in Flaming Sword right there was a Meson Bomb explosion and there was this one Dragon fighter that was weakened to 2%, and it was really easy to kill."

[castor]

Hm, what would be the weakness there? Hardy the fact that a meson bomb may scratch a Dragon?
Anyway, I was thinking more about that kind of rare circumstances where factors like gun/turret placement, ship size, speed, agility etc. result in unobvious events in a mission.

[Fury]

I would like to express my dislike for the fact that none of the veteran comments are credited. Looking at who added the comment doesn't necessarily imply who actually said the added comment. So I would like to propose that each and every veteran comment would be credited to whoever really said it. That in turn would also make it possibly to point out that "hey, this is no longer true, care to edit your comment?".

[TopAce]

The problem is that only the writers of the comments edit their comments. There have been many spelling fixes, rephrases, deletions of sentences by other users.

[Fury]

Editing others comments to a degree it changes the meaning shouldn't happen, which is why it should still be possible to give credit to original author. Should complete rewrite be in order, you might just as well remove the old comment and write your own in your own words and give credit to yourself. Either way, I believe veteran comments should have credits. Otherwise it's kinda meaningless to call it veteran comments in the first place. Might just as well call it random comments by some unknown people.

[TopAce]

It has happened in the past, so it would be cumbersome and time-consuming to track each comment to its original author, and revert those changes that altered their meanings.

[Fury]

Wouldn't be needed to apply the policy to already written comments, only to new comments.

[Qent]

But if it was convenient in the past, it could be convenient in the future too.

[NGTM-1R]

Editing others comments to a degree it changes the meaning shouldn't happen.

But did, quite frequently, during the Veteran Comments Jihad when the new rules went into effect. Many comments on long pages were dismembered down to their grain of original thought or useful observation.