@Lasse
It's exceedingly clear that not everything you wrote on: p/5947741 is part of the veto. Some parts certainly are, but others are clearly passing comments like "okay sure whatever" etc...
Can you make an actual post indicating for what reasons specifically you're veto'ing the map? Shouldn't be too hard right, just copy/pasting what you already said. It would actually steer the discussion somewhere. It's like you keep posting random issues here and there and saying they are all contributing to the veto. They may well be, but give us a post consolidating everything?
The veto mediation assumes the mapper isn't willing to make changes unless there is no option but to fix the issue. Poor assumption to make, especially with how convoluted this discussion has become. Also yea, those comments were clearly made before you became QAT. Calling issues nonsensical, saying the mapper is making baseless responses etc... clearly aren't productive to a discussion as a QAT. Make a new post, thanks.
It's exceedingly clear that not everything you wrote on: p/5947741 is part of the veto. Some parts certainly are, but others are clearly passing comments like "okay sure whatever" etc...
Can you make an actual post indicating for what reasons specifically you're veto'ing the map? Shouldn't be too hard right, just copy/pasting what you already said. It would actually steer the discussion somewhere. It's like you keep posting random issues here and there and saying they are all contributing to the veto. They may well be, but give us a post consolidating everything?
The veto mediation assumes the mapper isn't willing to make changes unless there is no option but to fix the issue. Poor assumption to make, especially with how convoluted this discussion has become. Also yea, those comments were clearly made before you became QAT. Calling issues nonsensical, saying the mapper is making baseless responses etc... clearly aren't productive to a discussion as a QAT. Make a new post, thanks.