spoes wrote:
Hello there! This thread is currently suffering from some general quality issues in a few sections, and thus I don't think that it's ready to be ranked in its current state.
Innocent enough.
spoes wrote:
- Your thread currently uses 1,289 characters, this is below the rankable minimum of 1,300 characters. Please increase this.
嘘である。
I have copy pasted abraker's entire post from beginning to end, including all the BBCode formats. This gives the thread a whopping 1,909 characters, therefore qualifying it for ranked.
spoes wrote:
00:41:774 (1,2,3,4,8,9) - This triangle pattern is completely misrepresenting the intent of the thread and gives incorrect feedback. I would highly suggest that you rework (8,9) so that it creates a noticeable spacing increase to account for changes in the intent of the thread.
This is not viable, as the triangle pattern is in itself a triangle leading to a larger triangle pattern, much as the intent for the thread is to question the jurisdiction of the ranking process, which calls into question the QAT's ways of qualifying maps for ranked, which loops back into peppy for making a technical company that requests members to join aforementioned group of QAT, which is a triangle of itself. As a result, the triangle patterns do match the intent of the thread.
spoes wrote:
01:02:040 (1,2) - Colours used here don't contrast well with the same pattern used beforehand, consider making this consistent since the thread basically stays the same through these two parts and repetition could work well here.
Triangle color consistency would lead to green colors.
Lime green is, no offence to people who love lime green, ugly.
