[Rounin]

Originally Posted by Dave

I HATE when people reply to these threads like SHIN did. Until you guys become actual coders, don't suggest coding solutions.

@whatever Silk is calling himself. I didnt say voting for who ILL thinks won, I said to his standards. Detailed explinations would be to a certain standard. If someone can have you agreeing with their opinions, or at least considering them, then that's a fair vote.

I don't think something like that MANDATES coding but I think as a kind of universally understood rule.......Well on the other hand something of that magnitude where EVERY battle HAD to have a FVC (2) on it. That would be extremely tedious both in coding and in actually voting. But you can't blame him, he's just making suggestions based on the gaps and flaws that he sees within the voting system. I don't think alot of people stop to think about the coding technicalities of it.

[Rounin]

Originally Posted by Dave

I HATE when people reply to these threads like SHIN did. Until you guys become actual coders, don't suggest coding solutions.

@whatever Silk is calling himself. I didnt say voting for who ILL thinks won, I said to his standards. Detailed explinations would be to a certain standard. If someone can have you agreeing with their opinions, or at least considering them, then that's a fair vote.

I don't think something like that MANDATES coding but I think as a kind of universally understood rule.......Well on the other hand something of that magnitude where EVERY battle HAD to have a FVC (2) on it. That would be extremely tedious both in coding and in actually voting. But you can't blame him, he's just making suggestions based on the gaps and flaws that he sees within the voting system. I don't think alot of people stop to think about the coding technicalities of it.