Thanks for the link.
Earlier you stated that my comment was absolutely false. Careful reading will reveal that I basically said the same thing you did, but without the math (because, as I noted, I wasn't positive).
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
No, you did not. You said precisely the opposite of what I did. You claimed that the 5 vote target will not change curators overall voting power. My post shows how it will.
I can't really explain any better than I did in that post. If you read that post and thought i was saying the same thing as you did above, I can only conculde that youre being intentionally obtuse.
like i said in the other post, i have no idea how any rational person could read the post i linked and think i was supporting this statement:
There is literally a chart that shows precisely how much users daily power will change, with a before, after and % change column. I really don't see how that is ambiguous at all.
Even if you don't agree with the analysis, thats fine, but there's no way to interpret what i said as anything but a repudiation of the above. I really don't know how to explain to you otherwise if thats what you toook from reading that post.
I encourage everyone reading this to take a look.
Be nice. I'm neither being "obtuse" nor am I an idiot.
If I miscommunicated, that's another matter. Even after reading yours, plus the comments, and then looking back at my comment, I can't see your point at all. It's entirely possible that you've misread my comment.