Thread:Willbachbakal/@comment-4881935-20150119072800/@comment-1330314-20150122061934

ClariS wrote: It's funny think that I'm attempting to defacing the existing cost analysis. Let me just ask you, for the changes I made, how does that even harm the cost analysis section at the slightest. Nothing was removed, no data altered. The only thing that changed was how the data was presented.

Of course not, you simply redid the presentation of those cost analyses in a manner so incomprehensible that even someone who were in on the gold value discussion would have a hard time understanding it. This is also in complete contradiction with the intent of the discussion, which is to find a proper way of implementing cost analyses and then changing the system accordingly, and merely compounds your signs of bad faith. For the time being, you're just going to have to keep those analyses the way they were.

ClariS wrote: What biases are you referring to?

Well, for one, the delusion that you are somehow above everyone else on this wiki, and have the right to reformat anything you like on a whim. This isn't the first time you've gone on a little spree, and as I recall you were shut down on every single occasion before. I would elaborate further on your biases, but it seems you have still not managed to explain yourself fully on the discussion, so I'll save it for there.

ClariS wrote: You yourself have admitted that your value holds no ground other than you needed a constant value.

This is not what I said at all, and even if it were, that would not justify you editing the item articles like you did. It would be nice if you could handle a debate without having some kind of tantrum on the mainspace.

ClariS wrote: All I did was put in the forefront what gives the cost analysis backbone that it needs to not be made up theories.

Except "what you put" is a very poor and disingenuous interpretation of what I was trying to explain was gold value. Neither of us is stupid, and it's clear you're not doing this in good faith.

ClariS wrote: But fine, have fun tearing down my method. I look forward to it, but before I do, just one word of advice, stop assuming that we have to determine the stat's gold value.

Unlike you, I value good discussion higher than petty revenge. Rest assured that your methods and reasoning will be evaluated objectively.