[14:06:18] KingChandelure: o/
[14:06:27] Duelmex: sup
[14:06:41] KingChandelure: hmm
[14:06:50] KingChandelure: wanted to ask your thoughts on the discussion in noms
[14:07:00] KingChandelure: which i should preface by saying i never supported it - it was to test something
[14:08:57] Duelmex: hmm
[14:09:58] KingChandelure: I was testing my hypothesis from yesterday - whether or not we were being objective in noms.
[14:10:22] KingChandelure: So I proposed a user who has 5000 lines and is an event helper for voice
[14:11:31] Duelmex: right, i've been thinking what an objective nom would look like
[14:11:51] Duelmex: because we do promote users ultimately because we like them right?
[14:12:13] KingChandelure: I agree that to an extent auth should have good relations with staff
[14:13:02] KingChandelure: With that said it seemed like weird roadblocks thrown up because they didn't actually like the user.
[14:14:11] Duelmex: comes down to the question of what's the pettiest reason to block a nom that's still an acceptable reason
[14:14:52] KingChandelure: I'm not going to use the term normally used to describe "only promoting people we like and not actually caring about the room"
[14:14:57] KingChandelure: It'd be a fair bit incendiary
[14:15:55] Duelmex: so like "is this nom good for the room" i guess?
[14:16:05] KingChandelure: Yeah, like
[14:16:12] KingChandelure: the guy has serious activity issues lol why I wanted to wait on the nom
[14:16:14] KingChandelure: so I said that
[14:16:29] KingChandelure: they put up some weird things about refuting the nom because...he said he wanted to take a pokemon for the ga
[14:16:40] KingChandelure: when i shot it down they created a "compromise" which was literally my original proposal
[14:16:46] KingChandelure: and it's like
[14:16:47] KingChandelure: what