[slater]

-snip-

So, from my understanding, this was a one-off statement that Panda said where Wrom was present, and now you are piggybacking his opinion in a staff application with “concerns to keep things under control?” This is the most ridiculous stuff I’ve ever seen.

To address you two, Panda is a FANTASTIC staff member and I know for a fact multiple people have seen him handle being solo-staff well enough that you don’t need to have these silly “concerns.” The fact that Wrom has to say he says he knows Panda is a good staff member, but this one (yes, ONE) scenario is the reason for his -1 is beyond unbelievable. Stop trying to play devil’s advocate and support the guy.

The reason I had stated this was for a constructive criticism that should be worked on which no doubt he probably will fix, but to try disregard a “concern” or “constructive feedback” for someone to look at and work on is not ideal. I didn’t say he was not bad staff, like you had seem to try to communicate that we were mentioning that he was bad. But are we not allowed to bring up concerns nowadays? I think it’s rather foolish to try to gloss over. I haven’t given my vote for a +1 or -1  rather because I wanted to POINT something out that should be addressed, not something that should take away and be given as a negative rather then try to fully support without not giving any feedback to the staff member in question. I had mentioned wrom’s comment because I think it’s a concern. Whatever vote he has is beyond my jurisdiction but with my statement, I had thought to bring it up.