Original post: The *alias* isn't finishing. Subject states timer AND $ticks. No mention about the timer not finishing or that $ticks has nothing to do with the problem.
Ok, it is clear that the timer didn't finish. He showed the output, yes? That shows that $ticks was not echoed after the second timer started. Since the command /testtimer would result in $ticks being echoed and it wasn't, and that the timer is still active - meaning it hasn't executed - is proof enough that the timer didn't finish. The data is there, just not in the form you're looking for. That's not a fault of the poster's, but a fault of yours. Attempting to validate your statement against the quoted evidence in the way you did - stating that 'it could be showing' - is flawed reasoning. You should be looking at what it does show, not what it could but doesn't show.
True, he did not state $ticks has nothing to do with it, and there should be a decent amount of quality to the report to warrant looking into. However, if it was one's intention to waste time, they could just as easily edit something up, yes? There is clearly an unexpected result shown there. It is no less credible than a massive detailed report. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people out there who like nothing more than to waste people's time, and they will do so by attempting to be as convincing as possible.
Now that we've established that there is clearly an issue; when presented with a bug, you would first test it to see the result for yourself just to be sure, regardless of the quality of the report, yes? And that testing would be done thoroughly by the reviewer, regardless of the evidence provided. $ticks would be found to not be the problem. Even if Wims had stated that, it would be tested and concluded just the same. I understand some people's need to have everything done to perfection: listing all the content that the reviewer will both have to consider and will know they will have to consider anyway. In a lot of cases - this one included - it is a waste of time.
Alright. "Funny that I claim to be superior in my understanding" - Since I made no such claim, I can do nothing but take that as a compliment; although I don't consider myself to be superior to anyone I communicate with over the internet since you can never really know them. I read that post again and you're right, I admit I miss read that part about the reproduction steps. My bad, and apologies to argv0. However, that says nothing for my understanding unless you judge it by what I miss read it as because it was miss read, not correctly read and failed interpretation. The rest is all true, and trying to discredit my post because it is my first on this forum is flawed. Such an accusation suggests that no one knows anything -about- what is posted on a forum unless they've been around on the forum for a good length of time. That is tantamount to suggesting that you need to be an active poster on a forum to be able to learn anything, which is obviously not true. And if you meant to say that being on here longer means you have a better understanding, that is of course also absurd because not every post is as old as your registration date, and you can gain understanding in more ways than reading forum posts.
It is often - not always - easier to understand something when someone else provides you with the solution, rather than try to work it out yourself. Now, I assume you mean 'understood' not 'knew the solution' because obviously the solution hasn't been posted, we're just interpreting the problem. Stating that I only understand because of what others wrote for no other reason than the fact that I posted after them is again, flawed reasoning. Admittedly I did create this account to reply a few hours after reading most of the posts, but you cannot say with any certainty that I did not understand the problem after simply reading the first post. I already claimed to have done so, but of course you have no way of knowing whether that is true or false. It's an assumption of the worst of someone which only reflects badly on you.
