Gamers Fanon Wiki talk:Archive5

Approval
The majority of the admin team ( Burs, Admins, and Rollbacks ) will vote either support or oppose to an idea, and if support wins, the vote will take place as a community vote, if oppose wins, it will not. The admins can and will discuss whether it will help the Wiki or not.

Example Suggestion
Give Tama63 some ice cream --Tama 63  20:09, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Example 2
Make a rule where Captaingoldvane2 gets to have Step's World Eater Blade

Ban Request: Sven Daggersteel
Well it says it all

Settled with the Admins, I quoted something from a PM I was not comfortable with, I did not intend to put it on public chat. For proof Zel Marque said "PM NAO" Mean's PM now. and I quoted what he said, I thought quoting something was allowed I was wrong





INITIATE PARYRANT.
 * 1) The most Sven would get is a chat strike, so a ban request here is redundant.
 * 2) Sven explained that he intended it for a PM, and didn't even notice the cursing.

Thus,

-- 01:56, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Ban Request: Boogiemango
Well, Boogiemango has recently broken several rules, including the No Pearson rule and the cursing rule.

Basically, he's working as Pearson's slave - posting his messages on the wiki and causing drama - all because he believes Pearson will buy him a gamecard. We talked to him in chat, and requested he stop posting Pearson's messages (note: this is not the first message from Pears he has posted). To this, he freaked out on us, threw a fit, and began cursing. I believe for his actions, a ban of a day or two is necessary. Not too serious, but he definitely needs a quick cooldown. Screenshots are below.

-- Jeremiah Garland 05:00, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Jeremiah, you started insulting me, calling me pathetic, just because I wanted to enjoy the game. Then, oh then, CROSSBONES had to BREAK in, and he started calling ME a slave. news flash, slaves don't earn rewards. This blog wasn't even ABOUT Pearson, this was about Spain. But, if that's how BIAS you are all gonna be, then fine.

By the way, I saw Jack Pistol say "shit", and nothing happened to him. Once again, that is BIAS.



1) I called you pathetic after you had begun cursing and throwing your fit.

2) You're right, Crossbones shouldn't have busted in to the conversation and raging at you. Then again, it doesn't make you a better person for raging back at him.

3) Pearson isn't going to buy you a card. You and I both know that. He's using you as a puppet to get through to the wiki.

4) Everybody knows that blog is about Pearson. You aren't fooling anybody. The blog itself has Pearson's guild in the name. We aren't idiots.

5) Typical. Somebody writes a ban request, and they begin the cries of bias. Yes, Jack Pistol said that, but in all fairness he was given a warning. We told you to stop cursing and you kept on going.

1. You called me pathetic before I started raging and cursing.

2. Crossbones is immature, power-hungry, and he doesn't have any common sense to know better.

3. I know he isn't going to buy me a card... NOW. He could have, you know. He's desperate for an army.

4. So, the blog has his guild? Yes, I know he wants to rule every country, take over, blah blah. He wanted me to say it was a great idea, but, frankly, I hated it, also.

5. Yes, the wiki IS being bias, even at the slight name of the country "Spain". You never told me to stop, you just waited for a chat moderator or admin saw it. I said "shit", which should be covered. I said "ass", which is allowed. The only thing I said to hurt anyone, including myself, was "dicks", but that's because Crossbones wouldn't shut the Hell up.

~Unsigned Post

From what I can see, this is worthy of a short ban. Simply the language was far too unacceptable. a 2-7 day block for this user. Sorry, tired, bad typing. 05:39, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

How immature of you, Boogie. I thought better of you.

First of all, you know that you cannot make blogs about banned users, especially the most dramatic of all, Pearson. Yet, you decided to sellout the wiki, your friends and what is right for a bloody game card? They cost like $10!

I came in here thinking "Hmm, okay so he got annoyed and started swearing. That is fine, a strike would be more sufficient." but I am starting to agree with the ban now... You have seen me (and other admins/mods) being lenient on the past for cursing when being attacked, so you might have got off with a strike or chat ban (which you got, and I agree to). However, your immaturity and slandering the site and administration elsewhere on the internet has made me think otherwise of you.

You raged for being called pathetic? That in itself is rather pathetic. From what I understand Blastshot dealt with you, and everyone contributing to the argument, including Crossbones, which even Garland agrees was at fault.

And lastly, the thing you cannot get over.... You think by bringing up my one-time mistake that it will excuse all your future actions? Wrong. I had a bad day, I was thinking of resigning and I honestly (yes, honestly) intended to say "shit" in PM to the people I was discussing the problems with. As soon as I noticed my mistake I said "Dang it! Just strike me, or whatever..." but the admins chose to be lenient, like we often are depending on the situation, context and magnitude, and so I was not striked and apologized for it. You, on the other hand, have moaned, whined, sworn, raged, slandered the community, broken several other rules (not only swearing, hello) and expect the same treatment?

Boogie, I have been here for almost 2 years and that is the first time I EVER swore in chat. I have up to now received no bans, strikes and only 1 warning (for joking with Robert, by lying to him). If it means so much to you though, and you really want to see if it in anyway changes your predicament that YOU caused for yourself, I will gladly ask the other admins and mods if I should be striked for that incident.

For now I am, but extremely close to supporting because of how Boogie is handling this, because I was not present so I would rather not make a rash decision. I will wait on other votes.



Well, Jack. To start, I did not sell ANYONE out. I have money for a game card, just no transportation to get there, because I have a strict mother.

Next, this is the first time I have EVER cursed in chat purposely, and I tried to hold myself back. I am not offended easily, but I try to defend myself. And then Crossbones, oh, CROSSBONES, HIS HONORABLE AND WORTHY, makes EVERYTHING worse, for then I start to use vulgarity. If anyone has been immature, it is him.

Everyone gets the same punishment, but for you to? Like I said, this is the first time I have EVER cursed in chat! But, of course I get a ban, and you come out clean? That's not how it works, Jack. I'm not saying I want you to be strike, I'm just saying you shouldn't get off so easily.

But of course, you know all of the admins will support my ban, because the blog had to do with SPAIN. I mentioned Pearson ONCE, and that is because he is the person that wanted this to happen. But, it wasn't ABOUT him. Stop living off of the rumors spread.



It seems like you did to me. You chose to break a rule for a game card from Pearson.

Like I said, Matthew has told Crossbones to stop the immaturity or action will be taken against him. Albert got striked for his actions, and you got banned from chat. You got banned because you broke a number of rules, whereas they, from my understanding, did not. I have no accurate way of checking up on the statement that this was your first time swearing in chat (thanks Wikia) although I highly doubt it.

Once again, using that one instance against me is NOT going to excuse anything you do in the future. Not everyone gets banned or striked for swearing, the admins and mods assess the situation, and make a decision! That is why they are mods, because they know when and when not to be lenient. I have let many people off with swearing, and if I was on I might have let you off provided you stop, but from what I can see you continued and also argued and caused drama, thus the ban. You weren't only banned for swearing. You were banned for swearing, arguing, drama and whatever else you did in chat, not to mention continuing it long after it should have stopped.

If you do not want me striked, then what would you like? I offered to strike myself, but instead I got let off and I apologized, it was an honest mistake, whereas you swore purposely in public chat... at other users. That is already 2 intentional violations of the rules, whereas I made one unintentional violation. However, I don't think that just because I am an admin I should be let off, and I don't want people think I, or the rest of the wiki is bias, so please, what would you like? If you don't want me striked, the next thing below that is a warning.

It was not that it had to do with Spain, it was that it was a message FROM Pearson. That is the problem. We do not allow banned users to make contact with the wiki, especially infinitely banned users, and even more so, banned users that constantly try to do so and stir up drama. Pearson just happens to be the one that does it the most.

I am an admin, I have not supported, but I am close to it. Not because of "SPAIN!" or "PEARS!", but because what I have gathered from looking at the evidence, and how you have reacted to all of this.

PS: I am not living off rumors. I have looked at the facts (screenshots, comments on the wiki, etc.) and made my decisions. The reason I was neutral to start with is that I was not present in chat, and so it would not be a good idea to make a rash decision.



What the actual hell? You don't need to mention me in every single post. There were TONS of people doing things much worse then me, and you only point out me. Typical. I already knew you weren't friendly towards me but I didn't know you act like a complete douche bag for no reason. I HOPE you leave the wiki, and go back to the LOOTERZ or W.I.M.P, your own kind. Freaking dumb ass. Oh yeah, did you know it breaks ToU for a 7 year old like you to be on the wiki. "Strict Mother"? That's bull. You're jut kissing up to Pearson because he claims to be getting you a giftcard. How are ANY of the things I said offensive compared to how you treat me. I'm not a fan of fat asses, so please, leave me alone.

WHY IS EVERYONE HERE HAVING A CONSTANT MAN-PERIOD!? BY GOD, SHUT THE HELL UP!

-- John Breasly ,   Savvy Designs Member  13:41, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

And, by the way, I am taking Boogie's side in this. He's being Pearson's "bitch," so what? He didn't break a rule, because a previous rule cancels out the "No Pearson Wright issues" rule. And even if it didn't, Boogie wouldn't be the first to break that rule, so we'd have to go through and ban or strike every offender. And what about his cursing? Well, knowing the "lovely," community around here, I'd probably curse too. He's provoked with insults, taunts, and slanders, and finally snaps. It has happened to all of us, so just back off him. I swear to God, some of you act worse than Pearson...

-- John Breasly ,   Savvy Designs Member  13:47, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

John, from what I understand he was not banned from chat for only the swearing, if so that would have been ridiculous, especially without prior strikes. It was all the drama, swearing, insults and so on. The reason, I am still neutral on this vote, is that the only thing he did on the wiki was post the blog and do some arguing, he was already punished for his actions on chat... but my vote can still change.



Thank you, John.

Oh, and Crossbones, go home a whine to your diabetec parents about why you're hated at school. Hate you break it to you, but it isn't genetic. Stay out of the conversation. You were as much of the problem as Garland and Goldtimbers.



I go by facts and the rules. Plain and simple. Copied directly from the official rules page:

''13. Please refrain from creation of blogs/pages related to the user formerly known as "Pearson Wright". These cause unnecessary drama and fighting''

No where on the rules page does it mention any "override" of that rule, and to my understanding, it still applies. When I brought this rule up earlier, many people thought this was bias. I disagree. Pearson Wright, as many of you know, ensued so much hell on this wiki through his constant harassment of others, thirst to cause drama, proven cyber-bullying, and overall disgusting attitude. He was banned for a reason. He broke several rules, and ergo, the admins gave him a fair and fitting global block. Anybody object? Yet, when this rule is mentioned, it is called bias... Do you know what "bias" means? Let me give you an example of bias: a new user decides to join the wiki. They have no idea how anything works, and is constantly asking for help, much to the annoyment of the community. Things escalate, and the user is slandered and ultimately banned from the wiki, simply because he/she was new and didn't understand how things worked. Thank God this isn't that type of community. Pearson, on the other hand, has a reason to be banned. There's a reason for anything related to him to be outlawed. Bias is marginalizing someone or something without reason. Therefore, because there's reason, it isn't bias. He's attacked the wiki (just look at his videos), said many brash things about admins and users alike, sockpuppeted several times, and has been shunned by the community. That shun is beginning to fade though, and for whatever reason, many users (especially several newer users who never witnessed the drama he caused more than a year ago), are beginning to pity him. We need to keep him and anything to do with him out of the wiki, as we have for the past year plus. And same goes for his "minions" that visit the wiki. No, that isn't bias either. You know why? They cause just as much trouble as he does. They break rules too. But, because they're affiliated with Pearson, when they're banned, people automatically assume it's because they're affiliated with Pearson, and begin the chants of "bias".

Anybody who's been on this wiki for two months would know that Boogie's blog had everything to do with Pearson, so don't even try to cover it up by saying it had nothing to do with him. That aforementioned rule was also put in place for a reason: to stop drama before it happens. Every single blog published here that relates to Pearson receives much drama from the community. That's no mystery. So, we try to stop the drama at its root and delete the blog(s) before the arguing breaks out. It' a completely fair rule, and Boogie violated it. End of story.

-- Jeremiah Garland 15:02, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Does this crap always have to happen the instant I log off? O_o

Anyways, Garlic summed it all up, so… nothing for me to say here.-- 15:06, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Well, clearly you keep mentioning him ten hours AFTER the incident. You must be breaking the rule, also.

You brought him up with that stupid blog. This is the fighting and arguing (that I mentioned) that ensues. We aren't just pulling his name out of the blue like you did.

Also, can I just say you're not helping yourself with your stabs at everything put against you, and your off-topic yet brash remarks to Tyler, who has already received a warning. Just calm down, Boogie.

-- Jeremiah Garland 15:15, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Garland, at this point in time, I don't care WHAT I say to Crossbones. He's immature, whiny, power-hungry, a perfect example of a "noob". The admin's majority will already be against me, and they'll side with Goldvane.

Alright Boogie, I will be speaking about your last remark about me: "Oh, and Crossbones, go home a whine to your diabetec parents about why you're hated at school. Hate you break it to you, but it isn't genetic. Stay out of the conversation. You were as much of the problem as Garland and Goldtimbers." lol? My "diabetic parents" could own you. My house is in magazines, MAGAZINES lol. My Uncle is actually a billionaire and he could buy your little garbage can of a house. And hated at school, really? You're the freaking phedopile with no life. I have friends, MANY friends. More people then you will ever talk too. I'm done with idiots like you.

My father used to be a BILLIONAIRE because he owned a furniture store. We practically live in a mansion, with 5 bedrooms, 4 bath, 34 rooms. Sun room, entertainment room, library as big as HELL, office, patio, we even have a pond with a bridge.

Many friends? Highly doubt it. You are the most IMMATURE, little runt I have ever seen. As I am not the one the says, " I LIEK BEEF IN MY MOUTH ALL NIGHT, YES? " I have more friends than you'll ever have. You are just too afraid to admit that you're an outcast.

When did this become an argument over wealth and popularity? O_o-- 17:03, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Whenever Crossbones can't insult. He's completely useless in arguments.

-talking in a Sean Connery voice- It is in my expert opinion that half if not 3/4 of this wiki suffer from Pearsonaphobia. The mere mention of this person turns even the toughest of men into scared pussy cats. I say, why not let the man say what is to be said.

We aren't scared of him. We're just sick and tired of the crap he brings here and the drama he causes. By being scared of somebody means you respect them. Every ounce of respect I've ever had for Pearson has vanished, so you can eliminate that theory.

-- Jeremiah Garland 01:25, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Did I say anything about him? No, I didn't think so. He and I were hoping it would bring peace throughout the game, but of course, that idea was shot down. Yes, it may seem like he's trying to take over, which, I don't know, go ask him yourself.

"My house is in magazines, MAGAZINES lol. My Uncle is actually a billionaire and he could buy your little garbage can of a house." -Tyler Crossbones

And what does that have to do with ANYTHING in the conversation? Absolutely nothing. Stop trying to be an internet tough guy, that's just pitiful.

-- John Breasly ,   Savvy Designs Member  10:32, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

DDDDDDDDuuuuuuuuuuuh I don't tink de ponies son amarillo pero yo necesito una job porque yo soy un immigrante. Queiro que trajabo en Taco Bell, y Boogie needs to be dealt with properly. I support. DIDN'T USE THE TEMPLATE, WIN  Talk  

@John: Crossbones is, as Mallace calls is, a lost case. That's the best insult he can come up with.

Oh, and by the way, when will the ban start? Only two admins have voted.

The Halloween background?
My blog has been passed with 20 supports from the wiki. Halloween blog. I was just wondering when will it be uploaded to the wiki?

Request: Complete Banning of any Hitler/Nazi References
I find it offensive enough to any users or visitors with Jewish roots or relatives who died in the Second World War. It's also scaring off potential users. If I came onto this wiki and saw someone posting curved Swastikas everywhere, I would get out of there quickly and maybe even report to Wikia staff.

This would NOT outlaw the peaceful, true Swastika which was not used by Hitler.

Daylight Owl (talk) 00:54, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

, this is very much needed because as stated above, seeing those symbols here can be offensive to people who are Jewish or have a Jewish heritage ^ - Except it isn't.

-- John Breasly ,   Savvy Designs Member 

I If we can't talk about that now, 67 years later, we'll never be able to move past it. Also is an affront to free speech. I don't condone people using Hitler and Nazi references but they should still have a right to do so.. the moment we make the distinction between what is ok and what isn't with this sort of thing, suddenly everyone will be requesting the banning of anything they find offensive. We should just trust each other to exercise respect and common sense.

(not sure if this is an admin-only thing, if so feel free to not count my vote and/or delete this but at least think about what I said.)

 01:26, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

This material can be found extremely offensive to some, I don't believe that they deserve a place on the wiki.


 * 01:36, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * 01:36, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even going to be nice. This is ridiculous. Where should I start?
 * 1) Jewish Heritage - Half of my family is Jewish, by the Third Reich's standards, I am a Jew. I have never once used the words offended to describe what Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party created, performed, and left the world with. It is ridiculous to say you're offended by swastikas and Hitler references, because frankly, you're not. You're just saying you're offended because that's what you've been taught to be "offended by," when in reality, it's rarely offensive at all.
 * 2) Disregard for Veterans and Survivors - I find this to be in complete disregard and disrespect for the veterans of the Second World War, and the survivors of the Holocaust. Just thinking about this is encouraging us to move on and forget the atrocities of the past. Maybe it's easy enough for you, a Catholic, who's all about forgiving and forgetting. But I don't forget. My ancestors died at Nazi hands, and to outlaw me from speaking about their murderers? That is the offensive part of this. Or how about those alive? They can never forget, you can't order them to. Same for the veterans. It's imperative to speak about your experiences, or the horrors will be forgotten. And until history is learned from it will repeat itself. I know there are no veterans on this wiki, but you're teaching this to the future generations, and they'll only learn to shut up at sensitive topics, and they'll never adapt to how to handle these sorts of things.
 * 3) Forgetting History - I touched on this above. Countpr did as well. If we can't learn about something that happened over a century ago, where will we be in ten years? Ignorant to the past. And the past will repeat itself. Speaking of these horrors, even if only by mouth, teaches what we must never become, and what must never happen again. Supporting this tosses education and remembrance to the wind, and says "screw it."
 * 4) Limiting Speech - So, basically, you want to limit the speech of others because it may offend someone? Well then, you all can never mention me unless it's to my face, because it may offend me. And we can never say "The BNO" because it might upset Mallace. See what I'm getting at? You can't limit someone's free speech over the internet because it may offend someone, or you have to do it for everyone else.

Read that. If you don't want to, just stay ignorant. -- John Breasly ,   Savvy Designs Member  02:10, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

this simply cause i was gone through a stage, where i thought the NAZI uniforms were cool. but john is correct at the end of the day it is offensive to me to glorify NAZIs as my grandfather was a British Army Officer and Agent for the British Military Intelligence in WW2 in the heart of Occupied France! He was captured and visciously tortured by the Germans and yet he never gave up! never! by the end of the second World war he was awarded a VC and promoted to Sergeant along with his commanding officer. he said to me once before he died the NAZIs werent the problem, it was Hitler and His fanaticals who corrupted the good which the National Socialist Party of Germany tried to put implace which was freedom of speech and the right to be free of tyranny but once again as throughout history we see what happens to people who arent meant to be in power!!!!

Lieutenant General Richard Venables 02:23, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

<font color=" Alright. Here we go.... "OH MAH FREAKING GOD ITS A SWATSIKA, GOD HELP ME I DONT WANT TO DIE"               That is alllll I see. It is so freaking SAD that you can not get over something that was apart of our history. It was history, it is not like we are spreading the word saying "Kill Jews! Killing Jews is a good thing!" No. Just no. It is a part of, not just the United States' History, but the WORLD'S History. I must agree with John and oppose this entirely. You have to realize that today, in our modern world, that if we had Nazis controlling a Germany with a strong military, then we would be more justified to fearing the swatsika. Guess what? That was more than 2 Generations Ago! We have people who may still believe in Nazism but most are white supremacist groups if not all, and we are not such nor supporting it! In our Modern World, we are not in danger of Nazis, we are in much more of danger (if you are the US or such threatened place) of a Nuclear Iran, Nazis were so fears 2 generations ago.               I officially oppose,

<font color=" 03:45, October 30, 2012 (UTC)          <font color="

<font color=" <font color="

<font color=" As much as I really want to write an essay as John, did I'll keep this short. I oppose. Yes, Hitler killed Jews. But, he also killed several others. I have two immediate relatives (a great grandfather and great uncle), who were both killed fighting in the Underground in Europe. Yet I couldn't even ponder on how I could ever become offended at the mere mention of "Nazi" or "Hitler". It's history, get over it. As long as users aren't making Holocaust jokes, openly showing support of Nazi beliefs and idealogies, etc, this rule shouldn't pass. As John said, it'd be completely ignorant, and, ironically, very dictator-like to outlaw the simple mention of a chapter of history (I'm not calling the admins dictators, chill your horses). They teach it to us at school, so it should be allowed here.

Talk            <font color="

<font color=" Not to bring anyone down, but this is an admin only vote, you wrote all that for nothing.         <font color="

<font color=" ^ @Daylight Owl: They can still hear our opinions.         <font color="

<font color=" Anyways, I oppose the subject. Many of Jewish heritage could and should be offended when they see a swastika, or hear about Adolf Hitler. It is history, the past that cannot be changed. Get over it. You're going to learn about this in school if you haven't already, which should be World/American History. I make Hitler jokes all the time, but never about the Holocaust. So, please, settle your horses. As long as there aren't any Neo-Nazis around, I think we'll be fine.         <font color="

<font color=" Also, though, certain users sometimes spam swastikas in chat, which I find a bit over-the-top.

<font color="

<font color=" We appreciate all the opinions we are getting on this subject, but we ask you users not to fight over this very simple possible rule-change. It is not actually a big deal, your rights aren't being threatened. The worst that could happen for you users who enjoy having conversations on this unique subjects is that hitler and nazi references might be banned. I am still unsure as to this point what my vote shall be. Though I have rarely seen any talk of Nazis or Hitler offend anyone, it also makes our Wiki look rather sloppy, with pictures of and pages named after the Nazis. We have heard enough opinions(From both sides), we do not need anyone to argue on this court page.

<font color=" 14:39, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

<font color=" Respect for Goldvane = lost.

<font color=" That statement has proved you have no regard for education, the veterans of World War II, or individual human rights. I hate to use this, but every time you outlaw how we can speak, you push us closer and closer to a complete totalitarian form of leadership. And the last time the admins supported totalitarianism, O'malley took over. Want it to happen again? Neither do I. I'll be plain and simple - it doesn't make the wiki look sloppy, and it doesn't drive users away. Go ahead and pretend it does, it doesn't. Supporting this is supporting totalitarianism, disrespect towards veterans, and disregard of education. And you literally cannot deny that, unless you're completely ignorant and have no understanding of how life works (like some of you are....).

 John Breasly ,   Savvy Designs Member  14:46, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

Well, to start off, I don't agree with this request, and here are my reasons:

1.) Mention of Hitler and Nazism is only referencing to historical events. perhaps we can speculate that saying things like "Hitler did the right thing" and "The Jewish had it coming" are bad, but mention of Hitler and Nazism is only referencing historical events.

2.) If a user is going to come to this wiki and immediately leave, why would we expend any extra effort to make the wiki more comfortable for just them? I mean, really; if they're immediately going to not only leave the wiki, but report us to the wikia, why should we invite them into our community? In any case, I highly doubt there are rules against the use of "offensive" symbols, like these, on the wikia; i'm sure there are historical wikis that use the same kind of photos when discussing topics like the Holocaust.

3.) (This may not be as valid of a point as the other two i've made, however,) How is the mention of historical events where people died "offensive"? I may be missing something here (considering i've never felt offended before), but how could the mention of a historical event be offensive? My great-grandfather served in the European front of World War II (he survived, though), and i'm not offended whenever people mention the war Hitler and Nazism provoked that he served in.

Yours Sincerly, <font color=" 20:44, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

<font color=" This is complete nonsense.. I'm tired of people making fun of a German Government that did some terrible things. Like 70 years later and people choose to joke around and make fun of Nazis and Hitler. That's pathetic. Hitler was a dictator. Yet you fools joke about what he did. So killing 6 million innocent people is a laughing matter? A War that my own grandfather took a bullet to the thigh for the allies and to stop a power from taking away your liberties and freedoms you all take for granted today. He still has nightmares about no to mention it has progressed his dam alzheimer's is really something to joke about? All those who oppose this are just plain don't give a damm about History. All you children who go around and joke about this are just plain sick. To me this is like your dam 9-11. Let's say your a New Yorker. You see stupid kids making fun of 9-11. Wouldn't you be upset or angry? Note that is an example of how a certain bad time in history effects people. I believe that we shouldn't remove the topic from History discussion in chat but making fun of it, joking around with your photos. Just plain inadvertent and asinine behavior. Think about those Veterans who gave their life for you do not need to live in a totalitarian society. Think about the innocent who have died. Learn from history for it doesn't repeat itself. Mr. Mango you sir are a careless rationalist and you sir are under the impression of being a tool to someone who shall not be named. You are not yourself. I recommend you come back to this Earth with all those who have a mind to comprehend History class. Your thought of wars from long ago have no impact upon the world we live today is false. Everything mostly from the 17th Century to this day have influenced our present day world. Most importantly WWII caused the Cold War which in leads to today. You can believe in whatever but everytime I come on the wiki I don't want to see Swastikas on a POTCO player wiki. GO ON TWITTER, FACEBOOK OR WHATEVER. '''I cannot see how swastikas are related to POTCO. Stop using this wiki as a blogging site.''' In conclusion I myself will not stand to see you all stoke that low to put steriotypical symbols of which leads to a bad believe of evil, dictatorship, mass murder, nazis, corruption, etc, etc, etc. You people made my grandfather yell at me when I was looking upon your black hearted jokes. Stop being children and be mature.

<font color=" <font color=" <font color=" <font color=" <font color="

<font color=" 21:05, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

<font color=" <font color=" <font color="

<font color=" <font color=" Is this only for admins? I dont know, or care. Anyway, this is a website that branched off of a pirate game, and were using swastikas for stupid crap like how they ARE being used? Are you kidding me? I dont care what the hell a swastika was originally used for, but not only is it EXTREAMLY offensive to some users, but its pointless, WE ARE ON A WEBSITE BASED OFF OF PIRATES IN A GAME FOR GODS SAKE. I dont care how many times you tell me a swastika isnt an anti-semetic design but it isnt ethical to use it in todays societyOk ive read goldtimbers statement as of those-'s. You can make all the excuses why you SHOULD be allowed to use a swastika in pictures and other stupid crap you want to post, but its completely unneeded, and this is a website about a Disney game that takes place 250 years before a swastika is even relavent to anything in anyones society! Please, GOD do something about this. -Jeffrey Blasthawk

<font color=" <font color=" I think as true Americans, we need to respect and acknowledge all the veterans who have lost their lives in World War II under Hitler's rule, and the Holocaust history. A ban is not needed, and even if you're not an American, it is history. You can not erase it. <font color=" <font color=" <font color=" <font color=" <font color=" <font color="

Johnny, my grandfather fought in World War II as well.. you're not alone in that respect. They fought to preserve human life as well as to preserve the rights of the nation, which they believed in with enough convinction to die for it. So we're now going to forsake those rights because someone might get offended? The greatest offense will be taken if in fact this is passed, as it will be seen as a symbolic suppression of free speech. While this may seem like a small issue because few people here are neo-nazis and nobody "jokes" about nazis so I have no idea where you got that from.. it really is bigger than that. It's about whether or not we'll be able to talk about whatever we want here, reference any part of history without putting up these ominous veils over the holocaust like its "the unspeakable subject". Doing that not only stops the recognition process so that we can learn from it for the future, it also has the opposite effect: the fact that it's so bad a subject it can't even be brought up just makes it seem that much worse, and will just bring about more fighting, more people using it as a weapon.. it's just a huge mess. This rule should've never been proposed in the first place, it will cause much more trouble than it is worth. The only solution to this now is to shut down the rule, and give this whole thing the cold shoulder. Just don't bring it up anymore, and nobody will post anything about it. We didn't have to lose our rights, and nobody is spamming the wiki with swastikas. Everyone wins. <font color="

<font color=" 04:16, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

<font color=" Completely. It's upsetting to see this request, not Holocaust, Hitler, or Nazi references. This is actually racism. Mentioning Hitler or anything that had to do with him is in no way offensive to Jewish people or the community (at least it shouldn't be unless there's bias and racism within said offended person's character.) It's like saying "All Jews and Germans are nazis." That's an offensive assumption, so in that case it shouldn't be tolerated. But it's honestly infuriating that anyone would request doing away with any mentioning of Hitler, nazis, etc. (This also contradicts strongly with the "No bias" rule.)  ~Madster

<font color=" Ban Request: Jack Goldwrecker.
<font color=" Plain and simple. Three-day ban. I'm tired of Jack's loud, know-it-all mouth. <font color=" I'm done with it. Are you?
 * <font color=" He pretends he completely understands the universe.
 * <font color=" Still occasionally preaches.
 * <font color=" Spams "opinion," when people are against him.
 * <font color=" Trolls.
 * <font color=" Can't hold a real argument, so he in-turn starts accusing people.

<font color=" --<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:4px ridge maroon; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(maroon), to(gold)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, maroon, gold); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"> John Breasly ,   Savvy Designs Member  19:50, October 30, 2012 (UTC) <font color=" As you can see, I did mess up and go out of hand, but nothing deserving of a strike. Come on, you just do not like me, and I know it. Calm down, and I will. Stop judging me, harassing me, and accusing me and then I will be able to think.
 * <font color=" I don't pretend that. I actually and honestly just say what I know, and you yet you come and say things, like this, that you suddenly "claim" that I said when I didn't.
 * <font color=" I never preach. I try not to, and I don't want to if it gets you mad. You, however, never tell me when I preach, so how do I know when I'm doing it?
 * <font color=" I only spammed it once today. I never have spammed it any other time. I admit I did it to get John mad, but he had already done some crazy stuff that got me exetremely mad.
 * <font color=" I don't troll... That is plain ridiculous.
 * <font color=" I never accused anyone in this political "debate," in fact, it was Boogie who did a lot of the accusing.

<font color="

<font color=" Let's add this up here. <font color=" Only when you do that same.
 * <font color=" You claim a lot more than you know, and deny it when it comes back to bite you.
 * <font color=" You still preach a lot. Denying so would be completely foolish.
 * <font color=" So you admit to spamming, and to trying to get me mad. Trolling at it's finest.
 * <font color=" Addressed above.
 * <font color=" You don't accuse people? Please. If I have to, we can get the logs where you blatantly accused us of several different things.

<font color=" --<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:4px ridge maroon; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(maroon), to(gold)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, maroon, gold); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"> John Breasly ,   Savvy Designs Member  20:04, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

<font color=" For now, I'm but leaning towards  simply because I think Jack's preaching has decreased and his attitude on the whole religious topic (as well as mine) has gotten better. Still, he may be doing it and I am unaware. I'll wait to see how this plays it before giving a definite yay or nay.

<font color=" -- Jeremiah Garland  <font color="

<font color=" I came onto chat today to see Jack calling someone "not a true Christian" because his system of beliefs was different than Jack's. I argued that according to his own religion, only Jesus can judge people. He acknowledged this and said he wasn't judging. W...What? He was clearly saying that for reason X, person A was not a "true" Christian, and thus, Jack, being presumably a true Christian according to his own standards, was better than him. That's judging. While he never made that claim, that's the effect it had: it gave Jack an air of superiority and was judging someone's beliefs in a negative manner. We had a long talk in PM after which he said I should "leave him be". When I said that in order to not be judged he has to not judge others, he refused to accept this and said I was confused, that a Deist like myself could never be "enlightened" and that the conversation was over.

<font color=" Later, when the political discussion started, he responded to Boogie's escalation of the chat to using caps and being rude and closed-minded about other people's standpoints by doing the same thing Boogie was doing, then after the fact trying to blame Boogie for the whole thing. I think both he and Boogie should receive a short chat ban for this. I can confirm that he was spamming "OPINION" - 7 times.

<font color=" I kinda feel bad about this because I really want to like Jack and I can see he's at least trying.. but he really needs to get passed this idea that he has a right to judge other people because "Jesus gave that ability to his followers", and that he's the only enlightened person out of all of us. I'm sorry Jack, but the reality is that you don't have any special right to judge us anymore than anybody else has to judge anyone. It's a double standard to say that he can judge others because Jesus said he could but that we can't judge him for doing so. He needs to accept that we all have our own opinions on both religion and politics, and as far as the political chat goes, he needs to learn that fighting fire with fire doesn't work. <font color="

<font color=" 21:58, October 30, 2012 (UTC) <font color="

<font color=" What I did was try to shut you the Hell up whenever you started to quiz me politically. I told you I was busy EDITING something, and you continued on. That's when I got rude, telling people to "stuff their cornholes with butter sticks."

<font color=" Other than that, I did nothing wrong except defend my beliefs.

<font color="

<font color=" I'm on this with Garland, I want to see how this turns out, then I might change my vote.
 * <font color="
 * <font color=" 01:39, October 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * <font color=" The Fat people have spoken - Neutrality is the key to life. (#tacobell)
 * <font color=" Mall_minecraft_sig.png  <font face=Pristina size=5px color=Black>Talk  

<font color=" Revised: Banning of Hitler's Swastika
<font color="

Revised. <font color="

<font color=" This is pretty self-explanatory. No, this will not ban the mention of Hitler or the Nazis, just the curved Swastika. <font color="

<font color=" Reasons:
 * 1) <font color=" Has nothing to do with POTCO anyway, Hitler's Swastika wasn't made till.... well, not 1745.
 * 2) <font color=" Showing this image pretty much means you blame the Jews for all the world's problems, which, not to sound like an idiot, is offensive (o:)
 * 3) <font color=" Commn sense? Hitler's Swastika doesn't have anything to do with history except for the fact Nazis used it in WW2. So don't attack me and say "you can't ban history," and etc.
 * 4) <font color=" Could result in our wiki getting is trouble. Big trouble.

<font color=" Oppose -Still completely ridiculous and offensive. I could list off tons of reasons for you here, but for now I'll just address yours.     1. Lots of things on this wiki have nothing to do with POTCO, gaming, pirates, or the time period POTCO is said to take place (those things include pictures).      2. So the swastika represents the cause of the world's problems, huh? I don't think that at all when I come across a swastika. It's a symbol of the Nazi party, just as flags represent countries. When you see a flag--or so I would hope--you would think of the country it stands for. You wouldn't think "They went to war and killed people!" Lots of countries did; so how is Germany different? Your statement that showing the Swastika is blaming the Jews for the world's problem is highly offensive.      3. It represents history, and no you can't ban it. Just because you don't care for what it represents does not mean it should be banned. 4. It wouldn't get us in "big trouble" at all. In fact, disallowing it could. It's biased and, frankly, racist. Why don't we just ban any pictures of flags here? No more allowing symbols of what your country stands for. That's basically what you're asking.

<span lang="EN" style="font-family: 'Helvetica','sans-serif'; color: #3a3a3a; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN">  <font face="Viner Hand ITC"> Mad  ster  <font face="Viner Hand ITC""> was here

<font face="Viner Hand ITC"">

<font face="Viner Hand ITC""> <font color=" <font color="

<font face="Viner Hand ITC"">

<font face="Viner Hand ITC""> 22:53, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

<font color="

<font color=" <font color="

<font color=" So you're saying it's racist to dislike a racist group? <font color="

<font color=" And yes, it is history. Barely. There is still a Nazi movement, or something like that. <font color="

<font color=" I'm sorry Madster, but you're arguement is invalid because this is an admin vote. <font color="

<font color=" Actually, she can still put in her opinion, so it isnt invalid. Also, "Showing this image pretty much means you blame the Jews for all the world's problems, which, not to sound like an idiot, is offensive (o:)" Lolwat. That's not at all what it means.... you have no knowledge of the Nazis...

<font color=" --<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:4px ridge maroon; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(maroon), to(gold)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, maroon, gold); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"> John Breasly ,   Savvy Designs Member  23:04, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

<font color=" I see no reason to get rid of a certain symbol because it had a bad history. I took so long to vote on this because of school work. I agree with Madster about that we don't need to get rid of the symbol. --23:08, November 1, 2012 (UTC)  <font color="

<font color=" kk :)

<font color=" Daylight Owl (talk) 23:14, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

<font color=" Per Madster.-- 23:35, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

<font color=" SSC is Unneat
<font color=" Alright, what the actual hell is going on here? I come on and go through requests but have no freaking idea who is proposing, or voting and in some instances saying! I think we might need to make some formal rules for the SSC. Such as using signatures with coding that can overflow into the next post and cause mass chaos. Or better yet, actually using signatures. I don't want to bloody well look through revisions to see who said what! It is quite ridiculous. If users want to put their opinions here than they better do it properly, because they are actually just spamming up this page. I think some rules and requirements should be typed up among the admin/rollback team later.

<font color="   <font color="

<font color=" Lol Pistola. Sadly, it's true, certain users are not signing posts and we don't know who said it! Then of course we have to look at revisions which is also ridciulous, and is it just me, or are we going to need to archive this again soon? <font color="

18:43, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

<font color=" Now Jack understands why I get confused on the SSC at times! I try to figure out who said what with revisions but it's hard at times, so I have been seperating messages using ~Unsigned Post.

<font color=" Election Request
<font color=" Note: Please read the whole thing, or you will jump to conclusions. This is not what you think.      Hello, all my fellow wikians. I come to you today in hope that you will hear out my request, reading this as a whole, and hopefully taking time to think about it. Now, like I said, think about this. The upcoming election for the presidential office, wether it be President Barack Obama or Governor Mitt Romney, will end in four days. Due to this and the campaign for Lord Marshal, I have came up with a new idea. An idea, in my opinion, that will prove exetremely beneficial to the wiki. Here it is:

<font color=" An election process, directly and exactly copied from the real actual presidential election. Debates, campaigning, and all. The elected member would be called the "Wiki President," "Wiki Executive," "Wiki Representative," or "Wiki Governor." Now, here's the process:
 * <font color=" THE PRIMARIES


 * 1) <font color=" A candidate must decide to run first, and check at least two admins. If you have any type of ban (chat or wiki), you can not run until they expire. If you have more then one strike, you also can not run until that ban or strike expires.


 * 1) <font color=" Next, the candidate must make a blog announcing his decision to run. You don't need and you shouldn't go over your beliefs and plan(s) in this blog, just an overview to the beginning of your primary campaign.
 * 2) <font color=" You will know be enter the primary election. A page will be constructed (made by me) where you and all the other candidates will post your political party (not that important, but remember, this is to be like reality), your name, and you will make a medium-length statement about your plan for this wiki, how you'll help it, details, etc.
 * 3) <font color=" You have two months to campaign, with the primaries taking up two weeks. Due to this, time is key. Any ban during these two weeks and you are eliminated. More than one strike and you are eliminated. Throughout these primaries, you are suggested to make many blogs stating your beliefs, in which these you will give more detailed descriptions of your vision for the wiki, etc. everything not covered in the previous blogs and descriptions.
 * 4) <font color=" Now, after a week and a half, the admins will hold a vote for the rest of the week. The vote will decide between the six candidates. (maximum candidates for primaries) Whoever wins, moves on. The admins will choose two candidates to campaign for the remaining month and two weeks. The two candidates must be two different parties.
 * 5) <font color=" The two candidates will make a blog stating again their vision (you can add stuff, you know), and they will state their process.
 * <font color=" CAMPAIGNING
 * 1) <font color=" Now, it is time to campaign. During this period of time, you will have a series of debates. You will also choose a running mate. The debate will go as following.

<font color=" Ok, I know there will be some controversey here. Actually, a lot. However, I don't want that to make this go opposed. Politics is my dream and my passion, and maybe others here to. I also think this good be great for the wiki. However, I know you're all asking, "but, don't we already have a president? Isn't that why we have admins? Do we really need this? How much power will be given?" Ok, first off, there will be a fine line between an admin and the election winner. Let's say the winner is Bob. Bob would be the representative of the community, and would hear out their demands and complaints and requests. Problem? Go to Bob. Bob will have direct contact to the admins, and will get things done with them. The winner will be a chat mod and rollback automatically, but not an admin nor anything higher. Therefore, Bob is a bystander. Bob will hear out both sides of the story. We can't have raging opposite forces. We need one trust person who is not biased, and will view problems from the sideline. This way, we can solve and help our wiki. But we can't just elect some dumbo, so that is why the process of election is so complex, even if it sounds so unneeded. And imagine it, basically a real election taking place. Wouldn't that be fun and exciting? Bob would not be put above or equal to the admins. Just a person who represents the community as a whole, and helps fix the problems by viewing things with a neutral attitude.
 * 1) *<font color=" The two candidates and the moderator (admin) enter chat.
 * 2) *<font color=" There will be an audience, but they will agree to be silent. If someone types anything besides the mod or the candidates, they will be kickedbanned.
 * 3) *<font color=" The debate willl last half an hour. It will be divided into two halfs of fifteen minutes.
 * 4) *<font color=" The moderator will ask questions concerning the wiki and how they think of it. (I will go into more detail when and if it passes)
 * 5) *<font color=" The candidates will have two minutes each to answer the question, and then they will enter a general discussion and debate. Once this is over, they move on to the next. (Discussion time may be limited due to time's sake.)
 * 6) <font color=" The running mate (vice) will be choosen by each candidate. They must have no bans on them, and only one strike if any. The running mates will campaign with the two candidates, making speeches and blogs also along with them.
 * 7) <font color=" At the end of the two months, a vote made by the admins will take place. The vote will start on the third week of the second month, to give time to vote. At the end of the vote, the votes will be tallied up between the two candidates. If it is a tie, the vote will go to the admins, and they will vote. However wins will be announced by an admin of choice made by the winner. (the winner is notified in PM.)
 * 8) <font color=" The winner will give a new speech or blog stating again, what he will do, and review anything he or she would like to say.
 * <font color=" AUTHORITY OF THE WINNER

<font color=" Example:

<font color=" Jim Logan is requested for chat mod promotion...

<font color=" Admins contact Bob, and aks what he thinks. 

<font color=" Example:

<font color=" A guy threatens the wiki or there is controversy...

<font color=" Admins contact Bob, and ask what he thinks we should do

<font color=" Example:

<font color=" Users feeling too much power given to admins...

<font color=" User contacts admins, informs them in an un-biased way, and solves problems with help of admins and users.

<font color=" Example:

<font color=" Too much use of chat, no true usage of wiki...

<font color=" What can we do about it?

<font color=" It's Bob's job to think about it, plan events to help it, etc. 

<font color=" POWER COMPARISON:

<font color=" Admin can ban.

<font color=" Bob can ban. <font color="

<font color=" Admin can promote and demote.

<font color=" Bob can not promote and demote. <font color="

<font color=" Admin can enforce rules.

<font color=" Bob can enforce rules. <font color="

<font color=" Admins are the people put in charge of the wiki.

<font color=" Bob is neutral. He stands as the "leader" of the wiki with limited but balanced power, but in a non-biased way that will not create controversey. Bob is not in charge, just is a way to balance power and give an insight on both sides of the stories, and how to fix issues, etc. <font color="

<font color=" Please, support this, and give it a try. If you have doubts, tell me! I will settle them for you! This will not become a popularity contest, and I have already thought about preventing it, and thus the election process is complex and long.

<font color=" Please, think about it.

<font color=" 02:27, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

<font color=" Gonna have to this. The SSC court is meant to be the main connection between the admins and users. We don't need people to be that connection... The court is enough for that.

<font color=" because this is a fan wiki for Pirates Online not a political place. I don't really think this is needed to elect people for admin/chat mod or rollback. I think this is also a waste of time for the chat. The chat is meant to a be a place to chat with people not be quiet watching a boring debate. I don't mind people talking politics in chat but this is too extreme for the wiki. I think this is way too much for a wiki that is meant to enjoy pirates online. We come to the wiki to chill and talk not get all official in chat. -- 03:13, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

<font color=" for now, waiting on other opinions. I see some good and some bad in this, so I am going to touch on both. This idea looks fairly good in terms of its proposed cause, but in the context of the wiki, and our users, it might not be such a good idea. I see some stuff was added since you spoke to Parax and I, some I am fine with, others not.

<font color=" Firstly, I do not agree with the person being called the Wiki President, that is Katbluedog and it should stay that way. I also do not think they should be the "leader" of the Wiki. That is basically taking Kat, throwing her out the window and putting some guy who won a popularity contest in her place. Kat is our "leader" and from what I understood this person that would be in this election, that I shall be referring to as the "Representitive", would represent users and not be some leader.

<font color=" I am sure you noticed I called it a popularity contest and not an election, that is because of the wiki reacts to this sort of thing. Everyone will want to be a candidate and win, but that cannot happen which causes much drama. This could also definitely turn into a power grab. The Representitive will have user rights now, and additionally a leadership role on the wiki. What non-admin/non-mod would not jump at the oppurtunity? Very few, is the correct answer.

<font color=" Another thing I can foresee, is that this will tear the community apart. During the campaigns and voting there will be, without a doubt, loads and loads of drama and fighting. Something we really do not need. People who say support one candidate, would be in all-out war with people supporting a different candidate, breaking up friendships and even tolerance among acquaintances. I do not like that.

<font color=" I also don't like the idea that Bob can enforce rules. That will make things extremely hard for him to remain objective to both sides of the community, and for the same to happen to him. When you take on special roles, such as mod and admin, a lot of things change. You have to be completely objective when dealing with issues, especially people you are not fond of or are your friends. If Bob is put in an admin/mod role, that will definitely change things and how he must handle users. That is very far from neutral. This may also cause people to become upset with him, when he enforces rules on them.

<font color=" I will now discuss how this could become a power grab. It is very simple actually, people will see that becoming a candidate gets them a shot at being the leader of the wiki, and chat mod/rollback so they jump right in. We have seen many many requests in the past, all trying to get some position of indirect power: Voice of the Players Wiki, Players Wiki Page Inspector, Players Wiki Represntive, etc. All of them unnecessary, and rather more like a power grab.

<font color=" This is one of my biggest issues with this, the Representitive becoming a mod and rollback. Now, like I said, this will cause a clash in the Representitive's role, it could spark power grabs and so on. This worries me because we are trying to go the slow route on promotions again, giving the user time as rollback and if they do well, then to chat mod and so on. This will mess with that system, as well as the conventional system of users being chosen on merit to gain special rights, and not this "election". This will also thrust this user straight in to a fairly big responsibility here on the wiki, besides just being the Representitive. Chat Mod is not an easy adjustment, and you need to get a feel for it first, before you are successful. Then, what happens if they start screwing up as a mod? Do we just remove that from them and carry on? Sounds like more drama to me. Then, when the representitive's term ends do we just demote them again if a new person gets elected or do we make both of them mods? I don't like either of those ideas, because with the one we will have to many mods, and the other we will have constant changes between mods.

<font color=" Other simple minor things I do not like include: the time taken for this process; users can always contact admins anyway (a middle man is hardly necessary); "A guy threatens the wiki or there is controversy... 'Admins contact Bob, and ask what he thinks we should do" we have been admins long enough to know hot to handle these things, going to a guy who is new to it seems useless. 

<font color=" Now I do see some good in this. A representitive for the community can't exactly be a bad thing, if done properly. I also think the election could be fun, although I do foresee a lot of drama that will arise from it.

<font color="

<font color=" @Jack, Ok, they don't need to enforce rules, or be chat mod or rollback. And also, he or she could be called "Representative," "Governor" then. I only added the middle man explanation to assure you that the winner would not be equal to the admins, just a trusted representative of the community. Also, the real elections don't tear the community apart, and it won't be any different then how things are now (with the real elections taking place.) Also, I said chat mod because it would give the candidates more to work for. Throughout this process, the goal is to get to know the community more and be more responsible and trustworthy for the community, and if they know how to do it right, you would promote them (again, there would be only one chat mod, and in the next four months they rerun again.) You don't have to promote them if they aren't ready. Also, for Kat, we can take out the debate part. That wouldn't work good I guess.

<font color=" And also, I guess I'm just trying to get the rep. to be like the POTUS, but without all the power. Basically, something worth running for :P Also, why would it create any more drama than what we have going on now with this EITC election?

<font color=" @ Step @Kat, don't you see any good in this? It would prove fun for the wiki, and would be something new. Give it a chance please, and then we can stop it at any time. You've also said that we don't need an "admin," and that this is not needed. That makes me think that you didn't read the whole thing, because I explained all this. :P

<font color=" Please think this over, I bet we can make this work.

<font color=" 13:48, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

<font color=" I have not read the entire request, will do that at some point when I am probably bored, but by what I have seen it seems like what Jack (Pistol) has said is true. This seems unneeded and a power grab. I myself don't care much about political debates, so I can not say anything good on that point, but the whole idea of someone gaining power, if not in actual admin/mod powers but in gaining a title and a status, then I would say no. I remember the time when there were admin reps or whatever the heck they were called. People jumped at the chance to be one, including myself. I thought it would be fun to have the chance to help the wiki, but I don't know if I could say that for the other people. It became a mess, and was removed a week later. I am not going to officially vote yet, since I have not read the entire thing as I mentioned before, but I am learning towards opposed at the moment.

<font color="

<font color=" A Request Regarding a Certain User
<font color=" I believe that a ceratin user named Voxelplox has had a certain role-to-play for the wiki, but he has not been online for a certain amount of months, which I find certainly suspicious. I do believe, from a regular user's standpoint, there be a demotion request put forth soon.

<font color="

<font color=" As per our policy, Voxelplox will not be considered inactive until the 16th of this month. When that time comes, he will be notified and warned and if it continues, and the rest of the admin team agrees, something will be done.

<font color="   <font color="

<font color=" If he wanted the job that much, then he would come on regularly, which he can if Stphen, you, and Lawrence can. That takes desire. If we send him a letter, and he does come back, maybe for a few days, then goes back inactive. That would be that he is ignoring his job on the Wiki and ignoring its health and users.

<font color="

<font color=" As Jack said, it will wait until the 16th.--17:33, November 3, 2012 (UTC) <font color="

<font color=" Afterwards, if he leaves after a couple of days/weeks.

<font color=" Agreed with Jack and Parax. We wait until the 16th, then give a notification. If he comes back for only a week, then we will have to demote anyways, because he would technically be still inactive.

<font color="  <font color="

<font color=" Well yes I've been inactive for a while, but I'm trying my best to come on atleast.

<font color=" "If he wanted the job that much, then he would come on regularly" I cant be on all the time, like I was a few months ago, because I have schoolwork, and some other projects going on. But when I am on, I try to fuffill my position and duties the best I can. And also to mention, being a chat moderator, means I need to moderate chat, well, I've be on chat numerous times, doing just that. I'm a busy person, it shows effort that I try to come on and do my job.

<font color="

<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:12px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:40px; border:3px ridge #23238E; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#FCD116), to(#FF0000)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, white, black); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 8 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"><font color="#000080">Voxel plox Ƭalk <font color="

<font color=" That is quite true, I have seen Vox on chat numerous times in the alst few months. He just rarely edits on the wiki, except for the occasional comment. He is not entirely inactive, but rather less active than he used to be. Curycoo was totally inactive, and would only return in random bursts and not for very long.

<font color="

<font color=" Promotion Request: Lord Andrew Mallace
<font color=" Mallace has been on this wiki for a while. Although he was broke a few rules, I think he will not be bias as a chat mod/rollback. I think he would be very responsible with this job

<font color=" - Basil Brawlmonk

<font color=" This request is null and void considering only admins can submit promotion / demotion requests. (If it was legitimate, I'd :P)

<font color=" -- Jeremiah Garland

<font color=" @Request-

<font color=" You aren't goldvane :3 This requst is void.. And secondly, due to the whole BNO drama, I think before anything like this was made the community would need to chill out. I would happily decline this (and its void) because i don't necessarily have the best repuation- and with that, usually, no good things are to come.

<font color="  <font face=Pristina size=5px color=Black>Talk  

<font color="  <font face=Pristina size=5px color=Black>Actually, I think you would do a good job, Mallace, maybe even as good as Yours Truly, BoogieMango. <--- Awesome writing.  

<font color="  <font face=Pristina size=5px color=Black>  

<font color=" Well, this request is unvalid as Garlic has said above, because only admins and burs can create promotion requests, which would go directly to a blog post once the admins voted on it in an administrative discussion site. We are currently trying to decide between A: zero tolerance policy and B: More chat mods. If B is chosen I can easily see Mall being on the candidates list, but for now it will remain in administrative discussion. Thank you for your suggestions. (-Slowly hands Basil a bag of money for making a promotion request-. Now Mallace will support on my next promotion blog, whenever that is xD ) 13:32, November 4, 2012 (UTC)

<font color=" Brawlmonk made the request. :P

<font color="  <font color="

<font color=" because he is always trying to push admins to their limit, making fun of users, not to mention the sexual references. ~Unsigned Post

<font color=" @Boogie - Oh, edited. :P 16:21, November 4, 2012 (UTC)

<font color=" Welllll Mr. Goldvane, I know all of you admins love some insightful insight from the Garlicdog, so I'll just say this... Go with plan B. Knowing the crowd here on the wiki (whom I love so dearly), going with the Zero Tolerance Policy will result in a LOT of unhappy campers, and presumably several long Breasleblogs (not necessarily written by Breasly himself, just in that style), which are always coupled with a myriad of unbridled drama. Not to mention I've recently found myself on chat often where there are no chat mods... Sometimes, not always, but yeah.

<font color=" -- Jeremiah Garland  <font color="

Why the hell wasn't this published sooner?! Great guy, user-friendly, semi-responsible and a good sense of humor…

<font color=" Wait, this isn't valid?! You bastards. :/--03:29, November 5, 2012 (UTC) <font color="

<font color=" RE:Jeremiahs post

<font color=" A chatmod isnt needed on 24/7, but if one isnt on and someone does something bad users should always report it with our one of a kind report button :D ( or... am I thinking of another wiki/site with the report button.. hmm im sure we have one :D )

<font color="

<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:12px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:40px; border:3px ridge #23238E; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#FCD116), to(#FF0000)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, white, black); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 8 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"><font color="#000080">Voxel plox Ƭalk

<font color=" Wiki Revival?
<font color=" So, for the past few weeks I've noticed there is a dramatic lack of activity, and that the userbase is alot smaller, I think we need to revive the wiki, as it starts to seem there is a lack of content to create, now I've summed up the most edited types of content, and it seems the wiki is more oriented towards Roleplay, which is fine, but I think we need to diversify the wiki, like the old wiki was ( where people wrote stories, fan characters, etc, ), which as I like to think of it, was a creative time.

<font color=" So I think we need to change somethings, the current way works, but it could be better like the old days, :)

<font color=" This isnt really a vote, because I think we all agree that we need to diversify our wiki, so it is not mainly roleplay, but also contains lots of active content in fan pages, stories, plays, etc,

<font color=" We should think about..

<font color=" These are just a few ideas, but I do think we need to think about new ideas, and ways to improvhe wiki. :)
 * <font color=" Stricter rules ( No tolerance policy, infact, we did vote on this a long time ago, and it passed, now we just need to enact it, right? )
 * <font color=" Come up with new ideas, reward people for being creative ( a point system possibly? Users can gain points by the content of their pages, users can give pages points, and points go to its author(s), possibly? I'm sure we can sort out the technical bits.. or we could have some contests..
 * <font color=" Not quality standards of pages, but award pages for being good quality, such as a star ontop of its page, with a link to a list of good quality pages, this is smaller then Featured article of the week, and will encourage more people to improve their work ( everyone wants a star right? :D )
 * <font color=" For roleplayers, work on the neglected roleplay space, seperate background for its pages, forum, extra fun stuff :)
 * <font color=" Recreate an energetic community!

<font color="

<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:12px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:40px; border:3px ridge #23238E; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#FCD116), to(#FF0000)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, white, black); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 8 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"><font color="#000080">Voxel plox Ƭalk

<font color=" Ooh! This looks nice. I think I 1, 2, and 3. 4 is a bit unneeded, I think roleplay is good the way it is. If approved by the rest of the council, I will start to work on the award system. I think it is a great idea. 00:45, November 7, 2012 (UTC)   <font color="

<font color=" Gentlemen: let's face it: this wiki's glory days are over and we are forseeing its doom. I've been here since the second month of the wiki. I've seen too many users come and go, like James Warhawk, who unfortunately left us because of my greed. Really, the glory days were when Pip was still around. And the end could be in another year. It could be another week. Whether it's due to loss of activity, or we get busted. All I know is that this wiki is running out of time.  <font color="

<font color=" Forgive me, but this the truth in my eyes.

<font color=" Daylight Owl (talk) 01:10, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

<font color=" I this with everything I got, you KNOW I do, but do you REALLY think more then half the community would support this too?

<font color=" The Vital Element 13:03, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

<font color=" I dont see a reason why people wouldnt support it, and Daylight Owl, actually on lots of wikis I've been on, the topic or general attidude changes, like on one example, its factual, but eventually all topics on the game are covered, and articles are so perfect ( think the sims wiki ) that they have to think of new ideas of what to do, so they started creating fanon portals.

<font color=" Either way I stand away from the point, we need to do that, think of reviving the wiki, either come up with new ways to get people to be active, or continue on how we are, we dont need new users, we just need the level of activity to increase, I can see edits made 5 hours ago in recent changes, shouldnt we want to increase activity, and make the community more constructive ( not that it isnt )? <span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:12px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:40px; border:3px ridge #23238E; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#FCD116), to(#FF0000)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, white, black); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 8 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"><font color="#000080">Voxel plox Ƭalk

<font color=" So basically, let me sum it up, we need to broaden our reach, broaden what we write, and from what I can see, the wikis more social ( chat is more dominant then actual editing ), so we need to incorporate that into things, and focus on the active aspects, ( so making it more social, etc ) and focus on boosting less active areas ( fan fiction, writing, etc )

<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:12px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:40px; border:3px ridge #23238E; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#FCD116), to(#FF0000)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, white, black); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 8 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"><font color="#000080">Voxel plox Ƭalk

Vandalism Prevention
With the recent vandalism, I think there should be something done that works more for preventing it in the first place, rather than blocking the users after it's done. We have something already that blocks users automatically when it senses vandalism, right? I was wondering if it's possible to make something similar to that. This is my suggestion: When a user makes their first edit, they automatically are run through an IP check to see if they match any others for sockpuppeting or a liability for vandalism, or they are pinpointed and set aside for the admins to check. And since the IPs of vandals don't always match others, the thing we already have (immediate block for admins to edit after vandalism is detected) it could be edited (if possible) to block vandals after just one page content deletion/replacement. And to really step it up, there could be a change where admins and page creators only could physically make edits to pages. I'm not sure that any of this would be possible, as it calls for some reprogramming, but it would probably be effective to prevent vandalism in the first place. Short version: -Immediate block of users after one page content deletion/replacement is detected by editing the system we already have -Running new users through an IP check after their first edit automatically or set aside to be done manually -Making it physically impossible to edit pages unless you're the page creator or an admin (or make it where the page creator/admins can determine who edits the page)

Again, I'm not sure that any of this is even possible, but of it is, I'm asking the admins to consider, even if it's difficult to put in place. I know vandals may do anything they can to vandalize and this likely can't prevent things being added (like the pornography), but it could do a lot. Thanks :)        <span lang="EN" style="font-family: 'Helvetica','sans-serif'; color: #3a3a3a; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN">   <font face="Viner Hand ITC"> Mad  ster  <font face="Viner Hand ITC""> was here 17:25, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

I think this is an outstanding idea, and would looooooooooooooove for it to be in place. Thing is we don't have that stuff (yet?) But Mads, that is a great idea. Maybe you could suggest it to Wikia and who knows it could be put in place soon? I am not sure, but once again great idea. 17:37, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

Great idea. Jim and I have also been talking with administrators on Community Central about possibly installing a WikiBot that automatically detects and bans users. We definitely need something done about this.

-- Jeremiah Garland 17:40, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

This sounds very helpful! Unfortunately, I don't think this feature exists, but perhaps you could get in touch with Wikia? We are currently thinking of any ways to stop the spammers/vandals but haven't come up with anything yet. We are open to ideas! Personally I think these immature children will give up eventually but why not prevent "night owl" users from the trouble of undoing this mess?? 17:44, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

I can ask wikia staff about the suggestion if this gets enough support from the admins. I have an email ready to send if I get the O.K.    <span lang="EN" style="font-family: 'Helvetica','sans-serif'; color: #3a3a3a; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN">   <font face="Viner Hand ITC"> Mad  ster  <font face="Viner Hand ITC""> was [Special:AbuseFilter]]ayers.wikia.com/wiki/Madster%7C here ]|undefined 18:28, November 21, 2012 (UTC) |undefined
 * <font face="Viner Hand ITC"">Sure, why not?-- 18:31, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

<font face="Viner Hand ITC"">This would be great, however, I have no idea if the feature exists. Go ahead and send the email to Wikia, they will hopefully consider it.


 * I think Special:AbuseFilter can autoblock someone who blank's an article I know you can disallow someone from making an article blank. 70px-Terror_of_the_High_Seas!.png Sharple  Talk Page  20:50, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

And I think Sharple is the smartest person here :O  <font face=Pristina size=5px color=Black>Talk  

@Sharple, the abuse filter blocked some of the vandalism already. The abuse filter also did a range block on the first night. I wouldn't mind adding more to the abuse filter. I don't really how to use it since Tama did it. I don't think we can something to check IPs, it doesn't exist yet. This is a good idea but we don't have the ability to do this yet. The best solution we have is to add more abuse filter blocking options. -- 21:44, November 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * ') -- Lord_Blake.png UNKG0001.gif 00:02, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

I sent an email and got a reply just now:

Tim Quievryn, Nov 22 03:46 am (UTC): Hello,

Thanks for contacting Wikia. Sorry to hear that vandalism continues to be an issue on your wiki.

In short, no, sorry but none of the mechanisms you suggest are currently implemented in MediaWiki and as such I have no way to turn them on. I do agree with some of the community members that the best thing to do is simply improve the current AbuseFilters you have in place. I would strongly recommend consulting User:Randomtime or User:Sactage. They are Wikia volunteers who are very, very good with AbuseFilter syntax (plus they are VSTF, so they can probably figure out the vandalism patterns) and would probably be highly willing to help write some new filters for you guys.

Timothy Quievryn Wikia Community Support Team

<span lang="EN" style="font-family: 'Helvetica','sans-serif'; color: #3a3a3a; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN">  <font face="Viner Hand ITC"> Mad  ster  <font face="Viner Hand ITC""> was here 04:06, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no quite such a thing does not exist. We have the AbuseFilter and I think a spam filter, but otherwise not really. When a user has their IP blocked then they are auto-blocked if they try to edit anyway, so I suggest IP blocks from now on for vandals (we do it mostly anyway).

I don't really think we need to worry too much, this is the first serious event in a while and can be dealt with.?



Wiki Newsletter?
After Sharpe and Benjamin left the wiki, the newsletter production stopped, losing both of its writers. I was wondering if I could write new wiki newsletters, either with another person or myself. I know that the newsletter wasn't a large part of the wiki, but it was still nice to have. I really think that bringing back the newsletter would be beneficial. Thanks for reading this request.
 * 04:07, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 04:07, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

I you doing the newsletter again. I like reading the newsletter about activities on the wiki. If you can find someone to help, I agree. -- 04:10, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

Greetings from Ankara. I had some free time, so decided to check up on the wiki through one of the hotel's computers (I left my laptop back home).

Concerning this matter at hand, I completely agree that we should start the newsletter back up. If you talk to Goldvane and / or Parax, they'd tell you that I've talked to both of them recently about me starting up the newsletter. That being said, I'd be very much interested in restarting the newsletter along with you. My qualifications: I'm a co-editor of my school's newspaper; consider myself a decent writer and a better journalist; I'm a complete grammar Nazi; traditionally, the newsletter has been written cooperatively by rollbacks (which you and I both are); and, as I've said, I've expressed interest in restarting the newsletter for a while now. G-Man, if you're interested, I'd very much like to write it with you. We could either take turns doing it (you do one month, I do the next), or straight-up co-write it.

Do think about it, I'd love to help write it! I gotta run now, I'll catch you guys in a couple days.

-- Jeremiah Garland 04:37, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

It would be great to co-write the newsletter with you.
 * 04:40, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 04:40, November 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. I think the both of you would be perfect for this. Good luck!
 * JPSig1.pngJPSig2.png Admin Seal.png
 * Oppose- Sorry Jerry I hate Nazis, Nothing against your views but the Jewish popoulation did nothing to you..
 * The_roleplayers.png <font face=Pristina size=4.5px color=Black>Talk  

Lets get the wiki ready for Christmas
Okay our sister wiki has gotten their Christmas stuffs up already http://piratesonline.wikia.com/wiki/Closed_Vestwithawesome snow flakes falling ^_^ and I was wondering if we can bring up our Christmas theme up to the wiki now. Sadly I won't be able to make a Christmas background for the wiki :( but I can try to make one on my schools computer. If there is someone else who can make it please do so we can get into the Christmas spirit. Oh yes @Kat I made this for the wiki :P on Thanks giving day. I don't think anyone noticed my wiki post card blog xD http://potcoplayers.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Marc_Cannonshot/Wiki_Holiday_Postcard_2012:_Happy_Thanksgiving!

Very nice for the Christmas spirit :3-- 21:18, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

Unban Request: Blake Stewart/Tyler Crossbones
Okay, I'll be very quaint here. Two weeks for using an IMAGE on a signature is just plain RIDICULOUS. I'm not even going to do the flattery. It's a damn IMAGE that he added. There is no special power embedded in the image. It is 100%, without question, an image. It does not give him the power of an admin, and he was not trying to imitate one for any harmful purposes. Undebatedly, that is the most ridiculous ban given for a first offense. I shouldn't even have to make this. It should've been three days at most! Now, this isn't Tyler's first offense, so maybe his should be a bit longer. But seriously, two weeks for using a powerless image? That is honestly the most childish, most over-reacted ban I've ever seen issued on a wiki. Grow up, and learn to have tolerance, it would make you a lot more popular.

--<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:4px ridge maroon; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(maroon), to(gold)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, maroon, gold); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"> John Breasly ,   Savvy Designs Member  22:35, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

I, using an image I think is not ban-worthy. And if an unban request doesn't pass, I think we should at least lower the ban length, 2 weeks for an image?
 * 22:38, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * 22:38, December 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * <span class="diffchange diffchange-inline" style="font-weight:bold;color:red;white-space:pre-wrap;font-size:11px;">I <span class="diffchange diffchange-inline" style="font-weight:bold;color:red;white-space:pre-wrap;font-size:11px;">. Blake is somewhat new to the Wiki, and he wouldn't have known better, since it wasn't even in the RULES, and still ISN'T. Has he ever done wrong to us before? No, at least I don't remember, and I am on chat nearly every day, LONGER than ANYONE else. I occupy activity as every now and again. This IS truly the stupidest ban that I have ever seen. It's pathetic.


 * <span class="diffchange diffchange-inline" style="font-weight:bold;color:red;white-space:pre-wrap;font-size:11px;">BoogieWeirdSig.png


 * If memory serves me correctly, it was mainly the fact that they used Kat's signature here on the court. I am not going to vote yet.


 * GLSeal.pngGen_sig.pngLawrence_sig.png
 * I don't think the ban was just for the image. It was for using admin signatures on the SSC, a talk page, and page comments in which Kat's signature was used many times. We have already been discussing this in an admin forum for awhile, as Blake issued an apology on his talk page. I think 2 weeks might have been excessive, but nonetheless this was still considered spam as well. Same as Lawrence, I am going to wait to vote. GoldvaneSig.png 22:51, December 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * Tyler and Blake used my signature and Goldvane's signature to impersonate us. Tyler used my signature to say I hate everyone on here. He also used it tell Goldvane that I was demoting him for no reason. Tyler also told a brand new user that they were banned for "not liking them" using the rollback image. Blake used Goldvane's signature for impersonating as well. Is that enough proof to let them wait out the ban? So I vote and they can wait out the ban. -- 23:03, December 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * While I agree that a two weeks ban for using an admin's signature is a bit harsh, I will remain simply because what he did was breaking a rule, disrespectul, and ergo worthy of a punishment. Also, it should be noted that at least twice now he has ban-dodged, which is in itself against the rules.
 * -- Jeremiah Garland [[File:Rollback @.png]] 23:35, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

At first I was going to, but then Garlic brought up an interesting point. So… I'll be for now. Still, leaning towards support.-- 00:09, December 12, 2012 (UTC)

SUPERCALIFRAGISLISTICEXPIAKATBLUEODOGSPECIALGENLAWRENCEGOLDVANEJAROD.

That is all, thank you for your time.  <font face=Pristina size=4.5px color=Black>Talk  

I GREATLY They Are Clearly not ready to come back and should serve their punishment

- basil brawlmonk

So, basically, Tyler did something bad, Blake used a signature as a joke once, and they both get two week bans? In all honesty Kat, I think you're just upset they used your signature. No matter what argument you can try to give, two weeks for Blake's first offense, which isn't even stated in the rules? I thought we were better than that, but maybe not. As for Basil, this isn't a matter of them being "unready to return," it's a matter of the ban outweighing the crime.

--<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:4px ridge maroon; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(maroon), to(gold)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, maroon, gold); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"> John Breasly ,   Savvy Designs Member  20:48, December 12, 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that Admins' who had their signatures used shouldn't really make the decision on this request as their view is in a way biased because they were the "victims". Victims feel different and biased rather than fair judges. I personally believe 2 Weeks does not seem long (but I am biased myself as I kind of not on good terms with these two people) and know how they feel. But from a fair person's perspective, it is in fact a little long.

21:02, December 12, 2012 (UTC)

They can wait out the bans. They have 5 more days. We banned them based on an admin team decision. The length was decided by the team not just me and Goldy. -- 21:10, December 12, 2012 (UTC)

Well there are Admins rethinking after seeing some points from others, Kat. This is why the discussion is open again, there isn't anything wrong with that is therre?

21:48, December 12, 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the whole "no using the admins' signature thing" simple common sense? Sure, it's not in the rules, but I don't think the admins were expecting to have to deal with something like this when they wrote them (they can't predict the future). Plus, it's not all that subtle that the admin signature is for admins only when the only people signing with it-- ever-- have been... well... admins. Just saying, and I am on the ban length issue >.>

Cher Bear &#61;D (talk) 22:07, December 12, 2012 (UTC)

While John makes a valid point about this being his first-ish offence ( John said it wasn't his first and then said it was his first, and I don't even remember if it was or not, so I am unsure on that ), Garland, Kat, and Cher Bear also bring up good points. We didn't expect to have to write down every possible offence out there, and this was basically something that users should have known not to do. Blake and Tyler were both guilty of this offence, which ends in like 4 or 5 days. It's not like they are going to jail, they are being blocked for two weeks ( add schooling and that's about 1/5 weeks ) from a POTCO fansite. I change to for the following reasons: 22:20, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) As Cher pointed out, we cannot think of every offence to add to the rules.
 * 2) As Garland pointed out, the ban is nearly over, so all they have to do is wait a few days to be unblocked.
 * 3) As Garland also pointed out, Blake has bandodged several times now, which should  have boosted his block time, but we chose not to increase it.
 * 4) Other reasons I listed above.

I agree with the points Gold has made. It is impossible for us to have guessed someone would do this. Who would have guessed people would have tried to take over the wiki back a a year ago at least? No one. Well, it wasn't written in the rules, was it? No. It's called "unwritten rules," also known as common sense. They still apply even though we may not specifically say "If you do this you get ban."



I now after seeing Blake's attempts to ban-dodge.


 * 01:09, December 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Bandodging is, as stated clearly in the rules, subjecting the offender to a prolonged ban. Blake has done just that. Multiple times. While the main offense itself was not serious, he's proven he can't take the punishment.
 * -- Jeremiah Garland [[File:Rollback @.png]] 01:57, December 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if any administrators care, but he tends to not even be caring about his ban. if it's supposed to make an impact, then how is it that he edits pages freely, using his own signature, and nothing happens to the account he is on...? IF I could, I would propose to extend the ban length, 1:
 * Because of the mass amounts of ban-doding that has happened and the fact that he still has yet to take responsilbitily for his actions, and
 * 2: The Ban hasn't had any affect on him, He has only sockpuppueted and ban-dodged, and edits frequently with no consequence. He isn't learning anything by attempting defiance.
 * And I quote from Garland's POTCO vs. Minecraft blog: "Yes. I reset my I.P :P"
 * The_roleplayers.png <font face=Pristina size=4.5px color=Black>Talk  
 * Perhaps two weeks was harsh, but using other users' signatures is not on, especially when you use an admins to try stri up trouble. Since it is only a few days left, they did deserve punishment and their is a case of ban-dodging, I.
 * JPSig1.pngJPSig2.png Admin Seal.png
 * JPSig1.pngJPSig2.png Admin Seal.png


 * I love how people overlook Tyler's ban because Blake ban-dodged.
 * LieutenantNigel (talk)

Chat Strikes Organization Proposal
There's been quite a bit of mix-ups recently concerning the chat strikes page, and when a strike should be removed. In a nutshell, this proposal is to create a slightly more efficient system to avoid any and all possible confusion that could result from the way we usually do it. For example, say a user has received two strikes, and they currently have two strikes down on the "chat strikes" page. Well, the way it is now, only the date of their most recent strike is recorded; not the first one they've received. It can be quite difficult to know when a month has passed before their original strike can be expired, when we no longer know the date for it. We could go through the page history to pinpoint when they received the original strike, but that is very strenuous. Therefore, I propose a system in which we display the following: name of the person who gets the strike(s), the reasons for each individual strike, the date they got each strike (as opposed to just the most recent one), and, if they have three strikes, the length of their ban from chat.

And in addition, we could also have a designated admin / chat moderator who goes through the chat strikes page daily, and, with the date of each individual strike shown, can clear out any month-long expired strikes.

Thank you for reading and considering.

Cheers,

-- Jeremiah Garland 03:09, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

Would help in organizing a lot.-- 05:14, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

We really need a new system to organize the strikes. I completely agree with this idea. -- 06:03, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

, this is needed.

We need this to keep things sorted and so that there is no confusion or controversy.



. This is needed. I have had some confusion with this particular system. 15:51, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Block for user 81.89.60.232
First, he vandalized one of our newest pages "Spain's Empire" and wrote "Pears is till king of Spain dumbasses" anyways, I didnt bother to screen that. Admins can look that up in history. I then assumed, it was Pearson Wright. I checked his I.P. and this is what showed up... Pearson Wright, used IP sramblers to ban - dodge last time (hint). Therefore, I think he need to be banned.

Matthew O'Malley
Well, we just got rid of Leon, and now another blast-from-the-past is requesting to be let back on the wiki. Jim Logan and I have been speaking to Matthew O'Malley (User:The 7th Master) in a separate chat. He is requesting his infinite ban on the POTCO Players Wiki be overturned, claiming the reasoning for his banning in the first place was invalid. Also, he says that if the admins do not immediately "release a statement" concerning his ban, he will get a wiki moderator involved. In addition, he claims that he has changed for the better, and his only intentions on our wiki are to be a faithful editor. He states:

"Okay I think it's about time I said it! I waited long enough for the admins to decide whether or not to let me back on the wiki! I promise to abide by all the wiki rules as long as the admins abide by their code of conduct set down by Wikia ToU. I have changed for the better. I have even been helping your wiki even though you people continue to have me banned. I am doing right by your wiki, I only ask you return the favor to me. I'm not asking you to let me back as an admin, I'm asking you to let me back as an editor. It's a new year, leave the past behind us. I am ready to return, I've learned my lesson. 'Thou shalt not do harm unto thy neighbor for thou convene under thy neighbor's jurisdiction' is a motto I am choosing to carry. So please let me back. Forgive my past sins and let the new year be filled with joy for all."

I am completely neutral for the time being. I have very little knowledge on what exactly happened to him, all I know is that he attempted to take over the wiki (as an admin), but was ultimately permabanned from the wiki by Tama. But, as we have recently given Leon two weeks to redeem himself on the wiki, I don't see why we can't give him a week or two to see how he does. Regardless, I will stay neutral for now, as I am completely in the dark to O'Malley's relation with the wiki and the situation at hand, and was simply told to make this request. Thanks.

Cheers,

-- Jeremiah Garland 04:08, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Give him two weeks. Then we shall decide. 04:15, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

I think Matt deserves another chance, if he is faking it, we can ban him again, but we really should just let him back.

Livewire Logan (talk) 04:39, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Only because of the threat to get a Wiki Moderator involved. You will not get unbanned because of threats.

O'malley has shown me his true colours recently. He hates us simply for not unbanning him. If he unblock him due to a threat others like Wright and Redbeard will use the same tactic. 05:06, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

I strongly. Why? What good would it be to let him back? It ruins the point of infinite bans. I think it would be stupid to let him back. Who cares if he changed. If he really wanted to be an editor here, here wouldn't have done what he did in the first place! Its easily said to change, but not easily done. Another chance? Gee that sure worked well when we gave Pearson another chance a long time ago.. I doubt Matthew would do anything bad, but still it defeats the purpose of an infinite ban especially when he makes threats. And the above quote doesn't help, it basically looks like hes begging to come back. He says hes been helping this wiki, how? Also Jim, it makes no sense to ban him again if hes faking it, don't let him back in the first place. Also, of course you would support this.. he was the one that talked to you about it, and most likely convinced you entirely he should be back. Rules are rules. If someones banned, they should be banned. Theres my 50 cents <span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:12px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:40px; border:3px ridge #23238E; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#FCD116), to(#FF0000)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, white, black); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 8 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"><font color="#000080">Voxel plox Ƭalk

Well, I've had a good half-hour to think about it, and I'm going to have to go with oppose as Benjamin said, what's the point of having infinite bans if we're simply going to let everybody back, because they claim "they've changed"? Maybe he has changed. I don't know. But I'm a strong believer in taking responsibilities for your actions, and when O'Malley attempted to usurp control of the wiki, he has to pay the price. I think we need to stop being so sympathetic, and let him serve his punishment. When Tama granted him an infinite ban, he was implying that that ban would indeed be infinite. I'm also not a huge fan of O'Malley's threatening us, either. So I'm going with a strong no.

-- Jeremiah Garland

DUHHH I DO NOT KNOW WHY U SUCH A HATER! CAPATAAINN GOLLLLD VEIN U HATE HIM CUZ HE BLACK? i See how it is. I could hate Jack Pistol just beacuse hes Asian African (which I do) but I don't!     If my vote counted I would vote support because we need positive members like him and tha admins are abusive (especially freaking jarood.) also some of our mods aren't intellectual enuf to b stupid so i call them rocks. Toodlez  <font face=Pristina size=4.5px color=Black>Talk  

Im with Mall on this one. He knows what hes talking about. <span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:12px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:40px; border:3px ridge #23238E; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#FCD116), to(#FF0000)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, white, black); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 8 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"><font color="#000080">Voxel plox Ƭalk

No thanks, I. He has been let back after his initial infinite ban and, like with all other users, it does not work. O'Malley was banned for literally taking over the wiki by demoting the other admins and destroying a lot of stuff. I fail to see how that makes his ban invalid.

He has come and ban-dodged here many times, so no, he has not waited patiently. O'Malley also does really weird and random things, that hint to instability. One time he begged me to help his noob on POTCO, and after a while he got bored, raged on me and said he was quitting because the game was communist. I saw in the recent war between Britain and Switzerland (or whatever), how he took things too far. He kept messaging John about how he surrenders and John can take him captive or whatever... And in the game he found Goldvane and I, and started going on about "THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR. DO IT! KILL ME!"

Also, if we allow O'Malley back that sets a standard that we can go back on all infinite bans, which is poor leadership. It makes me feel like we will change our minds to easily and not stick to our guns and do what is right. We cannot just keep giving in, or even considering giving in, because it gives these banned users hope that if they keep pestering us they will be unbanned.

No.



Can I remind the admins to remove regular user's vote templates, as this is admin-only... I did the favor of removing the non-admin vote templates for you and replacing them with regular words.

--<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:4px ridge maroon; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(maroon), to(gold)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, maroon, gold); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"> John Breasly ,   Savvy Designs Member  14:50, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I think:

Let's take two people who he will most likely use as to why he should be unbanned.

Slappy and Leon.

Slappy

Why Slappy? Slappy attempted Wiki Takeover and was only banned 3-4 Months for it, rather than infinite, which points to some things, don't you think? Maybe I'm wrong

Leon

Why Leon? Leon has socked god knows how many times (Prince Leon, Goldloather, James, and others) and was infinitely banned on all of them and was also, when he came back, given the chance to redeem himself! If we had any sense we would have banned him Johnny on the spot. Period. O'Malley also socked as Olivia Bishop whatever the hell is the rest. And only once, unlike our friend Leon.

But now since we did it with Leon (a black list user, in my terms, someone who is to never come back) why not O'malley? I mean it's only fair. And once again as I said with Leon,  if he hasn't changed then we ban him like that. BAM! Gone. I bring this point not because I like O'Malley.

By the way we do things, it is only fair which I must urge to tell Admins:

We must think MORE before we act. This Leon thing can already start firing back, because, as VSTF, with what I said on my screen, I'd unban O'Malley. It's simple logic. With that in mind I think we should all consider what might happen.

You say Redbeard and Pearson will use that same excuse to be unbanned as well, and I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to as well because, using the logic of what has happened here, it's only fair. But, the thing is, O'Malley didn't misbehave and cuss out everyone and anything of the sort from what I understand. (I could be wrong so don't quote me) He was banned for wiki take-over and socked once. Never let back.

I am personally neutral on the subject, but those are just points to consider. And I sure don't know much so you're going to have to educate me,

Sincerely,

16:28, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Albert, I must disagree with your logic. You are basically suggetsing we allow this whole Leon saga, which we just ridded ourselves of, happen again. No thank you, the drama has been quite enough. O'Malley will not be returning. He has already messaged me a whole lot of stuff about him wanting to help the administration and so on, but frankly, who said we want his help? He has been the cause for many problems here and I am not keen to let him back, nevermind help us. We have let him back in the past and he has sock-puppeted many times and caused trouble. He is no better than Leon.

I think it is ridiculous to drop our standards and back off from what we should be holding strong too. We cannot do things and keep on changing our minds, because of "second chances" or whatever. That, in my opinion, is poor leadership. Decisions must be made and kept to, which is why I was very upset with many of my fellow admins and mods with the recent Leon saga. They were all up in arms and ready to have him banned, and make a vote. Then when the vote is made, Step and I were the only ones who held true to our word. Garland, Gman and Par changed around all the time, and although I dont want to attack them on this I am not very impressed with them for it. Sure, maybe the community vote was a mistake, but almost everyone agreed to Leon being banned, so if these individuals had stuck to their guns, stood their ground and fought for what was right (which happened in the end anyway) the vote would have been over sooner. Thus, less drama. Checkmate, geniuses. If that didn't make sense allow me to ellaborate - I am saying if all the people (I am looking mainly at the special rights members) had stuck to their word, the vote would have passed sooner, because support would have kept the upper-hand and less people would have jumped ship to oppose.

John brought up a decent point, that he likes when an admin votes, even if it may be the wrong vote. Although, I think the right vote is always the best (then again, it is a matter of opinion on what is right and wrong) this is very true. The admins are here to lead and be strong, and that means taking a solid stand in a vote. Now, I can understand an initial neutrality, to better assess the situation at first, but before it ends the admin/mod should make a vote. I know this is slightly off-topic, but it is part of my point with O'Malley and I need to get this frustration of my chest.

Allowing these black-list users back gives them hope that they may always have a chance to return. No such thing should exist, because they should never return. They were banend forever, and they are not coming back. O'Malley mentioned that the fact that a user who no longer uses Wikia, Tama, banned him, his ban is invalidated. That is utter stupidity and a desperate attempt to convince us to let him back by bringing up senseless points just so his argument seems bigger. It is like saying that when a judge who sentenced a criminal to life in prison dies, the criminal should be released. Unfortunately, that does not suddenly make your crimes non-existant.

He also wants to get a "wiki moderator" involved. I am not sure if he meansstaff, but once again that is either a poor threat or a useless idea. They do not care that we banned him, because we did so validly. They will just be annoyed by the drama he is creating for them. He also mentioned something about keeping him on a pedestal for the world to see to display Tama's might, but this made very little sense and I suspect is once again random crap he thought up to add to his senseless argument, or it is some form of an ego-boost, because he thinks that is how much we care/worry about him. Hahaha, good one!

In short - no.


 * um exchooz me. we changed around all teh tiem as a joak. we were going 2 change bak 2 support on teh last day.-- 03:45, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

I am also not going to reply to him, because I know he will read everything I say here. I do not wish to play his game by humouring him with my responses, nor do I wish to have contact with him or be a member of that wiki. If I think up some comical senseless arguments (which is how I see his), I might engage him.

He also just said something to the effect that we are unfiar in chosing who we be lenient to (implying Leon, I guess). Well, firstly, I did not allow him back - it just happened and was dealt with. If we were so lenient to him, why did we ban him? He also added that we won't get any respect for this (I assume from him) - how disappointing, as O'Malley's respect is the one thing I have always strived for in my life.



I don't see any reason to allow O'malley to come back to the wiki. I also completely agree with Jack. He makes some very good points about why we shouldn't let him back. He was banned for a very valid reason. He has also had too many chances to prove to us that he deserves to edit here. We have given him multiple chances to come back but he breaks the rules every single time. He also creates new accounts to ban dodge. I appreciate that he tries to helps us but we don't need him to be unbanned. At this point, I think he shouldn't come back. -- 18:01, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Matthew O'malley should not be let back into the wiki. The reason for the ban was completely valid. He has tried to dodge his ban multiple times using alternate accounts. As Goldvane said, he hates us for not unbanning him, why should we let him back?
 * 03:01, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * 03:01, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Unban Request:Prince Leon the Mango
--Goldvane did this illegally put him on suspension o_O i don't see any opposes besides his Uhhhhh yeaahhhhhh I just to eesayy.. well first off, PHilipinos DO HAVE SOULS...... so yeah.

But secondly: I think pearson iz bahhdd por de brain.

Basically, the adminz r abuseve and if we donz act we shall be taken over. We must unban leon now! Viva la communism!

in other notes, I request the unbanning of pearson wright  Leon because I think hes actually a positive member of the community

????

15:59, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Jokes are no accepted on the Court. They are funny on chat or blogs but this is for serious matters only.

19:19, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

How dare you consider it a joke~Unsigned

Your corrupt attempts shall fail, Spark. Ghostvane rules, BWAHAHA xD ~unsigned

Mango, what IS this nonsense?!



Demotion Request: Voxelplox
Where to start...

Well, I believe Benjy's time as a rollback should be quite finished. He has clearly shown over the last few days that he is not capable of handling what power this wiki grants him. He has started several fights with myself and others in chat by mocking and jeering us, and then demanding we "stop fighting" and warns us when we defend ourselves. He abuses his position in the roleplay council to challenge me. His newest creation "Extension of the RP Council" is directed at me, and was only created after a fight he instigated in chat.

He had shown completely irresponsible and immature qualities by fighting with users, and using his power to suppress others. Not to mention he only appears once every so often, and causes drama whenever he appears.

Now, I know what you're going to say: "You're just doing this because you don't like him.  Plus, what damage can he do if he's mostly inactive?" I'd like the admins to really consider this. Every user with power I've called out early has been ignored, and later caused immense problems, resulting in their demotion. Would you rather cause a bit of drama now and avoid a later time bomb going off, or would you rather let it tick away until an even bigger fight erupts in the future?
 * I, infact, used to consider Benjamin one of my best friends.  It's apparent that the feeling is no longer mutual.
 * 1) He can cause a lot of damage if he's mostly inactive.  What would be the point of keeping mods who rarely appear and do anything unless it pertains to them?  It makes the wiki look bad to have inactive mods who return and assume they understand the whole situation when they don't.

--<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:4px ridge maroon; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(maroon), to(gold)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, maroon, gold); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"> John Breasly ,   Savvy Designs Member  02:50, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Even if he is here, he is making pages on The British Goverment which is a total spam page. He has not done anything that rollbacks need to do either. 02:53, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

As per rule thirty-eight, this request is invalid as users may not create demotion requests for users with certain privileges.

-- Jeremiah Garland

As per an unstated fact, that applies to demotion blogs, not the SSC. The SSC is used to request the creation of things like demotion blogs.

--<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:4px ridge maroon; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(maroon), to(gold)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, maroon, gold); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"> John Breasly ,   Savvy Designs Member  03:05, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with literally everything you accuse me of, but I wont even bother saying anything else..

<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:12px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:40px; border:3px ridge #23238E; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#FCD116), to(#FF0000)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, white, black); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 8 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"><font color="#000080">Voxel plox Ƭalk

Hmm. Well, Ben has been a bit more active recently. I wish you two could stop bickering, but it appears that is impossible. It seems more like this is a personal issue between you two to me, but I will state that the British Government page and the fact that Ben isn't very active sets some red flags... for now, will see other opinions and then vote.

I'm sorry if the wiki isn't my biggest, and highest priority. I have been more active lately. Also it isn't a personal fight between John and I, because there isn't really any fighting going on. Its simply; if someone tries to stand up for others, and tell John he isn't the King of the World - he gets mad at you. And we can certainly see that in previous demotion requests hes made. The British Government page was a joke and wasn't meant to make anyone mad. It was more or less a parody of some of the pages that shouldnt belong on the wiki, like the What if pages ( as in What if you were a cartoon character or something like that ) All I have shown is maturity, and the ability to do my job properly.

I'd like to elaborate on the activity part, in no way has my inactivity harmed the wiki. It is worse for an admin to be inactive in my opinion right now, because we have a lot of chat mods on the chat. I have not failed my duties as a chat mod, or rollback you can clearly see that in chat. I also understand the rules of the wiki. I am trying to increase my activity, and you can certainly see that, and my activity will increase.

Now, John has a history of losing his temper when people point out that he''' is not the king of the world, and the most powerful wiki user on this wiki that can start a wiki rebellion in seconds, and can kick out whoever questions him. '''I'm not going to go any further, because I don't want to get into a conflict here, but he also tends to think he is above the rules. Which he is not, nobody is. Also, I've noticed, if John gets a strike on chat - he will sometimes demand the chat strike to be removed. Is this the person you think would write a reasonable demotion request? Am I really that bad? I sure am handling this a lot better then when his demotion as an admin was requested. Also lets look back into the history of demotion requests long ago, which were all made John, I think he wanted to demote Parax before? Tama63? Sharple? Is this one any different? Its made out of anger, not real facts. What have I done, that really makes me a bad chat mod, or rollback?

<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:12px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:40px; border:3px ridge #23238E; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#FCD116), to(#FF0000)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, white, black); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 8 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"><font color="#000080">Voxel plox Ƭalk

I could write a lengthy essay on how I think you're wrong, but I think I'm just going to bullet point it to get the general point across. Instead of defending yourself, you resulted to degrading me and stating that I'm incompetent and selfish. That doesn't look nice on your part, considering one of the reasons is insulting users. Along with that, you've proven to me and anyone who reads this that you have little ability to combat the facts that were brought to attention, and you would rather draw attention away from them.
 * The only, and by only I mean the only excuse people ever use against me is "He thinks he's the king of the world."  I think there is ample evidence enough to disprove that as being a bird cry for people who have a lack of "dirt" to hold against me.
 * Yes, Benjamin, the BNO was a joke as well.  Unfortunately, admins and mods shouldn't be making fun of other pages.
 * I don't think you're the person able to judge your own actions in a discussion referring to you.  What you may have seen as appropriate and mature may be interpreted by everyone else as immature and rude.  And in reference to you "doing your job properly," what exactly do you do, other than lay around in chat and give your opinions on countless topics, resulting in fights brewing?
 * Oh look, someone insulting me because they don't have any good defense for themselves.  How quaint.
 * It would appear that I often demand the strike be removed.  Normally because it is issued on inappropriate grounds, or was issued out of malice.
 * My attitude towards people has little to do with my ability to sense when a figure of authority needs to be removed, and it's fairly funny how you mentioned that.
 * I was also being lied about, Benjy, and attempting to defend myself rather than degrade others.
 * Unfortunately, most of my demotion requests worked out to have come true anyway.  Jz, Sharple, Skull... all of which caused excessive drama.  All of which could've been dealt with easier had I not been ignored.
 * This demotion request has been compiled of 100% facts, and the proof is in your face.  You posted it, in fact.  You degraded me rather than attempting to argue the facts I dealt.

My competence has little to do with how legitimate this request should be. Despite my motives, I presented nothing but facts and logical reasoning. You, on the other hand, presented an inability to defend yourself, and an ample ability to insult others, and attempt to turn the tables - which does not work in your favor, lad.

--<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:4px ridge maroon; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(maroon), to(gold)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, maroon, gold); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"> John Breasly ,   Savvy Designs Member 

Deletion of the role play council
Well, this has been over a lot of peoples heads.

Reasons:

-Does not fix drama

-Role play lived without it

-Not a lot of new players on the game, therefore, no noobs will claim anything.

-Our roleplay system is giving users who hardly/if ever play the game more power because they're active here. Ex: Garland/Mallace.

03:11, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

I have no comment other than your above statement is false (And I am STILL an HCO..) and the Roleplay council has established a fundamental ways of organizing and structuralizing the Wiki.

Alright, I'll tackle this point-by-point (obviously, I ) Now, lastly I'd like to say that my reply will most likely be reprised with much bitter argument and castigation. Doing so will only better improve my point in that England is fighting hard to destroy the Council for not very good reasons. Even John himself made the analogy that the RP Council is like the United Nations, and that England is like the United States. Whether John knew it or not, the United States is actually quite unpopular in the UN, and power is shared by all 193 members, not just one. True, the USA is in the UN Security Council, but so is six or seven other equal countries. Point is, nobody or not one country should hold unlimited power over all other countries. The Roleplay Council is here to maintain an equal balance of that power, and while England may hold the most prestige, it is not in their place to suddenly declare all other countries null and void, proclaiming themselves rulers of the universe. Doing so would clearly be power-hungry which, ironically, they have accused us of.
 * While you may not notice it, we actually do fix drama. When was the last time you saw a major argument on the wiki about SvS scores, or some noob claiming made-up or nonexisting land? We've created a system so players must make requests to claim countries before they go calling them their own. While this may appear controversial to some, it has reduced arguments dramatically that existed prior to the council's formation. While asking the council to claim countries is not the "traditional" way of "acquiring" countries, it is certainly much more organised and prevents confusion, and more importantly, prevents inexperienced roleplayers from acquiring nations they cannot lead. All people wishing to claim a country must send in an application explaining why the want the nation they've requested, what experience they have, and must show that they understand a subtle amount of background knowledge and history of the country they wish to claim. Each application is considered and voted upon by each council member. This process is literally the only function the RP Council serves, we aren't the tyrannical oligarchy several make us out to be. Rest assured, we have indeed created a very organised system that has greatly reduced drama.
 * True, roleplay lived without the council. But, didn't the independent United States of America live for 13 years without the US Constitution? Didn't the Kingdom of England prosper for about a century and a half before their historic document, the Magna Carta, came into effect? Point is, roleplay as we knew it two years ago, when it was just beginning, was very... limited. I see the Council as an embellishment to roleplay; a step forward in organization. Our main goal is to form and maintain a healthy, fair roleplay community, and that's exactly what we've begun. Roleplay was extremely calm and happy up until about three weeks ago, when random outbursts from various gentlemen associated with England, for very insubstantial reasons, suddenly wished to have the Council shut down. Nonetheless, Blake, you're relatively new to England, are you not? You're also fairly new to the wiki as well. I and several others have been roleplaying long before you have, and I don't think you're really in any position to judge how roleplay was run before the council.
 * Going back to my first counter-argument, really the Council's primary function is preventing inexperienced roleplayers ("noobs") from claiming random countries. In requiring an application to be filled out and agreed upon by the council, we've eliminated this possibility, thus reducing arguments, controversy, and confusion. Now, as the game becomes less and less popular, you are correct in that there are therefore lesser people becoming interested in roleplay, and thus lesser people to wish to claim lands. However, this does not automatically deem the council redundant. We will continue to do our duties, and do them to the best of our abilities and with the best intentions.
 * Now this is the big one. Your mistake here, Mr. Stewart, is that you are under the impression that the council's main goal is power. I don't blame you for thinking this. I find that whenever anybody on this wiki disagrees with anything, they claim it is either A) corrupt / bias, or B) a power-grab. I can assure you the Council is neither of these things. There is not a single member of the council who seeks power as you claim; that is logically impossible, as the only "power" available on this wiki comes through promotions, which is not related to roleplay. Secondly, I've sung this song a dozen times, but I shall sing it again: the wiki and the game are two completely separate institutions, and should ergo be treated as such. I understand that the wiki is based off of the game, but nowhere is it written that everything on this wiki should operate exactly as it was / is operated in the game. We have, in a way, established our own sect of roleplay here on the wiki that is not similar to roleplay in the game. In the game, there are a few major countries competing for power, whilst on the wiki there are several countries and very little conflict. Needless to say, several disagree with one method, and agree with the other. It's no secret that many gentlemen associated with Great Britain have come to hate the council and prefer roleplay the way it's been operating in the game. To this, I say excellent. England rules roleplay in the game, no doubt. But why do you so desperately wish to expand your influence to the wiki, where we have clearly established our own method(s) of roleplay? Our system is not broken; only you claim it to be broken out of disgust and ill-will. Several times I have heard said various gentlemen associated with England pronounce their disgust for the wiki... while on the wiki. This is what I simply do not get. If you hate the wiki so much, why stay here? If you only like the way roleplay goes in the game, why not just stay in the game? We're quite happy with the way we roleplay: why must you ruin it for your own interest? The way I see it, you have three options: submit to our form of roleplay on the wiki (I don't recommend this), stay on the game and avoid the wiki (again, this may not be the best option), or simply let us roleplay how we want to, and we'll let you roleplay as you want to. We're not saying England has to love the Roleplay Council, but, despite what you think and believe, the Council works. Even if some of us can't get on the game, the Council still runs a very healthy and happy roleplay system right here on the wiki, and I see no problem with that.

Cheers,

-- Jeremiah Garland 06:24, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I think I am going to be, temporarily. I want to see other votes. But I will say I am leaning towards oppose because there isn't much provided that convinces me the RP council is unneeded. I understand roleplayers don't like follow other people's rules, but we need to have organized roleplay here as well. Both the council members and the members of the England country claim each other are "powerhungry", or "corrupt". I need to look a bit more closely into this, gather some opinions, and then I might finally cast my official vote. I also would like to see other votes and opinions here. 17:10, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

For the same reasons as Garland.-- 19:58, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

For the reasons that Garland stated.
 * 02:58, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * 02:58, January 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * I see it as being very important for the wiki going forward, were we are bound to see some form of conflict arise ( dont say this wont happen, because it always happens ) and we need someone to deal with the smaller countries, and to make sure roleplay on the wiki is updated and maintained. However, we also have to please the users since this is a democracy, and give them a say. I think there is a large majority of people that dislike the RP council, but yet a large amount of people that do like it. We need to take into consideration that this wiki is a entirely different institution then the game's roleplay ( as my friend Garlic said ) . This being said, they aren't forcing you ( I'll use England as an example ) to do as we do here. If you hate the system here, and prefer the games roleplay, then simply roleplay on the game. Its like reading a book, if you don't like it, don't read it. <span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:12px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:40px; border:3px ridge #23238E; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#FCD116), to(#FF0000)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, white, black); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 8 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"><font color="#000080">Voxel plox Ƭalk

No Tolerance Policy?
Well looks like we all forgot about something.. we passed a no tolerance policy awhile ago. I rememeber we all were tallking about something like that, we'll looks like we passed it awhile ago :)

Its great to bring this up when we're talking about bringing O'malley back, but I hope we can possibly bring this no tolerance policy into force, to prevent conflicts from arising on the wiki.

<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:12px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:40px; border:3px ridge #23238E; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#FCD116), to(#FF0000)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, white, black); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 8 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"><font color="#000080">Voxel plox Ƭalk

Wow, that is an old blog. I do not know why it was not put into place if that was passed, or if we had something similar that we just didn't refer to as a zero tolerance policy. We have actually been talking about a policy for awhile now, but we figured it was not needed at this time. When the BNO users were getting out of hand we had it ready, but  now things seem to have calmed down a bit. For now I, as I do not believe this policy is needed at this time. Though the blog passed, that was another time, more than a year from now. If there is a time when a policy is needed, we will put one into place. 17:21, January 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * It was passed a while back, Voxel is not asking for a community vote but a reminder and it is needed even when the wiki's drama is cooled down. 70px-Terror_of_the_High_Seas!.png Sharple  Talk Page  19:09, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Hmm… it did pass, but I'm seeing trouble starting to cool down a little. Normally, I'd immediately add it to the rules, but given how things have been at the moment, I recommend a talk with the admins/rollbacks.-- 19:58, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

I know I'm saying we dont need it now, I just brought it up because I was going through my bloglist and saw that. :)

<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:12px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:40px; border:3px ridge #23238E; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#FCD116), to(#FF0000)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, white, black); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 8 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"><font color="#000080">Voxel plox Ƭalk

Wrong Goldvane.. The BNO hasn't died yet..... #TheRevolutionisComing

, while this did pass, it passed over a year ago in December 2011. We have had no major drama worthy of a no tolerance policy at this time.

Ban:What if Pages
I mean the what if pages like "What if yoour in a movie" not "What if: THe Death of ___}

I will comprimise, sense I know lots of people dont like The British Government page, so what if we delete that page, and ban the silly what if articles? They aren't needed on the wiki, and are merely spam.

<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:12px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:40px; border:3px ridge #23238E; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#FCD116), to(#FF0000)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, white, black); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 8 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"><font color="#000080">Voxel plox Ƭalk

I like this because... well, because those pages annoy me. You might want to change the title to "Ban: 'What if you were a' Pages" to make it clearer.

--<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:4px ridge maroon; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(maroon), to(gold)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, maroon, gold); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"> John Breasly ,   Savvy Designs Member 

I agree. These new users come in and make these pages, and it gets annoying. What really gets under my skin, though, is the grammar. I just hate seeing it not capitalized. Erg, just saying.



I have seen a huge increase in these pages, it was only a matter of time that someone made a request to stop them. I was planning on making something like this soon.

These pages should be made into blogs. 00:13, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any say, but people could just make them into blogs if they really wanted them, users might not be able to add themselves, but if you don't wanna put in the time, then don't make it.

We need to control the what-if pages. I completely agree with this request. -- 00:58, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

I ACTUALLY agree with this. I created the "What-if" pages to make new storyline ideas like "What If John Breasly, died?"(sorry bro, best example) or "What if-The Brethren Courts were never founded?"(a planned one I never got around to.), not "What if you were a dog" or a fake England page.

Livewire Logan (talk) 21:53, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Jim, only admins votes can count, so users are not to use the template on the Court. 23:07, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that pages like "What if you were a candy?" or "What if you were in a movie?" should be posted as blogs, I believe that if pages like "What if so-and-so ruled the entire world?" or "What if so-and-so died?" or other things along those lines were to ever spring up, they could be considered fan-fiction (and most may agree that our wiki needs more activity in that department) and permitted to stay.



We dont want to ban things like "What if ____:Died" or "What if ____ never became king of ___" we want to ban "What if you were in a movie.." type of things :)

<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:12px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:40px; border:3px ridge #23238E; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#FCD116), to(#FF0000)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, white, black); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; -webkit-box-shadow: 8 0 0.6em black; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:black"><font color="#000080">Voxel plox Ƭalk

Notify All admins
Hello. Talk has been around of admins being inactive. These admins include the wiki's president, Katbluedog. The main admins that have been inactive as of late: GenLawrence, Jarod Pillagebane, Stephen, and Katbluedog, all need to be given a warning/notice from Parax., Goldvane, or Pistol. Like the curycoo deal :P

OK HERE!IS WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN! ^^^^^^ That crap doesnt make sense! Admins need to be given notifications sauing that they need to become MORE ACTIVE! OR ELSE DEMOTION! 06:02, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

SUR YESSUR-- 06:03, January 13, 2013 (UTC)