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

Captain R  Goldvane Talk Edits  20:14, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Category:Fan Books
As bureaucrat of Fan Stories, I have noticed that there is an overload of pages in the category titled "Fan Stories".I personally think that if it is a long story, it should be considered a "fan book". This will help readers looking for long, interesting stories find their way to pages like The Mystery of The Stolen Design, my own TGT, and many othetr good, long, strong quality "books", when the users looking for a short story to read real quick before they go to the supermarket, they will find stories like The Death of Jack Swordmenace easier.

Henceforth, I propose a seperate category for longer stories, titled "Fan Books". Burs-Rollbacks, please give you opinion!

Captain R  Goldvane Talk Edits  02:53, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it could a sub-category of Fan Stories.



Good idea. I think we need to get some of our categories more organized.



I completely agree with this idea.We could use a bot to add the categories.

-- 14:22, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree, this idea is great it'll separate the pros from the cons (no offense to anyone)

Sharple  Talk Page  15:41, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

I made the category, and Sharple/Bill are helping me add them. I gtg now, class stating.



Request for the Block Blog of User:Pencil-...
I, John Breasly, hereby request the one-week (seven days) blocking of User:Pencil-. Since Pencil began his adventures on this wiki, he has been nothing but a know-it-all, troll, and excuse-maker. Recently, his activities in such fields has increased, and angered more than a few people. He contributes it all to having a "bad day," which is, actually, no excuse for acting the way he does. Examples can be seen anywhere from Royal British Marines to Sven's most recent blog, telling an exciting tale about an excellent player, Spade. Pencil has been nothing but trouble since he began on this wiki, and I'm sure many people are quite tired of it.

Official reasons:
 * Trolling, then pretending to "discontinue" or "ignore" another once he realizes he has been out-matched.
 * Constant fighting
 * Hypocrisy
 * Know-it-all. He pretends to understand everything that has happened here, when in truth, he's only been around since late-August of 2011, I believe.
 * Attempts to justify his fights, under the cover of a "bad day."

-- John Breasly ,   Former Admin  20:06, March 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * Action has been taken by Shade -- Tama 63 

20:28, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Eric the Flammable Unban Request
Could I please request that Eric should be unbanned? He didn't deserve to be banned, and he didn't start any fighting, others did. He was trying to have them stop, but instead he was considered to be the one fighting.

Thanks,

Dragon Slash X 01:18, April 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * He got unbanned a few days ago. -- 00:27, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

Block Request of Robert Mc Roberts
I propose the block of Robert Mc Roberts. Shortly after his return from inactiveness, he has tossed himself into roleplay, pretending he has roles he does not. He has also refused to admit the changes that have taken place in roleplay, simply because he was not there to witness them. He has stirred up drama for about two weeks, and I for one, am sick of it.

Requested Block Time - 1 week (5-7 days)

Official Reasons
I'm willing to support this, but I'd like other Admin Input --Tama 63  15:28, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignorant towards the community
 * Breaking the "no claiming land" rule
 * Claiming false titles
 * Causing two weeks worth of drama (something I think even I've failed to do -_-)
 * Harassing people on chat
 * Creating a Minecraft server and claiming it's "the official POTCO Players Wiki server"
 * Does not understand the concept of a fact, and believes if he was not there to witness it, it did not happen
 * Created a community vote without admin approval (that got deleted by admins)
 * Trolling people (ie "It's not like you would have won anyway.")

I think I'll agree to this for about 3-5 days. A whole week is not needed, he hasn't been here in awhile and is probably confused, but his actions call for a mark of a small punishment. I think 3 days, possible 5 should do. Captain R <font face=Papyrus size=4px color=blue> Goldvane <font color="Black">Talk<font face=serif size=4.5px color=orange> Edits  15:38, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Goldvane - a week is too long. He hasn't even got his first strike yet, maybe that should come first? Otherwise 3 days is good.



Well, look at it this way. He broke a rule, when rules are broken, consequences must be in order to make sure said person does not commit said crime again. I would agree to a five day ban, that seems fair, considering all the evidence is right here. John is right, he's been an overall troll for the past two weeks. You ADMINS complain that you don'tt "have enough power", well, you need to prove to people that you're willing to take action instead of being soft about it. Ban him for five days.


 * The user has already been banned. Samuel, the vote is for admins/chat mods only. -- 19:23, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Demotion Request: Davy Hookwreaker
Ok, you all know the reason. I seriously at first thought that it wasn't a big deal, and he should be given another chance. Well, after thinking, I realized no one had made a demotion request, so, in order to hear what the Admins think on this, I'm throwing the suggestion out there.

Official Reasons:
Please consider this. Thank you.
 * 1) Provided an exetremely inapropiate link, and could actually get him arested as it was breaking federal law.
 * 2) Davy himself had also mentioned on a page suggesting his own demotion, that "It takes to much time from him", and that he would "support his own demotion". In my opinion, those two comments suggest that he not only doesn't care about his demotion, but that he never took the job seriously when it should be in the first place.

19:18, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. He's been rather unbecoming of a moderator lately :/--<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:4px ridge blue; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(blue), to(black)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, blue, black); -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"> Parax  20:11, June 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * An admin conversation has already been posted about this. GLSeal.pngGenSig.pngLawrence.png

Suggestion
I'm thinking of a little… request:

If a user was banned for a good reason, users do not deliver messages for the banned user. We're trying to isolate the banned user from the wiki, not keep him/her in touch.--<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:4px ridge blue; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(blue), to(black)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, blue, black); -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"> Parax  00:25, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This will also stop messages from users of a fruit variety. -- 00:28, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Those fruity users don't edit the wiki anymore. In fact, they could care less about that. I think you need to stop using that excuse for everything, no offense. --<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 ,   Former Admin  00:29, June 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * John, I was just joking around. I didn't mean that only Pearson asks for messages to be delievered to the wiki. -- 00:39, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I created the blog becasue he asked me to, I didn't know it would cause this small bit of unfreindly-ness. I apologize, I thought you might want to know what he had to say :/ GoldvaneSig.png 00:44, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Underage Registered Users
It has recently come to attention that some users on the wiki are underaged and are violating the terms of use that Wikia has laid forth to them, which they agreed to upon registering. We have banned users who are underaged simply for being underaged, so why can some be exused from the law? Nobody is above the law. In recent events, people would not have made such a fuss about the adult graphic content link that was posted in private messages in the chat feature of this wiki, because they would have handled it maturely, not like it was in fact handled by the actual users of the wiki, because they would in fact have been much more mature. -<font color=RoyalBlue>Batorhos 16:45, June 8, 2012 (UTC)

This is a very problematic topic. We don't know all the users ages and we can not just go around accusing/interrigating themt. I would like to point out that when Marc said he was underaged I believe he meant younger than 18.



Johns Blog Deletion Request
Why do we deserve being humiliated for making a mistake and being bored at 3 in the morning? I realize Robert and I flubbe dup and that it was a bad idea, but then John goe sout there to criticoze us? Although the blog is directed at Robert, it doesnt seem that way as I helped Robert. But do we have to have this? Dramatizing this mistake. Its wrong sick and mean. I request it to be deleted and other consequences. Emperor Albert Spark I Of Romania 17:42, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

I am not "trolling" or "Insulting" anytone with that blog. I am telling Robert Mc Roberts the world does not revolve around him, however much he thinks it does. So many people have asked me to make this blog, and finally I got around to it. You are both in a wrong for uprooting our wiki's system and foundation, to input Robert's ludacris, power-hungry, and anarchist views. --<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 ,   Former Admin  17:52, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa! Ok, um, let's resolve this. Robert's idea was extremely uneeded. Being bored does not excuse you from doing something wrong. John Breasly was stressed out once and cussed, but that doesn't matter. Your emotions are not excuses for your actions! However, I do think John's blog might cause a bit of tention, an isn't fully needed. If any arguments break out on John's blog, I will consider the deletion. As of now, it can stay up.

18:15, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

When did John cuss? I agree with Gold and also think that John's blog can stay, maybe if things get bad we could just close comments?



Tired Of The Complaint Blogs
Okay, after seeing Multiple Complaint blogs through the week I am so sorry to have to pull this out, but, I am forced to. I would like to see if it is possible that a rule is put in on NO Complaint blogs what so ever. Make it a Community Vote or Admin Vote. I honestly don't care. If there's a rule already in place, then I would like to see more strcitness in place. Warnings to Strikes. I honestly don't care. I as an editor and fellow community member would like to have Peace.

All I want to see is an Admin Blog saying you can no longer complain about a rule without posting to 7 Seas, otherwise punishment is in order. Is that fine?

I think that would be a great idea, those blogs don't help anybody, they just create more drama.



21:38, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

Difficult. Although restricting this could be good, it will also restrict users freedom to complain about issues, which might swing the balance way out. I am not sure what to do, the complain blogs are annoying, but this may be taking away too many rights.



If a rule was agreed on by the community, why should we let one person ruin it all by whining and causing arguments, all because they can't take not getting what they want?--<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:4px ridge blue; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(blue), to(black)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, blue, black); -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"> Parax  21:44, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

I have to support this. Expecially since you said that the they can still have a voice via the Seven Seas Court (The same page we are on right now. And Jack, look at the comment I posted on the blog, lol.



How about something more specific like "No Complaining about the Chat Rule" or "No Complaining about Rules". If they have a problem with them, they can bring it up here?



"No rule complaint blogs before going through the Seven Seas Court" ? And if they do post one without permission, we delete the blog and send a talk-page message with a template saying something like "You can not post rule complaint blogs without going through the Seven Seas Court (Link here)." and signed by the admin who deleted it/sending the message?

"

Are you all smart enough to realize you're all turning to Communism? If you limit our ability to speak up about what we feel are injustices or what could be improved, you're basically becoming the KGB. Don't go "No we're not, John, you're accusing us because you don't like it" because you ARE turning to Communism. This is EXACTLY what it is. Don't believe me? Read up some Communistic ideals in George Orwell's "Animal Farm." I liked this wiki more when it was a republic and we had the right to free speech, now it's just a despotism. If you want to continue with this, be my guest, but you're going to lose most of the users that have any comprehension beyond that of an eight year old. So, go ahead, turn to Communism, limit our ability to talk, just to make it easier on yourselves. It will backfire. --<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 ,   Former Admin  22:20, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

See? ^ I was quite right :P So, let's think. Why don't we just do this rule for the chat rule OR do what we were doing and as these blogs get made, tell them the 100 edit rule is not getting changed and close the comments if things get out of hand?



As one of the three or four best politicians on the wiki (1 being an admin *cough* Jack *cough*) I support the latter. --<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 ,   Former Admin  22:31, June 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with just tell them, is that it's not working. Also, John, we are not turning Communist/Tyrannical/Despots. You may see us becoming a bit stricter as a us taking away your "rights" and becoming communist," but that doesn't mean we are. Most is not all of our decisions are community based. This topic was even posted by a regular user, not an admin, rollback, or mod. Also, again, your ability to complain about it would not be taken away, it just needs to go through here, which is a place for the admins to see the ideas of the users and see if we should change/add/do something about the topic. Even though this has been used time and time again, we are not like other wikis, but that doesn't mean that their way of running it is completely wrong. Ours is definitely not fool-proof. I remember when a user could suggest anything at anytime: it was complete chaos. Demotions left and right, random rules popping up... Although you might have liked it, I certainly did not. It is my opinion that this is needed, and it also does not hinder anything from the users, it just cuts back on the amount of drama and spam. Also, I don't really count "politics" as having to do anything with this, since we are not a government. We may vote, make laws (rules), and have people call themselves "politicians," but I don't think we need that. That is why I really didn't like the wiki political parties/congress idea. Again, just my opinion. Now, back to Driver's Ed.


 * GLSeal.pngGenSig.pngLawrence.png

Ah, Lawrence. Thank you for doing what I expected you to do and outright deny everything, claiming the users have all the power like admins used to when they actually DID have power, and tell me "I just disagree so I'm calling it Communist." Ignorance is bliss, is it not, young Law? Unfortunately, it seems you're not entirely aware of what this wiki is becoming. --<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 ,   Former Admin  22:55, June 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * John, I did not "disregard everything." If I disregarded anything, I only disregarded you saying to not say it is not turning to what you say it is. It is called a debate, eh "politician King John?" I have made a counter statment, now it is your turn, right? And yes, ignorance is biss, if you mean by the fact that I have my own point of view, that is.

"

Most of the complaining is with the 100 edits rule. I think that if people have a problem with it, they shouldn't complain about it, they should be told to come here and make a request. People should be able to state their opinions, but in a better fashion.
 * 23:08, June 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * 23:08, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

User Representatives Assembly Proposal
Dear fellow Wikians:

I mean not to stir any trouble or raise a quarrel, but upon speaking with fellow user John Breasly, it has come to both of our attentions that a formal User Representative Assembly be constructed. Allow me to explain how this Assembly will function, if approved:

As the name suggests, the User Representatives Assembly will serve as the voice of all regular users, i.e., non-admins. While the average users such as myself make up the "common class" of the wiki, and are by far the most populous group, it is quite necessary that a formal representative group be made. While I do not necessarily have a disdain for the admin team as strong as John Breasly has, I completely agree with him on this case, which is why I am proposing this. While 90% of the decisions made on this wiki are through community votes, there are still some decisions that are left entirely to the admins, with little to no average user say in said decision. It is for that reason that these User Representatives, a few selected users representing the proles, speak on behalf of the entire average user population of the wiki on said decisions, to avoid further arguments and quarrels between user and admin. This group would be very similar to the Tribunal Assembly of the Roman Republic. If you are unfamilar with them, we would be comparable to the U.S. House of Representatives.

As for who would be in this Assembly, John and I have been talking. So far, we are considering us two, as well as Andrew Mallace, Matthew Blastshot, Jack Goldwrecker, and Mikhail Volkov to also be in the assembly if it is approved. However, do note that this list is subject for edit, and more representatives may join as the wiki grows.

Also do note that this assembly has absolutely nothing to do with roleplay. Our main purpose would be to improve admin-user relations, and keep a steady equilibrium on the wiki. By doing so, arguments and drama would decrease, and we would no longer have these complaint blogs, an issue that is currently being discussed in the topic above (^). The users in the representative assembly would obviously not be given admin powers, but would speak on behalf of the average users of the wiki, and could question decisions made by admins that do not seem fair to the community, and perform other functions of the matter. In doing so, I believe drama would be reduced big time, as would all of these complaint blogs.

Thank you for the consideration, and remember, this is simply a proposal and not an angry tirade. I personally believe the admins are doing an excellent job, but seeing there are many unhappy users, I also believe this group is necessary. I ask that this be put into serious consideration and the idea be entertained among the admins before a final decision is made. Thank you again, and have a nice day.

-- Jeremiah Garland

I would like to mention that this wiki by far has too much community opinion. The admins need to be able to do their jobs. On 99% of wikis, the admins use their own discretion on things, and that obviously works because they were appointed by the community to do so. If we have all these community opinions, etc, what would the point of adminship be? Why not just allow everyone to have that, and have the ability to do whatever they please to do.

<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:12px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:4px ridge white; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(black), to(black)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, white, black); -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"> Benjamin Ƭ 01:22, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Benjamin. This is unneeded, to me this seems like a power grab, as you automatically listed who you wanted to be in this group. The only things left to us (the admins) are major bans, such as when users have been vandalizing and spamming a lot. When we have a complain blog, we can just close the comments or just delete the blogs

The only thing left for the admins? lol! Selfish much? Whenever something doesn't work to your advantage, you call it a power-grab. Honestly, every time. And no, the admins have anything. At this point, all the users can actually DO is complain. Go ahead, go to some Totalitarian government so you can have your perfect wiki. Because then the admins willl obviously have so much more. The only thing they'll lack is people to govern!

--<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 ,   Former Admin  02:36, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Overreacting at the fact that my once-favorite wiki is turning to a despotism because the admins want to have complete control, and limit everyone's rights as an editor? Oh yes, totally overreacting. You're completely right. My apologies. --<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 ,   Former Admin  02:43, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I just feel that a little too much goes on behind the scenes with admins, and the users should have equal say in what happens around here, because as I said, we obviously make up the majority of this wiki. If you want to know why we keep on getting complaint blogs and are dropping users, I honestly think it is because the admins are making decisions without the users' input. Now I wouldn't go as far as to say you guys have become totalitarian (:P), but I do think there needs to be a more equal distribution. And Benjamin, I realize 99% of wikis follow a certain pattern, but who's to say we have to be part of that 99%? We can be different, and pioneer different methods.

-- Jeremiah Garland (sig on the way :P)

Oh, and why did we pick ourselves? Because, we're the only people on this wiki who understand politics, arguing & debating, and negotiation beyond a fifth grade level. And I'm not exaggerrating that, sadly. I really wish I were, trust me, but I'm not. --<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 ,   Former Admin  02:55, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you go say that to 99% of wikis on Wikia, or any other wikicity for that matter. I think, honestly, that the community has too much say in things at the moment, and it leads to less productivity. For the past 5 months, the community has had too much say in things, and I'd like to point out, the last 5 months weren't at all a breeze.

<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:12px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:4px ridge white; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(black), to(black)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, white, black); -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"> Benjamin Ƭ 02:58, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

This place has never been, and never will be, "a breeze" as long as this wiki has fanon and roleplay. And, honestly Ben, you check in like once every three weeks, you wouldn't exactly know about the last 5 months. --<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 ,   Former Admin  03:00, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, Benjamin. The community has never really had much of a say. This will be an organised assembly, run by users who know what they are doing. And the only reason I put my own name on the list is because I thought of the idea. But yes, John is right, many people on here do lack the capabilites to exhibit leadership...

-- Jeremiah Garlander

Only thing I'm going to say on the matter is directed toward Jerry's comment before he just posted :/:

Yes, we are not 99% of wikis, but that doesn't mean we need users to have a say in every... little... thing... and, no, the users are NOT leaving due to admins not letting users have an input. I think it is the opposite. In all of the leaving blogs (even from an admin, Tama), the said DRAMA. And I have noticed that a lot of drama spawns from Role-play (Not surprising) and blogs, mainly voting ones. If anything, the users have been fighting it out over every vote that goes on, so it is not the admins causing it, it is the users (not all, just a general statement, please don't get one me about it).

Anyway... that is all I'm going to say. I have had enough debating for a good week, now. I will be watching, but probably won't be saying anything. -tips hat- Good day.



PS: If you want to see a "totalitarian" administration, I bet we could arrange that, because, trust me, we are no where near one.

True Lawrence, but I think we're getting slowly off topic of the User Representative Assembly. Like you said, the reason users are leaving is because of drama, correct? Well, rules need to be enforced to prevent drama. The point of the user assembly is to help make rules along with the admins. Because if it is just the admins making said rules, there is no user input and it may come across as too harsh (or not harsh enough). All this is about is to have some input from users and roleplayers about rules that pertain to them, to prevent complaint blogs. This isn't a "power-grab", this isn't a rant about the admins becoming dictators, this is a simple suggestion so new users won't complain.

-- Garland

May I say something? I believe that if the admin team was smart and responsible (and they are), they would try it. Please, if you give it a try, the users will most likely lay off the admins with this, and if it gets out of hand you can easily stop it. Besides, we're talking about more of the community getting a say in things, why not this? It wouldn't hurt, and it could easily be considered a "win-win" situation or scenario. So, if you could, please try it. Overall, I think this calls for users to look through the admins' eyes, and the admins to look through the users' eyes.







Ugh... why must I always think of a counter?





Last thing: The users already come up with most of the rules. They then go through here, like you did. The admins then look it over, and decide if it is useful or not. Then, if we decide it is good, we put it through a community vote. That is already 2 layers of users deciding to only one layer of admin deciding. The only thing admins do automatically is mainly banning/striking people who need to be banned/strike on the spot, or major items, which usually still go through a community vote.





As you can see, users already have a large voice in the rules and other actions. If you counter, idk if I will counter back, I just couldn't hold this one in.











Good! So let's make it official with this!





-- The Jeremonster







We'll see how it stands with the other admins in a couple of days.









Okay, the reason I don't like this idea is that you may not always represent the needs of all the users ( it is impossible, like with the admins ) and so other users will want to join the group and start saying it is unfair that only you guys are a part of it and others will want to join or make their own ( take some guesses ). Users can already suggest votes here, and although are mainly for admin votes many users add their input which is also taken into consideration. I don't think us admins are trying to be dictators, the second Albert made that suggestion I knew there would be controversy because of its restrictive nature, so I started to think of compromieses. Is that a dictator? I was taking just what I thought ( and was correct ) the users would say into high regard in my vote. Gold and Law were thinking about the drama which is why I think they supported at first, but a compromise is always possible :P I think Ben is quite right, so long as promotions, demotions and major votes are still voted on by the community I think this wiki will be fine. Things such as layout changes, on-the-spot bans/strikes, admin rulings ( not things like "from now on admins have complete power, get used to it" but more like "anymore of these I Hate Benjamin ( example :P ) blogs will be deleted" ). This has already funnelled a lot of unneeded votes, one that both of you were opposed to strongly earlier, so I think that our "admin discretion" is fairly up to scratch, I saw no questioning of that in a review not so long ago :P. Anyway, the general idea is not too bad but it could lead to a power grab, other users wanting in ( thus different interests will spawn, therefore disagreemen, therefore major drama and this group coming under question ), drama in general and a group that doesn't really need these abilities because you can already suggest stuff here :P As I have said before, the admins should represent the needs and wants of the community as a whole, meaning users, admins, mods and roleplayers, not just any specific group. But in that, users should respect these decisions while still having the right to speak out and question, within the limits of the rule ( no swearing, insulting etc. ) and the votes they propose should similarly reflect what is best for the community as a whole. I hope I have made my point clearly enough.



I like the idea, but I'm offended that I am not included.

<font face=Mongolian Baiti size=4px color=#000080>Robert <font face=Mongolian Baiti size=4px color=#000080> Mc <font face=Mongolian Baitit size=4px color=#000080> Roberts <font face=Mongolian Baiti size=1px color=#00FFFF>For Crown and County!  11:18, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

^



What Robert just said exactly proves why I don't want this. People want power.

I saw my name on this so I felt obliged to comment. Robert is a lama.. I don't exactly know how this will go but I think its nominee's should be a bit expanded, such as experienced users over new users and have a mix of former roleplayers/non.

@Jack - If users want in they can apply. They'd have to take a quiz, or do some sort of debate or mock negotiation before they were let in. As you know, the people selected listen to everyone (no matter how much I may dislike them) and usually try to defend them (as we've done with Pearson, Goldwrecker, and so many others). The reason we picked the people we did was because we're honestly the only users who can debate, negotiate, and traverse politics beyond a fifth or sixth grade level. We understand how to debate, how to defend our topics, and, most inportantly, how to compromise. Many of the users here will not even take it to a debating level, and simply argue and argue and argue until either they get banned or they ragequit. The people chosen know when to let an argument rest, and when to argue it. I think that's what defines what the council would be, and keep it off a "power-grab" level.'

@Step - I mean this in the least offensive way, but we would deny Robert on the grounds of "attempting to destructure this wiki's form of government, cannot argue a topic without demanding concrete 'proof', and having the negotiating level of a toddler ('it's mine! I saw it first! It was in my hand an hour ago, so it's miiiinnnneeeee!')." And this doesn't entrust you with "power," because you're still subject to the same punishments as before. And there's a defined difference between wanting power (Robert, Tama63, Greasescarlett, etc) and people who genuinely want to help the wiki and stand up for the users (me, Jeremiah, Countpr, Blastshot, etc).

--<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 ,   Former Admin  16:01, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

I just read Goldwrecker's comment, and he has a point. You know, there's no harm in trying it. Worst comes to worst, close it. And I also know what GenLawrence means, about two layers of users. This is meant to represent users, it would allow people to voice their opinions through the "council." In terms of a community vote, it would be one layer of users. And even then, if they don't trust the entire community to be able to handle a certain vote, they could post it and let the council be the only members to vote. Now, granted, we'd go around talk pages asking users what they thought of these certain ideas, and whether they supported or opposed, and we'd vote based on that. I personally think it would decrease user/admin disagreements, complaints would be much more formal and civilized, and votes wouldn't be spammed and constantly watched.

--<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 ,   Former Admin  16:13, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

I, because If this was really meant to be a User's council, everyone with something to contribute would be let in, and not have the council be shut off to an exclusive group of people who make thier own criteria.

Also you accused me of "attempting to destructure this wiki's form of government" when you do it yourself? ( I did in fact want to change the wiki form of government for the better, but It was a proposal and since the admins rejected It, I accept thier decision.

I didn't see anything in the Seven Seas Court about it. You simply started making pages, and once said, "oh yeah, this is a proposal" AFTER you guys started getting in trouble. Don't try to play your innocence. I'm not "defacing the wiki's structure," I'm giving suggestions to improve it. Point is, I think if the council was made, we'd mutually agree to not let you in, based on your history.

--<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 ,   Former Admin  16:22, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

We intended it to be a proposal John, hence in the comments why Albert said this is awaiting Admin approval. We're sorry for not sending it through the Seven Sea's Court and will not make that mistake again. Also if our proposal was "defacing the wiki's structure" this definately would be. Also who is this "We".

<font face=Mongolian Baiti size=4px color=#000080>Robert <font face=Mongolian Baiti size=4px color=#000080> Mc <font face=Mongolian Baitit size=4px color=#000080> Roberts <font face=Mongolian Baiti size=1px color=#00FFFF>For Crown and County!  16:35, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I forgot to tell you Robert, the whole wiki isn't your place to argue. If you want to argue about it, go elsewhere. This proposal went through the Seven Seas Court, and in fact decreases drama and gives admins a bit of a break, so it's not really defacing the form of government, as it keeps the system we've had, with an addition, instead of a complete reformation. And who is this we? Well, this "we," is the council that would consist of me, Jeremiah, Volkov, Goldwrecker, Mallace, and Blastshot.

--<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 ,   Former Admin  16:39, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

If this is truly as "Users" assembly, the Users should select who is on it, and you shouldn't appoint yourselves to it.

Also, if you actually read albert and I's proposal, It did not "reform" the system, all it did was give certain Users's the right to propose Community votes without admin approval (but still need 1/2 of thier vote in support like all votes) in fields they were voted on by the community to represent. It would have attempted to accomplish all of what your say your proposal will accomplish.

<font face=Mongolian Baiti size=4px color=#000080>Robert <font face=Mongolian Baiti size=4px color=#000080> Mc <font face=Mongolian Baitit size=4px color=#000080> Roberts <font face=Mongolian Baiti size=1px color=#00FFFF>For Crown and County!  16:45, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're blind, or just plain can't comprehend what I just said. I said stop arguing on this topic, and that means STOP. ARGUING. ON. THIS. TOPIC. If you have a problem, go complain elsewhere, not here, where your topic is irrelevant. You've just proved you're not fit for the council, should it be passed, so just stop. You're clogging up the debating.

--<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 ,   Former Admin  16:47, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

This just isn't needed. Yes, it might be an alright idea for some users to speak out, but if they want power, why not prove to the admin team that you're ready, and we'll promote you? Also, the fact that you picked yourselves makes it clear that you are just powerhungry. I'm not trying to stir up an argument, I'm just sharing my opinion. You guys have alwyas been wanting power. John opposes the majority of promotion votes, and I believe that he does because he believes he should be promoted himself ( I know i'm about to be attacked, but John has told me to stand up to users, and that's what I'm doing now ). You say it's because you are the only ones who fully understand politics. That's rubbish, in my opinion. Kat is 20 and would clearly understand politics, she just doesn't go all using political votes and systems to try and change the Wiki to her favor. Besides, what would political knowledge really do on a POTCO fansite? Besides, if John and Robert do this, EVERYONE will be begging for a spot.This will turn into a mess and cause so much drama. Heck, it already is causing everyone to go out of their way to type a comment against someone. That's why I'm just typing this one comment, I'm not replying unless necessary. If John and Robert hadn't nominated themselves, I would consider this, but the fact that these two users have wanted power makes it clear this is just made for them to have something to do that's entertaining to them. If you want to make the Wiki better, stop requesting so many new things. We need less voting and more editing. I'm not trying to continue the argument, I just thought I'd share my input. 16:53, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

@John I did give something on topic, you brought up my proposal to begin with, and now your using it to try to get out of this argument.

Please respond with substance and stop name calling.

<font face=Mongolian Baiti size=4px color=#000080>Robert <font face=Mongolian Baiti size=4px color=#000080> Mc <font face=Mongolian Baitit size=4px color=#000080> Roberts <font face=Mongolian Baiti size=1px color=#00FFFF>For Crown and County!  17:03, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Goldvane, that was so inevitably stupid that I'm going to number and counter each of your points.

1. Well, let's see. We can't prove ourselves because the admin team keeps complaining they have enough admins, and won't promote more. You would never promote someone unless you'd known them for a while, even if they're less adequate than someone else.

2. No, it proves we want to help the wiki, not that we're power-hungry. Also, Jeremiah nominated us, I told Jeremiah he should be on too.

3. LOL! That's good. I don't want to be in power with this inadequate administration team. I oppose most promotions because you promote inadequate fools, that usually get themselves demoted. I never gloat and say "I was right," but I usually am, as they're usually demoted later.

4. Kat's also an admin. I said the we're the only USERS, I never said the admins don't completely understand politics (though many of them don't...). No one except Robert is trying to change the wiki to their favor. In fact, I dislike a lot of policies here, but I don't complain about them because they DO in fact help the wiki. More policies than you'd care to guess.

5. I didn't nominate myself, Robert nominated himself. That's powerhungry. Who's to say I even want to be on the council? Maybe I just want to do it to help the wiki. Way to assume, Mr. Admin.

6. I'm kind of getting tired of you calling me power-hungry in every sentence. Seems a little repetitive, you know? I don't want any power, I hate power. But lots of people say I'm a great leader, so I accept the power to do what I can. Never in a million years do I want to be an admin here unless I was fairly elected with the users' consent.

If you can even understand that all, I'll be impressed. I'm not asking you to rebuttle, even, because it will be the same, repetitive poppycosh.

--<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 ,   Former Admin  17:11, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have missed too much, it is going to take me forever to make counter arguments, and my edits will be interfered with non-stop. So, for now I am just going to say that all this arguing further proves my point. Other people are going to see this, want to be a part of it and complain that it is unfair that they are not. Then they will be a new level of "higher ranks" that people want in on and so things are going to end up for the worse. I think this is unneeded, because your opinions are already shared on these Seven Seas votes, so why have this assembly? Also, can we drop the insulting, disrespect and name-calling as this is getting us nowhere ( talkign to the lot of you ).



Hermit just made me think of a good point, that he didn't detail too much. We should not be wanting better arguments, we should strive for less arguments and more healthy debating. As you can see, this is definitely not happening now.



Whatever. I'm done arguing with people too ignorant to understand what I'm saying. But just let the "admin team" keep bashing me for thinking outside the box, and everything will be okay, right? Right? Just close this topic, and everything will be fine. Ignoring a problem is the best way to solve it, after all.

--<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 ,   Former Admin  17:30, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, is that so? So that's exactly why you have "Former Admin" in your sig. Oh, I see now, pardon me.

I am getting very tired of you hating on the admins for your own reasons. No matter how many edits you have, that does not make you the "top editor" or whatever the bloody you think it does and what "power" comes with it. Stop acting like you rule this place, literally 3/4 of your edits are comments. Mostly from arguing on blogposts. Oh yes, that is such a milestone to brag about.

Every single time someone is promoted, you oppose simply because, as you claim, they are "not ready." I didn't care about that on my own promotion; the thing that SERIOUSLY pissed me off was when you said that "biased" promotions were happening and that Gold only promoted me because we are friends. Exact same thing with Davy and I. Just because someone is friends with someone they are promoting or recognizing in some way or another, that does not, in any bloody way, mean that they are simply promoting them because of a "friendship."

You need to get over your little "ego" as "King of the Role-players." You think you can "own everyone in arguments" and that the wiki is a place to argue about politics.

Gold and I are friends because we are similar. Partially the fact that we share interests and partially because we are both ridiculed by you.



Listen. He is not hating on the admin team. He has no reason to hate on you guys, and some of you are just acting too stubborn to see that he is right sometimes. He most definitely does not act like he is ruling "the place", and, this is from a third person omniscient point of view, Tama63 would be the accurate user to fit that description, despite his great abilities. And also, almost everyone's edits are mostly comments, so it's not a surprise. And, I have to agree that some promotions were a bit towards the biased side. All the admins do their jobs great, but everyone is biased sometimes. It's the truth. He is not "King of the Role-Players", if you think you can use that as an excuse for blaming him. He does not think or do most any of the stuff you claim he thinks or does. Also, I think it is time someone looks up the definition of "debate". Just saying.... :P

17:49, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

I know what a debate is, I'm on a debate team. None of them were biased. The "King of the Role-Players" thing is what John seems to think he is. Tama left, he is gone, so it would be more like was. I know almost everyone's edits are comments, but he brags about them to the extent that, well—nobody cares anymore. It is not an "excuse." I'm not "blaming him." I am stating the truth. He does act like he rules this place, just because of his edit count. He actually brags about it. I like how he always says he was "afk" whenever someone corrects him in an argument.



I see all of your points, trust me, but I don't want to continue this argument. Just scroll up and see how much exactly we've argued; is it seriously worth it? Either we try it, or we don't.

18:06, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Jarod, I mistook you for someone much smarter, that's all I have to say. You obviously don't understand me, what I do, or how I think. Because, guess what? You're not me. I know you're the smartest guy on the Earth because your mom is a professor at some college in California, but seriously, when it comes down to how I conduct my thoughts, you have no room to speak. Oh, and that sig is months old.

--<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 ,   Former Admin  18:46, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Could I also add I don't roleplay? Yep, now what's your argument? King of the Former-But-Not-Now Roleplayers? Ah, yes, owning.

--<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 ,   Former Admin  18:49, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

I support the general idea of the User Representatives Assembly—allowing a few selected users to put in a higher say for the “common people” of the wiki community. Currently it seems that if an average user puts in his/her input on a rule, idea, or anything that affects the wiki as a whole, the said user is typically disregarded, or is overcome by admins (not always, this is just an example) opposing what the user said, usually because it would be easier for the administrators. However, it does have some flaws. I don’t think it’s right for the members of this group to be chosen without the consent of the wiki community, whether the creators or not. If I may, I have a suggestion for determining the members of the User Representatives Assembly, if it were to pass. (Note that this depends on the amount of members that would be involved in the assembly) To determine the members, the admins would select a number of users that they feel capable of handling this. The amount they chose would be a two to one ratio of the quantity of members there would be in the assembly i.e. if there would be six users in this group, the admins would choose twelve that they believe are capable. (If there was a higher amount of users, say ten, it would probably be better suited as a one to one and a half ratio.) Then, after the admins had agreed on which users, the names of the selected users would be released to the public. (Again, this is if the assembly is passed) The community would then vote on which users they would like to see representing them (those listed may vote, so along as it’s not for themselves.) Overall, the User Representatives Assembly is a well thought out idea, but using the way I suggested to choose who is in it would decrease arguments significantly and would give a larger say to admins in this decision, too.

Madster

I am just amazed at some of the egos some of you have. Some people here think they are so important, and smart, but yet only think for their own gains, and moreover forget about somethings practicallity.

The whole system in which your proposing practically is no different then the Seven Seas Court, in which anyone can request, or express their opinions on certain matters.

<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:12px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:4px ridge white; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(black), to(black)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, white, black); -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"> Benjamin Ƭ

-

Well, I've been gone all day and am getting caught up with what is going on here. I haven't read over everything, and I certianly don't want to keep the arguing going, but I just want to say one thing (directed at Goldvane): this isn't a power-grab. I mean this in a calm tone, but I feel that anything proposed by users that is outside of the norm of things is immediately labeled a "power-grab". Is it so difficult to think that we just want to genuinely help the wiki? The whole purpose of this would be to, essentially, express new ideas. Because the thing is, a lot of users have many good ideas, but there are no ways to express them to admins without putting them through a blog (which, 90% of the time, is immediately shot down, because I honestly do think the admins here are scared of change). The assembly would meet directly with admins and brainstorm new ideas and rules. It is not that we don't trust the admins to do this alone, but wouldn't it be a good idea to have a first-hand account? Admins aren't regular users. They see the wiki (and what the wiki needs) through different eyes. It is very obvious that there has been some complaints recently. Our job would be to be the common voice of the users, and make sure these complaints don't happen. I can assure you fully this is not a power-grab. This is simply a representative council. This wiki functions like a government, correct? We have a president; and our admins are the senate. However, it is in common knowledge that the senate only makes up half of the congress. Who is the other half? The House of Representatives. Similarly, in the UK, the Parliament is made up of two branches: the House of Lords (upper house, "admins"), and the House of Commons (lower house, us). What I'm getting at is that we only have half the system complete here. We have the upper house, the senate that runs the wiki and makes the rules, now all we need is the lower house: the representatives. This is all just a comparison, but I believe it to apply here as well. And as Jack (Goldwrecker) said, how does trying hurt? The worst that could happen is that it will fail miserably, and we could easily cancel it and return to normal. But the least we could do is give it a demo shot. Who knows, it might make things easier for everybody. And I know that I'm going to get some angry responses for this next statement, but I feel that the admins are too much of an inner circle. I am not accusing anybody of anything, but as John has mentioned in the past, all of the admins on here are (or were) all good friends in-game, looted together regularly, etc. And I'm not saying the admins are bias, but I believe this assembly, input from different non-admins with different views and ideas, could eliminate any possible chances of future bias decisions by the admins. For example, I've noticed that often on votes and discussions like this, the admins tend to always stick together, and "coincidentally" all share the same views and decisions on things. Basically, in a nut shell, I feel that we need to make our ideas and minor decision makings more versatile, and this assembly could do just that, while still keeping full authority and control in the hands of the admin team.

Oh, and also: for all of you concerned about the people that would make up the assembly, I clearly said in the proposal that these are just the people we were considering, and it is subject for change. Those are just the people that in my eyes would do an ideal job representing the other users; I did not say it was written in stone. The only reason I said I would be in it is because, well, I obviously thought of this idea. It's like when you start a new wiki, you are automatically a bur. You started the wiki, it was your idea, and you put hard work into creating it, so you should definitely be a leader in it, correct? Also, if this is approved, we would obviously hold elections for who should be in it, once again, the people I named are only ideal through my eyes. I just felt those people would be ideal not only because they are extremely bright gentlemen and understand how assemblies like this work (as John has pointed out), but also because they are humble, and don't ask to join these things, as Robert did above.

Once again, I ask that you deeply consider everything I have said here. I am not trying to start any arguments, and this is not a power-grab by any means. All this is is a simple suggestion to help better organize the wiki and prevent further complaints, but I feel the admins, who, as I said, generally dislike major changes like this, are looking at everything that could go wrong from this, and are immediately shooting it down. Instead, I ask that you think of how things could benefit from having a group of representatives, and try looking from the point-of-view of a regular user. Thank you.

-- Jeremiah Garland (still no sig :P)

I would hope there would be a more democratic way of appointing users to the group, instead of the person who thought of the idea automatically being included. Also, your ideal members seem as if it is by friendship. A better idea would be to have users of varying experience.

<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:12px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:4px ridge white; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(black), to(black)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, white, black); -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"> Benjamin Ƭ

So now we're going to argue whether I should be in it or not? Honestly, I don't care if I'm in it or not. I just want to see this thing approved because I frankly think this is overall a good idea and am quite proud of it. But if you had a good idea, and put it in action, wouldn't you really want to be part of it?

But rest-assured, every member of the assembly, if approved, would be voted on by users and admins alike via a blog. We could set rules for voting, such as you cannot vote for yourself, and you must have ____ number of edits, etc.

- Garland

If everyone just sat down, shut up, trusted the admins, edited the wiki and had fun like we all did last year and before&mdash;instead of trying to get more power and complaining about not having enough&mdash;there would be much less drama here. So far all the recent issues have been on power and not having a say. I know, somebody's gonna bash me for this because I just exposed their motivation for power, but they know I'm right.--<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:4px ridge blue; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(blue), to(black)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, blue, black); -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"> Parax  04:06, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

Parax, please do say who the power-hungry ones are here.

--Garland

Pretty much the users who keep complaining nonstop about how "bad" the admins are, as well as the people who keep complaining about a "lack of rights," "lack of power," etc, even though they have a say in pretty much everything besides instant-bans on bad users. A year ago and before, as far as I know, people trusted each other, people were friends, and the wiki was generally more peaceful. Now these days, everyone wants power, everyone is at each others' throats, and people are convinced that the admins are malevolent dictators who are out to get them, are "Communitsts," want to take away their "say," blah, blah, blah. The only reason I haven't quit this damned place yet is because of my determination to see it fixed.--<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:4px ridge blue; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(blue), to(black)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, blue, black); -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"> Parax  04:23, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I agree. :P

- Garlander

Off-topic: Testing new signature. ..

Jeremiah Garland  (I know, really basic :P)



Don't I get a cookie for reading all of this? :P

<p style="text-align: right">I used to be a marker. ..

<p style="text-align:left;">First of all, thank you for bringing this back on the actual topic of the debate Garland, instead of how we are all "better than the next person" and insulting, because that was just ridiculous. The reason this can be seen as a power-grab is because acquring one of these positions would put a user in a position of greater influence than another, which leads to jealousy and other drama. More importanlty, you may want to help the wiki, but it is not the case with everyone who wants power. I am not afriad of change, so long as the change is for the better. There is no reason to fix a system that is not broken, and I know you are going to say "But it is", well it is not. The reason I say this is because our voting system and all that has always worked but unfortunately we, unlike other wikis, have a very young user base, which means immaturity will always be a factor. The admins can do their best, but their is no convincing someone that you can't come onto chat whose only argument is "I wanna!" or "That's not fair!". The other flaw in this wiki is that although our current system is decent, it is very hard to reassure users that we are not dictators and are actually tyring to do what is best for the wiki. You will notice that most of the admins have been here for long, why else would we still be here if we did not care? Another thing is that it is hard to get users to see things from our point of view. Rules that in some way require admins to take several hours managing something are not fair on us as it is no easy task, especially with the rest of our lives going on around us. I also think that a while ago ( towards my few months on the wiki ) there were too many promotions, and users started to expect it ( you can guess why ) and the ideal became almost embedded. The admins were also to uncontrolling in certain areas such as rule requests, sock-puppets and users who were acting like admins, and this caused a mindset that has been hard to change. Users made rule requests, ban requests, demotion requests as they pleased and there was non-stop drama. Rule requests ( notice the plural ) were made to limit rule requests ( ? ) and it was insane. Many users had sock-puppets and voted in their favour and worst of all a lot of users acted like admins. As soon as one little thing happened a user would not go to an admin, they would head for Wikia Staff. Users sent block requests, adminship, IP checks and all ridiculous things to Wikia Staff and it made me want to flip. So in fact, it is the users who are struggling to come to terms with this more "tight-reined" system which has actually decreased the drama to an extent and what the admins fear is losing this progress. I do my very best to see the wiki through the eyes of a user at all times, you can look above where I predicted users would not be happy with the compromise blog and adjusted my vote accordingly. Admins actually do think like regular users, we love editing the wiki, making new pages and so on, but we have more responsibilities that we need to consider in our votes. We need to think if this will be for the greater good of the community, if it will comply with the TOU, if what is being proposed is really necessary. Sometimes, I think users should try see it from our perspective: Will this make admins jobs harder than they need to be? Does this comply with the TOU? Is this really needed? I also think that if you look at some of the shot down votes, you will be fairly pleased with our choices. Would rollbacks and mods not be better suited as represintitives as they are halfway inbetween? I am not suggesting we make them official representitives, but maybe they should be the link and could bring certain things to our attention. On the inner-circle thing, that is more what happens after becoming admin. I had been here a while before I had every admin friended on the game and even then we were not "buddies". My first proper admin friends Hermit and Skull, and at some point John and Tama ( I know, what a combo xD ). I did not become a rollback by being a friend of any admin, as it was one of the most distance admins from me at the time that nominated me ( and Law and Sharpe ), Goldvane. I had him on my list, but only ever spoke to him when I needed something on wiki, or to ask a question. The reason he nominated us was because of Kat and Step's absense there was major drama and we were busy trying to help, next thing vote. Even in rollback and mod days not all the admins were my friends, only after becoming an admin did I start getting closer to them, which is in fact a good thing because we all need to work together ( remember the days of several admins hating each other? Shall we go back to that? ). Look at the people you selected for your assembly, I know that your friendships were not the only reason for selection, but I am sure you will agree that the fact that you are friends gives you a better understanding of that person, well a similar thing applies to the admins, the friendships were not the only reason and sometimes not a reason at all.

<p style="text-align:left;">Unfortunately, you are going to get more users asking and wanting to join, because they will feel their views will be better represented if they are a part of it and they will see a chance to get things to be the way they want. It is how people are.

<p style="text-align:left;">Once again thank you for bringing this vote back to a civilised manner, I don't think I will be responding to any points made which include insults or comprises mostly of how great they are or comprises of how other people are awful, unless necessary. Please, let's keep this civil, because these bad tempered arguments and excessive drama is what we are trying to steer away from.

<p style="text-align:left;">

<p style="text-align:left;">Ahahaha! Isn't it SO funny how Parax doesn't have the deceny to NOT insult me, but when I try to judge him, I'm the one being evil and causing drama!? Yeah, I don't find it funny either. I think it PROVES a POINT. And Garland, they're not arguing whether you should be in it or not, they're arguing whether I should be, because the admins seemingly can't take this sort of criticism. If they want to call me power-hungry, they are outright ignorant and wrong. I would even go so low as to call in idiocracy. Everyone knows I hate being king, I hate having power, but it always seems to rest on me. I don't have control over that. Oh, and one last message for Parax.... "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." -Martin Luther King Jr. -- <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 ,   Former Admin  14:02, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

<p style="text-align:left;">--<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 ,   Former Admin  14:02, June 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * @John-Did you not read Jack's request at the end of his "rant?" He asked to keep this debate civil, not arguing/drama. In my mind, the definition of a debate is a person gives out an idea and the reasoning behind the idea, another person counters the idea, and then the original or another person counters to the the counter, and so on. Arguing is outright insulting, personal attacks, and/or anger. What I have seen, coming from you, is arguing. Please keep this on an intellectual level, and no more insulting. This goes to everyone. If I see any insulting, a strike WILL be given to me. Debating, ok, insulting and arguing, not ok.


 * GLSeal.pngGenSig.pngLawrence.png


 * Jack brings up many good points, and I am reluctant to continue here. First, I apologize for calling the admin team an "inner circle". It was just something I assumed, which ultimately, was false. I don't have much time here, so I will keep this message short: I do not think there is anything wrong with the system we have now; the admin system is working fine. However (and sorry if I am getting repetitive), I feel that this assembly could not only help better organize everything that goes on around here, but also (and this is the big picture) improve admin-user relations and end all of these thoughts that "admins are dictators", which is simply not true, but many users think this because of the indifferent relations between admin and user. As you said, rollbacks / chat mods would make excellent links between users and admins, however the issue here is that, correct me if I am wrong, don't we only have one rollback / chat mod who isn't an admin, that being Blastshot? I do not see how just one user could represent dozens of others. But, that is for the most part beside the point. Point is: admins are doing a superb job, but there are still a few minor kinks in the system and some links missing. This assembly could fix those kinks and fill those links, given the chance.
 * --  Jeremiah Garland

Ahh, see where civil debating gets us? I suddenly feel we have made some major progress in this discussion and hope that in the future we can start off like this and continue on in such a manner. I can see a lot of good points that you make Garland, so I think I will wait on some more admin opinions now. I can see the good side of the assembly, but the bad too. But I personally think, that if all discussions could go the way these most recent few replies have, we will hardly need it and the wiki will be a happier place.



I don't think this is really needed. Look at all the fights about it already. It looks like this is causing more drama than is really needed. -- 16:17, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

After reading a current blog written by Parax, and due to the words spoken by the admins, I have decided that this, in the long-run, would be very unnecessary. I apologize for any quarrels I may have started, and I also apologize if this came across as a "power-grab". But, obviously it would be best if we keep the system going the way it is. As Jack Pistol said, there is no need to fix something that isn't broken. Thank you.

--  Jeremiah Garland

Hmm, this may sound weird, but I think in the fact that it was proposed things improved and a few of us learnt something, I certainly did. The above discussion just proved that arguing and insults got us nowhere and that calm discussing brought both parties to an agreement. Would anyone have been more convinced of the other party's argument if they were caps-raging and insulting you? No, they would be angry and driven to knock your idea just because they were annoyed. Garland, I personally think that of everyone here, you handled this the best. I think that just from the discussion brought on by this proposal we actually came close to meeting a goal made by the proposal ( better communication between users and admins ), because now if everyone leads by this example I think a lot of things could go down a lot better. I also feel I understand some people a lot better, and hope that some people understand others better too.




 * Totally agreed, Jack. And the person who handled this second best was myself... Just kidding, you probably did, Jack. Definitaly, just the proposal helped with it's intent, Garland. I am sorry if a lot of trouble happened here, but... we all have learned something new about each other, eh?


 * GLSeal.pngGenSig.pngLawrence.png
 * For archival and reference purposes, I stored the content of the original discussion and added it before your latest statement, Garland. Thank you Law, I hope I did the right thing and if I look at your part in the discussion you also remained calmed, made no insults and even stayed out at times, so I think you handled well too. I am going to go off soon, I will see you guys on Friday :P


 * JPSig1.pngJPSig2.png Admin Seal.png


 * Indeed, thank you both. I suppose my folly was I should have thought this through a little more thoroughly before making such a big proposal. Ah well, you know what they say: all's whale that ends whale :P


 * --  Jeremiah Garland


 * ROFL! Best quote :P Oh, and thank you too.


 * JPSig1.pngJPSig2.png Admin Seal.png

Tired of the Complaint Blogs: Comprimise Suggestion
Ok, so I think I found a way to work out Davy's request for no complaint blogs. How about no complaint blogs are 'allowed, however if one has a complaint, they would need to contact an admin somehow, either being on a talk page or in chat PM (of course the latter wouldn't be possible if they were complaining about the chat rule). This way, users could still "complain", but it wouldn't reach the full community and would reduce drama. And to what John said, this suggestion isn't "communism". Also, when complaining to an admin, they would need to state their complaint and counter suggestion (a comprimise), and would have to let it go afterwards, despite the rule being changed or not. If the users argued, a strike would be given.

<font face="Lucida Blackletter">Jack Goldwrecker


 * Oh... my... God... That is nearly what I was saying we should do. Instead of on a talk page, I thought it should be right here, on the Seven Seas Court, which is the users suggestion area to the admins, so I definitively support this.


 * GLSeal.pngGenSig.pngLawrence.png
 * It wasn't me request, but I did post that it should be handled on here. - points above -
 * 02:56, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 02:56, June 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * That's basically what the admins were saying in the first place, and I have to disagree with it. "Complaint" blogs aren't all that often, and why should their voice to speak out against something be blocked? Users bring up things that they dislike in hopes of change to the wiki community. I wouldn't go as far to call it "communism", but I do think it's something we shouldn't be deprived of on here.
 * <font face="Viner Hand ITC"> Mad ster  <font face="Viner Hand ITC""> was [http://potcoplayers.wikia.com/wiki/Madster


 * We're not "depriving" any of their rights; they can still "complain", but they shouldn't be allowed to make a full community-viewed blog about it that starts drama. The only difference actually is that the complaints are private; they would still reach the admins and be considered.
 * <font face="Lucida Blackletter">Jack Goldwrecker
 * All that needs to happen is to have them make their suggestions here, as that was the way it was meant to be. The complaint blogs do no help at all, they just cause more drama. If one is made it should be deleted, the user then left a message saying to make their suggestions here. This is what the Seven Seas Court was meant for, yet people prefer complaint blogs, which is not convenient and creates drama. Loads of it.
 * 03:41, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 03:41, June 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, definitely.
 * <font face="Lucida Blackletter">Jack Goldwrecker


 * Having it so people can only speak against something on the Seven Seas Court will just transfer "drama" over to here. In reality it just spams up this page, and it'd be better to have it distrubuted. That set aside, if the blog causes drama, there's a simple solution. Block commenting or delete the blog. Why should feedback be limited to the view of the admins only? The community should be able to give its input. Without needing to come here.
 * <font face="Viner Hand ITC"> Mad ster  <font face="Viner Hand ITC""> was [http://potcoplayers.wikia.com/wiki/Madster


 * That is what this was meant for, all suggestions to be here. It is more organized than a blog. It also seems to get better results than the blogs, here there is an actually discussion. Mostly on the blogs is everybody yelling at eachother in comments. Deleting a blog or disabling comments doesn't fix everything, more of it goes on in different places. 04:14, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to disagree Jack, I can just see people are going to say "you guys will never approve them" and actually it will just direct the arguing about the rule here, instead of on their blog. The user will request it here, and unless it is a well informed complain, admins and other experienced users are going to just tell them why the rule is in place, not going to change etc. We actually made a compromise above and on chat, where either just the chat rule is not allowed to be complained about, or if more complaints are made, the admins state our case one ( instead of drawn out arguments ) and if there is too much drama the comments get closed.
 * JPSig1.pngJPSig2.png Admin Seal.png
 * JPSig1.pngJPSig2.png Admin Seal.png

<font face="Viner Hand ITC"">

Ban Request: Lord Law
Dear God, do I even need reasons? He's like freaking five, he caps rages and harasses people when he doesn't get what he wants, he assumes he's the most powerful person in the world, when he gets what he wants, he acts like a smug little idiot twenty-four seven, he assumes "I'm leaving the wiki!" will get him an apology, and he's just plain annoying!

--<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 ,   Former Admin  19:51, June 20, 2012 (UTC)