|Administrators||Rollbacks||Chat Moderators||Community Newsletter||Wiki Calendar||Featured Article||Development Suggestions|
|Welcome, <insert name here>|
Welcome to the Seven Seas Court!
The Admins will review this page Daily for New Suggestions
What you can do here..
How it works?
Users can suggest votes ( Other than rule requests ), updates, or ideas here, then rollbacks and admins will vote on it, if the vote is successful it will be put to a Community Vote.
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.
Make a rule where Captaingoldvane2 gets to have Step's World Eater Blade
Just thought you guys might want to look at these. Have a nice day (:Cher Bear =D (talk) 21:14, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
Dealt with both of them with kicks. They stopped after being kicked, and the vote is now on-going.
Great one-sided story, Kitty. I get provoked by Leon's racism, and you cut that out, and just get the part where I lose my temper. BRILLIANT JOB! You always talk about how we need to be kind, but then you cut out that? Real good job.
--21:21, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
Well, you managed to break two rules in the process, and the fault for that is not mine.
1) The no using "ass" to insult
The others on chat have to obey the same rules that you do, regardless of the situation. Bye bye now dear.
That's called trolling. Running around and acting nice to everyone after attacking/provoking them. You're more worthy of a ban than myself.
--21:37, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
Wait, are you talking about yourself or me? (seriously though, just asking). I do genuinely like people and their company... It really does tick me off when someone goes around insulting others and making their days quite unhappy, though. This will be my last post on the subject, as my ankle is starting to behave again so I can be productive. Appreciate the input.
Have a nice evening (and I actually mean this).
I seriously can't believe that all of this is happening today due to my mistake. I sincerely apologize at the most extreme level. It seems like there's almost groups of users that seem to be on teams against each other (Ex: Jim, Cherie, Bill, vs John, Garland, Mallace, etc ), and it hurts me deeply to see that you are all fighting due to my behavior. I really regret saying those things, and I apologize for it, I really do, ok? 21:52, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
Don't blame yourself Gold. I was the admin online and I did not handle this properly. I kicked them both from chat and luckily the sort of cooled off, but yeah... things got bad :/ I feel awful... Also I agree with you on your users against users thing. I didnt want to say it, but I sort of noticed the arising Logan, Cherie and Bill alliance.
Don't blame YOURself Jack. I am the one to be blamed here, I stirred up a bloody mess and now it's burning the Wiki in flames and pushing us down on the meter. You did the right thing by kicking them. 22:03, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense, it was my fault! I shouldn't have been at the eye-doctor! Teeheehee-- 22:04, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe, but it should not have got that far and afterwards I should have cleaned up better. Par is BLIND O_O
- Nah, my vision is just really weird now (O_o). If anything gets close to my eyes it gets blurry, but that never used to happen! CURSE THOSE EYEDROPS! D:-- 22:09, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
- Rofl alliance xD That's really flattering, it sounds like we were plotting to do it all along... Would have been epic, but I haven't really spoken with Jim for the past couple weeks or so, and Bill is sorta hit or miss, so I take whatever time I can with him.
- My point in all this is not to create some sort of user versus user megafight. I just wish John would apologize to those he has hurt thus far and make an effort to be less hostile... temper or not, he should not have said what he said. A cold world it may be, but our frosty behavior isn't making it any less chilly (and no offense but I'm freezing my ass off).
- John: did I mean to provoke you? Hell yes. Was it hypocritical to do so? Yes. Did I enjoy your reaction? Most likely. But that doesn't make what I did morally acceptable, and I apologize for it- honestly. To spell it out: WHAT I DID WAS WRONG AND IMMATURE even though it seemed like a good idea at the time.
- I'm not going to be on the wiki as much, and may stop checking altogether sometimes, but I'm as tired of putting up with crap from you as you are with putting up with crap from me. Let's not make each other's lives more difficult, eh? We get enough crap to deal with from other people, and I won't throw poo at you if you don't throw poo at me. I'll swallow my pride even if I see you being mean to people, because it isn't my business, and I have more long-term things to get stressed out over. In return, stop insulting me directly. I'll come through on my side of the deal first if it makes you happy.
- No, this is not a ploy to gain sympathy from the admins. If it were I'd have addressed them and not you. I'm just sick of butting heads with you when we both have other, more important things to finish.
- Cher Bear =D (talk) 05:07, September 1, 2012 (UTC)
Some users were "misbehaving on chat." I attempted to control some of it, but they wouldn't exactly listen. Hope these are useful.
I would say the users most misbehaving were Davy and Albert.
05:19, September 1, 2012 (UTC)
Seriously? First of all, you didn't "try to control us". Stop acting like you're some great hero in chat, because you were taking part in it earlier. Second of all, I know you want to be a chat mod, everybody knows, but this is really how you want to get there? Screenshots of users doing absolutely nothing wrong but having a good time? Yeah, we did nothing wrong. We didn't curse; there were no insults or discrimination; and no sexual references (the only thing slightly sexual that was said was the word "sexy", which is allowed). Honestly, and I'm not just saying this because I was involved, I don't see anything worthy of a ban or strike here, and this frankly reached a new low.
-- Jeremiah Garland So I was misbehaving for saying "Sexy"? That really is not even worth a strike lol. If you want to see what breaks the rule, scroll up to where I was banned 3 Days, thats what breaks the rule, not "sexy". Many users use sexy and~ I have seen others say things I say up there, not just me. That is all I am going to say. 05:47, September 1, 2012 (UTC)
After looking over this, I have come to realize that this isn't needed. I ask that this be disregarded and/or deleted. I really didn't want to get anyone banned; I have nothing against anyone here, I just thought the admins might want to see it and then decide if it was worthy of any "punishment," which I now agree that it's not. I'm sorry if I've overreacted, because I did.
07:10, September 1, 2012 (UTC)
Apology accepted, Jack.
- We should archive this page.
Block: Lord Andrew Mallace
First, he never even benefits the wiki.
Next, all he does is insult anyone to disagrees with him. It's his way or the highway in most cases.
This is not exactly a well set out request. No official reasons or anything. I agree he can be insulting, but I honestly do not see much reason for this. Oppose -, for now.
Um, lol. First of all, who the hell made this, rofl. Too scared to even put their name, I see. Mallace may be assertive at times, but that's the wafflezway. Besides, as I've said before, it's the assertive people that will finish strong, and actually go places in the world, unlike you fruit cocktails who sit back in your little homes going "guyz pls be nice". Step, you're turning into Cherie... No, the world is not perfect; no, it never will be; and no, Mallace does not insult people. At least I've never seen him insult anybody. If you're really going to be neutral on this, that kind of shows you have a bit of a thing against him, because this request is... well, lol, crap. OH and yes, Mallace does contribute to the wiki. He's the grand lord admiral of the Looterz.
I wrote a song for this...
"I Oppose -
You Oppose -
Let's get Oppose - in here
Because this is too weird to Oppose -
So I'll Oppose - your Oppose -
And we can Oppose - the Arab times"
-- Jeremiah Garland <3
Don't bring me into this, especially since you don't know me well enough to judge. Please and thank you, Jer.
Anyway, Neutral -.
This is completely uneeded. What did Mallace even do? I don't see any rulebreaks mentioned. I don't think he "never benefits the Wiki". This seems to be a grudge request, not a reasonable request at all. We can't just ban somebody because he "doesn't benefit the Wiki" ( Which is untrue. Mallace is a fun helpful user ), and we aren't going to. I Oppose -, and seeing the other votes, I believe this request is denied by the entire Bureaucratic Council. 23:12, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Support - This is totally needed! He has done so much for a ban!
I really hate when I make one of these requests, everyone gangs up on me and refuses to see the other side of things.
Whatever. I really couldn't care less because it will happen later.
And Step, I imagined you and I had cleared our grudges. I guess not :/
Cooldown Block Request: Jim Logan
I'm requesting the ban of Jim Logan for the following reasons.
- Vandalizing as of late
- Seems to be a bit of a hot-head when confronted
- Talks about users behind their backs occasionally
I'm just requesting like two days. Not much. If it doesn't pass, whatever. Just hope it's a wake-up call to a certain user....
Support - although it doesn't matter, he has vandalized my page 3 times, with what he claims " a valid reason" however it is against my will and I do not condougne it, and as per I am "legally renting" the page from wiki, I request this block be put through so he spots vandalizing.
Hmm. Though he has reasoning to edit the pages ( Which are basically taunting him ), he should have contacted an administrator first. I'm going to put Neutral - for now, I see both sides here. 20:25, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Gold, and was actually going to say the same thing. Jim needs to realize that such a thing as administrators exist on this wiki, and he is not one nor does he represent them. He should have contacted us and we would have gladly tried to resolve the situation.
I am thinking of a compromise, where some of the more offensive stuff on those pages gets removed ( the authors are not striked ) and Jim is not punished for his vandalism and vigilante behaviour. If talking behind people's backs is still a proble, he needs to resolve it soon.
Neutral - I think Jim is acting up quite a bit, but he had a right to edit that page, it was mocking him, I agree he talks behind his back a lot though, he always talks about John and how he'll be overthrowing all role-players, but for now I stand neutral. --21:18, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
Neutral - I think Jim is acting up alot. But for the page mocking him.... he had a right to be upset at the person. But his hot head is getting him in alot of trouble with admins and rollbacks........So I remain Neutral for now
Actually, per Wikia and this wiki's rules, he had no right to edit the page. He simply edited it because it wasn't praising him. It's vandalizing, no matter how "justified" you want to pretend it is. He can be upset all he wants, but the page wasn't offensive, and he had no right to vandalize. On top of that, he's been mocking me and others for quite some time, and I'm getting quite sick of his "I'm immune" attitude.
--15:47, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
Demotion Request: Lord Matthew Blastshot
As of lately, when Blastshot is on chat, he has been a jerk, telling everyone to,"shut up" when they won't listen to them, then slams you with threats if you don't listen. He has been overly-aggressive with an attitude against everyone. 04:46, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
Support -, Matthew seemed nice at first, but as of lately, he's shown his true self. He constantly will threaten you and he has made racist remarks to me. He called me a freak for saying I had this girl hitting on me; he was racist to the Irish too, if I say something in foreign he will shout out "Pencil! Perma ban unless translated!". I translate it in 30 seconds, thankfully.
Matthew has shown he is an aggressive chat mod, Matthew will be ranting on here if anything. He will defend his position at all costs. But of course, I'm supporting his demotion. I didn't want to write it because I felt it wouldn't end well, just a hunch. But Blake finally stepped up. Thank you Blake.
EDIT: Speaking of Irish, he seems to take a dislike for users that are Irish. (Me, Peter Coalvane, David McMartin, so on.) He will act very snotty to us.
--04:49, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
Support - he has been very rude to me telling me to shut up when i go to say a simple comment.. he is very unfit for a chatmod and should be demoted at once! Lord Jason Blademorgan, EITC Officer 04:58, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Matthew, but as a friend, I must Support - this. Your behaviour has become a bit extreme.
05:45, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
I must Support - this fully, as I deemed earlier in my blog. His emotional stress is getting to him and affecting his environment in a dangerously negative way.
As in the words of my fellow comrades, perhaps a demotion would be best for now. I Support - due to an increase in emotional behaviour.
-- No sig Garland
- Support - After reading what other users have stated. I must support this demotion. Sorry Matthew but we don't need a hostile chat mod. --KatBlueDogHiya! 12:37, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Matthew is not material for a rollback. His behavior and abuse of power is to much for an rollback. He should know better
ROFL Pencil. He's not racist against the Irish, what the hell? First off, the translation thing is a RULE. Second, you're just throwing out accusations, he's not racist. It's actually quite funny you think that, it really explains a lot...
Hmm. Well, it's hard for me to vote here becasue of a few reasons: 1- Matthew is my friend, and I wouldn't think he would be very aggresive. 2: I really haven't been on chat to see the actions. For some reason, I'm not usually on when he is, and since I really don't know what he did, it's hard for me to make a decision. Yes, I have seen him rather moody, and if that's what you're talking about, then I guess I should just say "oh", but it seems like for this amount of support on his demotion, he would have to have done something a bit more extreme than what I've seen. 3: Now, if I end up supporting this, I don't want anyone claiming "You admins just hate roleplayers!" I could be considered a roleplay due to Indonesia, so, henceforth, I would be hating myself, and not to mention just about every user here, if I hated roleplayers, so, don't want any of that mess.
I think before I vote I would like to get on chat and talk with the users who have seen him. I would like some opinions on this, and for now I'm Neutral -. I will be on chat in a bit, and when I am, please feel free to PM me and shed some light here, I want to know the community decision before voting ( I think I'm going to do this more often, now ) Alot of you are probably angry with me for being neutral all the time, but in most coses, I see both sides, and I usually get PMs from both sides in an argument, and I can understand multiple people's frustrations/opinions. 15:45, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, for now I am Neutral - leaning towards Oppose. Matthew is not really abusive, racist or agggressive. He was put on his final warning a little while back, and from what I can see he has not been out of line since. He sticks to the rules of chat and enforces them. What you mistake for racism and aggression is actually joking, sort of like Par. Matthew, often comment wrestles people in chat, because he is being friendly! He insults people and disses his friend to be friendly. I have not seem him act hateful towards any user, and the only people he complains to me about are troublemakers and users who do not behave. I think he likes David, and that was the fun of making David change his avatar.
Support - Hes very rude on chat.... User:Marc:Cannonshot/Sig4
I think the real issue here is that for some users, it's hard to tell when Matthew is serious or joking. From being on chat, it seems like some of the things that he has said were mean't as jokes, but taken as insults. I think this request is a bit unneeded, and that perhaps we should give said rollback some time and see how things play out. 16:04, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
@Pistol- "I can see he has not been out of line since." Well 1 fact to that is you see him 2 days a week, not that that isn't enough, but their is a wide range (the weekdays) of which you DO NOT observe his behavior, so I belive your statement their is a bit ill-supported. Secondly, if you notice the nature/time of this blog, it was created yesterday evening, so obvioulsy something had to have happened recently. As step and Kat also supported, the hostility is most likely being caused by some emotional distress. He has shown us on days such ast last saturday with the avatar incident that he does not yet have the control to maintain himself in an orderly and professional way. I supported his demotion, don't call me bias, but it has proved for the worse. He claims he has many emotinal things going on in his life... and I think it may be getting to him. And Goldvane, whether or not its a joke or being serious, a mod first off should be able to distinguish the two before stating something to the community, and secondly, they both can become offensive and "hostile" on many levels. SO please consider this comment before you go all "BNO" crazy on me, as usual. Sum up: He is not emotionally ready for this volunteer Job. Talk
Well, i think i am going to go on the side of Support - Sorry Matthew, i thought you would be a better mod, but you've proved me wrong several times. - Jeffrey B
Neutral - I'm neutral because I wasn't here when said things were done, but I am feeling reluctent to support because of what some have said, however I remain neutral. :)
I can see both sides of the story here, but must defend Goldvane's reasoning (as far as some of Blasty's comments being misunderstood). I got a strike a while back because I took something he'd said as literal, when he was actually joking (and dissed him big-time). Since I haven't been on much recently, however, I cannot really formulate an accurate opinion as to who is correct in this, so I will remain Neutral -.
Alright, honesty time. In my eyes, Matthew doesn't deserve a demotion. Yes, he's gone off the deep ends a couple times. Yes, he's let emotion and grudges interfere a couple times with his work. And yes, I myself have held grudges on him, as he has for me and several others. But isn't that just being human? In the long run, he hasn't done anything worthy of a demotion, and I think maybe most of the supports here are due to grudges or bias views. He's screwed up a couple times; there's no denying that. But, as I said, everybody screws up. The important thing is, is that through recent events, he's learned that he screwed up, and, knowing him, I can't see him making the same mistake twice. And quite frankly, I don't very much trust "Second Sealord Blake Stewart's" insight on this; Matthew probably said something to Blake that Blake doesn't agree with, and Blake took this as an offense and therefore assumes Matthew is "corrupt" and "has a bad attitude". Haven't we seen this plenty of times before, especially from the newer users such as Blake? Matthew is a good chat mod, when you get to the bare facts, and I don't believe he should be demoted. Sorry for the confusion; I'm chaning my vote to Oppose -
Meant to do this earlier, but I Oppose -. Blastshot is not a bad mod, he sticks to the rules, but also knows how to have fun. He jokes around by threatening people and forcing, by some odd deals, bets and so on, to do strange things to his, and others', amusement. This should not be mistaken as hostility. Few people on this wiki know where to draw the line between roleplay, friendships and their responsibilities. Mattthew, among a few others ( Garland notably ), is one of them. I may not always be around during the week, but I keep a close eye on the wiki and if I feel it is needed I will make a plan to get on. Since the recently resolved controversy where Matthew was put on a warning I have seen no reason for his demotion. The fact that two of the people that were opting for his final warning and possible demotion are now opposing clearly tells me that he has been behaving lately. John and Garland are more active and veteraned on this wiki, so I would hold their word ( as users ) to be true, while I trust the word of Goldvane too. I am not saying I think Blake is a liar or too new to have a say, I just suspect he does not understand Matthew's sense of humour or intentions. I beg to differ with Garland on his point that most supports are bias and grudges. Some may be, and I do suspect that, but I believe quite a few are a result of misunderstanding or not enough evidence. I think Kat and Step gave the users the benefit of the doubt, and took Matthew's recent warning into consideration when voting, although I am not their spokesperson. I truly do not think that Kat and Step hate Matthew, as I think they were just acting on what they were told and doing their duties.
Changing my vote to Oppose -, while he has been doing these things, we need to give him a 00:36, September 17, 2012 (UTC)chance to change. If he does not change then we should renew this vote. Stpehen Was HereHello
As far as I know, and I may be wrong, he has changed since we gave him that warning.
I'm also changing to Oppose -, which I was leaning torwards from the beginning. I have talked with Matthew and it seems like he is usually joking when the users do not like him, but I still expect him to change a small bit and just have a bit more happier of a mood while moderating and in chat. Also, when joking ( And, acting like you're being rude, but your not, for example: No more caps or it's a perma ban, you fools! ) it helps to use faces ( :P, :D, xD, etc ) to show you are joking.
Oppose - Same reasons as above.--01:21, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
Cooldown Ban Request: Victoryous
The side of Support won in the vote!
I'll keep this short and sweet, because I do not have much time right now.
Recently, there's been a rare time of peace on the wiki; no wars between players and admins, no major roleplay disputes, and no attacks from fruits.
In the past few days, he has not only been extremely immature on the wiki, but has acted in an aggresive behaviour and continously picks fights with other users. For those of you who are unaware of the roleplay fiasco involving him, a couple weeks ago, the then-monarch of France, Duchess, passed on the French roleplay crown to a named heir. Even still, Victoryous continues to believe that he is indeed the king of France and refuses to take no for an answer. Now, I am not requesting his cooldown because of this absurd claim, but because of what has followed: several unnecessary war roleplay blogs, obnoxious and immature behaviour, and the classic feeling that he is better than everbody else. I believe his horrible ranting and claims that he's "smarter, more mature, more awesome, and better-looking" than other users has gone out of hand. In addition, he claimed one user was racist, when indeed, there was no discrimination against another race or ethnicity subject to the conversation at hand. From the way he's been acting, I wouldn't even be surprised if he's underaged for the Wiki, but I'll make no accusations there. For more proof of his childish and immature behaviour, as well as his obsessed thirst to control a meaningless roleplay nation, reference here.
In conclusion, I feel that a slight cooldown ban of a couple days, a week at the most, is necessary to teach this guy not everything in life will be handed to him, and there are consequences for what you say and do. He has, as I've said, acted very immaturely and very brash toward other users. His temper has certainly gone out of control, and I believe a slight cooldown will be best. Thank you for reading and considering, and have a superb day.
-- Jeremiah Garland
Support -, although I have avoided all this drama, I can see that there is definitely a good reason for a cooldown. I don't think it should be too long, as he is a fairly new user.
Also read that picture.
- He has been banned for 5 days since everyone agreed.--KatBlueDogHiya! 20:37, September 16, 2012 (UTC)
Block Request:Jack Goldwrecker.
The side of Support won in the vote!
I am hereby requesting the temporary block of User:Jack Goldwrecker. for the following reasons:
- Sparking religious arguments
- Attacking homosexual members of the community
- Attacking non-Catholic memebers of the community
- Continuing to "Preach God's Word" after receiving numerous warnings to cease.
- Using his religion as an excuse to break rules, when it, in fact, gives him no reason.
Now I know Jack will comment saying his religion is making him do this, or something like that, but I will prove otherwise.
- Honour thy father and thy mother - This not only refers to your father and mother, but your elders as a total. By refusing to listen to Captaingoldvane2, and other admins, who have told him to cease, he is disrespecting his elders (elders does not refer to people older than yourself, but people who are in a higher position of power.)
- Thou shalt not kill - This commandment does not refer to killing only, but harming yourself or another creature in any way, shape, or form (with exceptions such as slaughtering a pig for it's meat, or if another man has attacked you and you kill in defense). By hurting these homosexual and non-Catholic users, he has broken this commandment.
That's two of God's commandments broken, so he literally cannot justify his preaching here.
In any case, Jack has broken several rules and harassed members, and in my (and many others') opinion, needs a temporary block.
Support - Jack has been warned multiple times and knew of the consequences of his actions. He needs a temporary block.-- 00:53, September 20, 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, Jack. But, this has gone on long enough. You continuously disobey our administrators, and no other user likes it. (I don't care, frankly) I know for a FACT there was an atheist, Jew, and whatever the Hell in CHAT while this was going on. How do you think THEY FEEL? Also, GibbsGirl1111 has been disrespecting the Homosexual Community (Population:Bator). I believe she requires a strike, also, because I wouldn't even call anyone a "fag". You have annoyed the most of users on the Wiki, and in chat. I'm sorry, but I have to Support -.
Support - Whilst I respect Jack and his religion, I agree this has gone too far. He failed to halt the religous topics far after I warned him and told him to stop. ( BLAST these edit conflicts ) 01:04, September 20, 2012 (UTC)
I apologise, Jack, but I must Support - this. He has been forcing it onto everybody and many users are sick of it. He agreed to stop but really has not done so.
In addition, on one of his blogs he said Protestants “scare him,“ acting as if they were lower than Catholics (not capitalising ‘Protestants‘ and then capitalising all of ‘Holy Roman Catholic‘) and as if they were some sort of disgusting pagans. I myself took slight offence to this, being Protestant . . .
Support - As to what Jarod Pillagebane said. --01:33, September 20, 2012 (UTC)
Are you serious? Jack is still at this? Wow. If only he knew how ignorant and arrogant he is because of this. He tries to preach his own religion, which, apparently he knows nothing about; as John said, he's broken two commandments, and every time I engage in conversation with him on the matter, he always ends up failing to have a reasonable comeback to my questions. A week break will do him good, let him learn that this needs to stop, and he is not on any "holy, saintly mission" as he believes himself to be. Word to the wise: if you're going to preach an idea or religion to someone, A) make sure you thoroughly understand it, and don't simply go by the knowledge others have told you, B) when people want you to shut the hell up, then shut the hell up. C) Realise that Christianity, while the most dominant religion in the world, does not grant you special rights to ignore other's fragile beliefs and try to impose your own beliefs on them, which is indeed, as John said, illegal for a Christian to do. I wasn't even involved in this, but I'm still extremely offended that Jack has kept this up. Jack, seriously man... Obviously your holy mission isn't working out. If you're going to play priest, don't do it on the wiki; obviously people hate it. Anyways... I realise this vote is over, but I still Support - :P
-- Jeremiah Garland
I know Kat, read the last line of what I said :P
Just adding some emphasis to this most dramatic moment.
Just to let people know, Jack did not say homosexuality is wrong, or a sin, or anything. He agrees with me saying it is not wrong. Gibsgirl1 also has the right to her own opinion, whether that be for or against gays, but I ask her not to use the "f" word (faggot), which she has used, because that's what lots of gay people, including me, find extremely offinsive and crude. I just ask she be told this, not for a strike nor a warning. --Batorhos 04:26, September 20, 2012 (UTC)
Pearson Wright: Possible Unban Blog, Please Read.
The Majority of the Court has voted Oppose!
This is not meant to cause fights or drama. Thank you.
The past few days have been extremely argumentative, and violent. I haven’t seen this must drama since The Paradoxian Wars. I have seen over 8 videos on Youtube, all from different users, requesting the unban of Pearson Wright. He has been invited to Skype conversations by Sven Daggersteel, Jason, Hippie, Francis Chiphawk, Brooke Parker, Bella, William Yellowbones, Boogiemango, Skull Catcher, Firelegend, Sharkhound, and several other people all urging me to support to unbanning of Pearson Wright. Whether you administrators support it or not, the fact of the matter is, if you don’t adhere to the community, this wiki is going to start losing users, as well as contributions, decreasing activity, and ultimately, driving the site into inactivity, potentially destroying it. The majority of the community wants Pearson Wright unbanned. Due to his previous unban blog, you technically are obliged to unban him, but whatever. Let’s have a fresh start. He’s given me his word, and this isn’t some empty promise. I trust him. He’s never betrayed me before. I’ve known him a very long time. Curycoo would say the same, had Tama63 not demoted him. What I request, is that we the community be allowed to vote for the unbanning of Pearson Wright. If it does not pass, then okay. He'll understand.
I’m certain that you all know deep in your souls that Pearson Wright only had, three, REAL chances, almost 10x less than Samuel did. I remember once when he returned here, bandodging, and said, “I am sorry for what I have done.” Parax said. You expect him to change? He came to you, apologizing promising to change. You never ALLOWED that change to occur which is why this wiki is progressively declining. Look at the statistics. For the past YEAR, he has been banned. Look at the wiki. Look at how bad this situation has gotten. Clearly this isn’t working. Try something new. What could he possibly do now that he hasn’t already attempted in the past? He doesn’t even play the game anymore. You say this isn’t a social site, but the majority of the contributions made by administrators here are comments, I.E.: Social interactions. Don’t point out his flaws when you’ve still not corrected your own. Perhaps that’s why he keeps fighting with you. He tried changing for you, and you blew him off. You, brought this upon yourselves. This time, YOU will have to approach him, telling him that you will allow him to change, and that you will change as well. You’ll both start off on the right foot. Put your differences aside, and move on.
It is prohibited by The TOU to make a single rule, taking away a person’s right to be MENTIONED on a wiki. It is allowed here, on this wiki, to request the unbanning of users, and ALL users, so I therefore officially request the unban of the user Pearson Wright. Delete this, and you only prove that you truly are the bias, and unfair dictators that so many people have portrayed you as in their videos, blogs, comments, etc. Thank you for understanding.
Support - - Pearson Wright being unbanned:
- Jason Blademorgan
- First $ea Lord Sven Daggersteel
- Reyes De Luz (Albert Spark)
- Jim Logan
- Jason Shiprat
- Blake Stewart
- Basil Brawlmonk
- Duchess Natalie Andrea
- Dog Sharkidd (TheMaTr1x)
- Capt. Jack Darksilver
- David McMartin Son Of Sparrow
Oppose - Pearson Wright NOT being unbanned:
- Tyler Crossbones
- Lord Andrew Mallace
- John Breasly
- Tyler Crossbones
Here are some of the many videos of the known users of POTCO, and The POTCO Players Wiki that request the unban of Pearson Wright!
Let me just say this: If Samuel had 10x more chances, why does that make it ok for Pearson to have just as many?
Explain that logic, please. Because it makes no sense at all.
Samuel's block is very different from Pearson's block, bringing Samuel into this is quite unnecessary since Pearson and Samuel reasons for being block were very quite different. Sharple Talk Page 00:51, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
That's not an excuse, try harder.
Number one, this is not the place to fight. Number two, I WOULD Support - as long as he is told the simple reasons why he was banned, and told what he can do to fix it. 01:08, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
Support - First, before you go after me and say "Oh, you always want Pears unbanned" or try to bring up your side, know that I have my reasons to support. He definitely should've been unblocked after the vote in which support won. Though the admins tended to choose oppose on it, that didn't make it right for them to disregard it. A lot of the "drama" that's said to come from Pears is actually other people trying to unban him. Maybe it would end if it happened. It's been a long time since he's been on the wiki and there's a chance he's changed his attitude since then. Of course, when/if he's allowed back, he should be given the normal rights and restrictions and punished at the amount of time (if any) for any action (if any) he may have done; it's not like he'll get a special treatment, and I would hope he doesn't get different treatment from certain dislikes. If it becomes severe enough, go ahead and issue an inifinite ban again. If it's done rightfully then, there should really be no dispute.
I have seen his videos and listened to him harass people on the game. I don't see any proof of him "changing" God, people like him annoy the hell out of me. Constantly thinking he is better then everyone else? How could anyone want him back on the Wiki? In other words, I Oppose -
Also Parax, I need to edit my signature. How can I do that?
Support - I believe Pearson deserves 1 more chance. He doesn't hate the wki he wants to make a statement. Just perm ban him from chat
- Prime Minister Basil Brawlmonk IV
Why do you say oppose has won? It clearly says support is thirteen, and oppose is twelve. I am sorry If I'm wrong, so if I am please correct me. But until then I believe support has one, and Pearson Wright is going to be unbanned.
- Oppose won. Check the top of the page; it clearly says that only rollback and admin votes count. Non-admins/rollbacks can post their opinions and end up listed, but in the end, they won't count.-- 19:20, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
01:11, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
As I told Pearson, I said I wouldn't oppose his unbanning, however I never supported It. You have added my name illegally, Boogie, and I intend to take action against you. I now Oppose due to Boogie's completely immature and illegal allegations.
Well, why not. We're all human, and I honestly wouldn't care less if he was back or not, as I see all this fighting would be solved if he's unbanned. Support -
Honestly, I wish I could believe he changed. Really, I do. But I don't. I don't believe an ounce of it. We get told that he has "changed" and is a better person, yet he makes slander videos, attacks the wiki nonstop, generally obsessing over a website, an encyclopedic website about a pirate-themed game. For God's sake, if he is this pissed off about it, and if he really has sunken this low to the point of slandering the wiki and admins in videos, I just don't think he's as good as people claim him to be. Before anyone starts going, "Oh, you just hate him for what he did a year and a half ago" or "Stop holding grudges", I have forgiven him. I have, but that doesn't mean that I think his personality has changed. With the videos I see from him, and the fact that he shows a complete hatred for the wiki and its users makes me wonder why he wants to be on it so badly.
My point being, his behavior simply tells me he isn't a different person. Maybe some day, I'll be convinced, but with what I've seen, I just don't see a reason to let him on the wiki. Thus, I Oppose - the request. I might edit this to add some more points in some time, but for now I'll leave it at that.-- 01:23, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
I don't have much time tonight to type a long message, but I want to agree with everything Parax said. He just put my thoughts into words. Also, why is it your life goal for a banned user who was banned fairly ( Yes, at the time he broke rules, his action were worthy of a permanent block. ) unbanned on a site he hates? I mean, according to his friends,he doesn't even WANT back here, so why is it so important to call us dictators over not unabnning a user a year later after his ban? If he wants back, perhaps he can apologize for his actions and ask nicely? No, instead you try to make us look bad for banning a user for a right reason, aka doing our jobs. Oppose - 01:38, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
I was laughing as I read this. "Most of the community"? No. Most of us actually want him unbanned so he can get his sorry ass banned again. Most of his little community of jumpers that have edited here once want him unbanned. Not the whole wiki. Also I'm removing Mallace's name because of his request to have his name removed. The people you listed, save two, don't even edit here. This pitiful excuse of an unban blog is TERRIBLY written.
You compare his three chances to Samuel. I'm sorry, but Samuel's banned, it don't work like that. And Samuel didn't threaten to track someone's IP. And most of the edits aren't administrative, that's incorrect. Finally, I'd like to top it off with this - " Don’t point out his flaws when you’ve still not corrected your own." Well, unfortunately, dumbass, that works both ways. Correct your flaws before you point out ours. He has had his "chances" to change. He obviously haven't. His hate videos prove he hasn't. His verbal attacks prove he hasn't.
He's not being unbanned, give it up. Btw, if you didn't figure it out already. Oppose -
Oppose - 100%. Why would we let a user who hates this wiki come back? I don't think we should let someone who makes hate videos come back to this wiki. By the way, Samuel just broke the rules not cyberbullied users. Samuel is not the same as Pearson. --KatBlueDogHiya! 14:16, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
I believe he should come back, the fact that you hate him to the core is sick, alot of you anyways. Not going to say names but this is something we need to realize, if you really feel the need he'll do it again, then make a compromise, see if it comes out again such as, monitor him for a PERIOD of time, like a week NOT harassing him or anything and if its not what you expected and IS change as you never thought it would happen, Congratulations you WILL have peace, we're always fighting each other, thing is you guys dont want to be flexible, I realize he has done horrible things, but how about other who have had more chances? He has my support in coming back, and if you cant be flexible or compromise for peace, you are one mindless ass, I honestly hope others will support. Support - 23:55, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
Support - I think Pears deserves at least one more chance, I know he has made mistakes in the past, but everyone has. And the reasons we banned him were pretty biased compared to now-a-days. If he is unbanned, and he does cause trouble, let's not flip out and ban him right away(etc). Come on guys, we gave people dozens of chances and we gave Pears what 2, 3? So he makes a few hate videos, everyone does, now I am rambling, god dang it. POINT IS! Pears deserves another chance, for all we know, he can bring some livley hood to this place.
The Instant Classic 01:39, September 26, 2012 (UTC)
My mistake, Mallace. I was informed that you were a supporter. Please forgive my idiocy. :)
And, by the way, John, I'm sorry I don't live up to your expectations. I'm just have that type of dumbassery.
I follow him on youtube and Facebook and stuff so don't go start saying I hold grudges. Oppose - Pearson doesn't even play POTCO anymore if I am correct. He threatened to track someone down using their IP. "The majority of the community wants Pearson Wright unbanned." What the hell? Not the majority, only the people who just follow Pearson around like his dogs.
Jim, Pearson didn't just make a FEW hate videos, his whole channel is practically devoted to hating on all of us! And, idk about you, but, I don't see hate videos coming from every single one of us.
I Oppose - this, because if this happens, then Pearson will just break some more rules, get banned, then the cycle begins again with someone making an unban vote, reason being "He's only had, like, 3 chances."
Plus, he doesn't even WANT to come back, why would he make all those hate videos if he wanted to come back?
After recent events, I have seen Pearson really starting to change and feeling sorry for alot of what he did, he is taking down those horrid hate videos forever and is promising change, I mean come on, it has been a year or so, he must have changed! We don't know until we try, and if you're not willing to try something then I don't know what to say to you. He is a great man outside Wiki and Role - Play, and is not the devil we make him out to be. Alot of the newer Role Players need to get to know their so called "enemy". If you have not personally met the guy and just start hating him based off what others say then it doesn't look good. I remember my brother Al, used to hate him because others did, but after a while he learned things and became curious, eventually he discovered Pearson is actually pretty cool to talk with other than Role - Play. I must Support -
Just curious, how come you never disagree with your brother or anything?
There have been all sorts of cyber bullying on this site... like I said before in my comment on Breasly's blog. It is also true that Samuel had more chances than Pears, but still their bans are quite different. Look I've known Pears for a long time and I know that he changed. Look the hate videos to Breasly etc... Are only to protect Bella. And that what some people including Breasly saying that Bella's family didn't die is a form of cyber bullying (yes, it took place on the wiki i was there). I believe that Pears deserves one more chance. If you think he didn't changed just give him a chance to show you that your wrong.
-Dog Sharkidd (TheMaTr1x)
Now, as long as I've been here, I've only met Pears once. He wasn't hostile towards me in any way, we just talked and that was it. It was a short conversation on Chat. Everyone says he's a horrible person, but, other than his YouTube Videos, I really don't see any proof. I say that you guys give him a kind of, err, test run. Let him be unbanned for a week. If he acts up in the slightest, ban him.
@Dog, Couldn't have said it better.
@Parax.You’re saying that Pearson slanders the wiki? Might I remind you what slandering is? Slandering is a federal crime, where you intentionally run around talking crap about people when you know in fact what you’re saying is not true. Everything Pearson says in his videos is either true, or controversial; I’d say 95% of it is complete, fact. MANY people would agree with me. I think you have your terms mixed up. Seeing as you all are the ones that made the “hate mail” page about him, in which you depicted him as talking bad about the entire wiki, and everyone on it, when in reality, he never did that, and gained him a TON of enemies; that in itself is the definition of slandering. You’d not only be contradicting yourself, but also be a complete hypocrite to say other wise. Now, does Pearson insult you? Does he roast you, and make fun of you and call you a dictator? Yes. But guess what? He’s not the only one that does that. You’re not as NEAR as offended by it when some random noob does it. I’m certain by now that the reason you’re so hung over on keeping him banned is because not only does he insult, you, but when he insults you, he brings up facts from the past, which really get to you. Now, he has clearly proven his point and is the bigger person because he was sworn to ALL of us that he will remove every hate video he has, AND apologize for what he did. HOWEVER, he is expecting the same from you. You can keep this up, this absurd internet war, whereas you continue annoying him, and he continues dissing you on Youtube, or you can both just stop and he can delete his videos, and you can unban him and we can try and all get along. He’s been banned a year. I think it’s time he be let back. @Tyler, What's wrong with agreeing? Kat and Step are also in the same family and agree on alot of things, hell, they even work in the same field for a job, that is more than Natalie and I. Wish we were that close xD
1.) Exactly. His hate videos ARE him talking crap about people. What he says is NOT true. It's all freaking exaggerated, him playing victim to give us a bad name because he can't get over his ban.
2.) Hi7878 forged the "hate mail", WE as a whole did not. Pearson was aware of this, and threatened to frame us with it if we didn't unban him.
3.) How the hell am I contradicting myself or being a hypocrite?
4.) Damn straight, he does. You should've seen those "Views on the POTCO Players Wiki" slander videos. In them, he attacked the admins with false facts, used profanity, and told us to rot in hell.
5.) Sure, I'm not offended if a noob does it. I'm not offended if Pearson does it either.
6.) No, I am not "hung over" keeping him banned for that. What he did during his "last chances" here were bad/screwed up enough to get him banned for life. Don't believe me? I'll show you the ban requests.
7.) He has proven no "point". He isn't "the bigger person". We're trying to work as a cooperative encyclopedic site, and Pearson is attacking us because he can't get over a ban that occurred a year and a half ago.
8.) We don't want this "absurd internet war". He got banned, and he won't get over it. If he and his followers stopped coming here to flame us, this conflict would've died down a LONG time ago.
9.) He isn't "dissing" anybody; he's making hate videos to give us a bad name because of his grudge on the internet.
10.) Yes, he's been banned for a year. What's your point? A permanent ban doesn't mean we're holding anything against him when we refuse to ban him a year and a half later. It means he screwed up big time on his "last chance" and did enough to get banned permanently.
Have I made my point now?
--21:34, September 26, 2012 (UTC)
Most of the reasons for Pears being let back utilize a "why not" mentality. Question: What good would it do for the wiki as a whole to let him back? The majority of what supporters have said is not fact, it is what Pearson SAID he would do: remove his hate videos and not cause drama. I agree with the fact that he has not received as many chances as others, but seeing as nobody else has done the same things as him, it's like comparing apples to oranges. That being said, I ask that if you reply to this, you do so without insulting me. I am willing to change my vote if logic and fact are presented, but for now I Oppose -. Cher Bear =D (talk) 23:24, September 26, 2012 (UTC)
Wow. I had come up with a long message but I lost it all with edit conflict. Thanks Step :/
Anyway, I'm going to leave these here, in hopes of convincing the Supporters to change their mind.
Pearson HATES us, doesn't even want to come back, and if he does come back, he'll act the same way he did with his OTHER chances.
September 27, 2012 (UTC) '1.) He’s talking crap about you, because you all were the first to insult him. When he first came to this wiki, do you know what his warm welcome was? “GET THE HELL OFF OF OUR WEBSITE TROLL”, and a funeral blog, telling him to burn in Hell. He isn’t even requesting to be unbanned. WE, the community, the people that make up THIS wiki are DEMANDING that he be let back. Do you know why? You’re boring us to death. This wiki is so bias, and cruel, it’s just ridiculous. It’s one-sided. There used to be so many pages, and now it’s just England, because you banned all The Spaniards, literally, right after you banned Pearson.
2.) Hi7878 did not make the hatemail. Jim Logan did. Stop casting blame on random users because in fact you never truly gave any proof that Hi7878 did it, and to my knowledge, him and Pearson are pretty good friends, so I doubt he’d do that. Pearson did not threaten to frame you. He threatened to destroy the wiki if the page was not removed. It took you heartless monsters 2 days to remove that page. You left it up there, knowing that it was a slander page. You just wanted Pearson to acquire enemies. I’m not an idiot, and neither is he. Clearly that’s why you infuriated half the game.
3.) How are you contradicting your self? You have the temerity to say that Pearson is slandering you, when, whenever I come on this wiki, or go into the chat, and ask about Pearson, I get the same bias, one-sided bull crap. “He cyber-bullied.” Pearson Wright has NEVER driven anyone to suicide. This wiki, has put 3 people on the edge of it, THEREFORE, you are a hypocrite. Do you understand now? Can you process that Parax?
4.) How are his views on The POTCO Players Wiki slander videos? They’re his views. Lol? Slandering is stating things that are false, and making them out to be facts. All he did was give his opinion; idiot. He attacked you with “false facts”? LOL, good choice of words there, Oh mighty one. He told you to rot in hell? Aww, that hurt your feelings? ☹ Funny, because didn’t you practically do the same thing, ALL of you? And then you called him a baby for making such a big deal out of it. Once again, PARAX, that is how you are a hypocrite. Do you understand now?
5.) I beg to differ, because if you weren’t offended by it, you wouldn’t be fighting so hard to keep him off this wiki, and don’t say you’re doing it for the “community” when over half the community wants him back.
6.) What exactly did he do, that was THAT bad? PLEASE, explain it to me. You have a rule here prohibiting banning users based on things that occur off this site. You don’t break rules? Ever? You just broke one. The worst thing Pearson has done is threaten to kill Sharple in which he was only joking. After John Breasly infinitely banned him, Sharple even SAID, “Wow John, that’s a bit excessive, he was only joking.”
7.) Pearson isn’t attacking you. Stop being such a baby. You CHOOSE to go watch his videos, they aren’t posted here. If you’re so offended by them, why do you keep watching them. He clearly states in all his videos, “If you don’t like what I’m saying, there’s a simple solution, don’t watch my videos.”
8.) He’s been over it. Once again, HE is not requesting to be unbanned. You are somehow consoled by the fact that Pearson wants to come back. He doesn’t give a crap. We’re just bored. Pearson’s cool. He’s smart. He’s attractive. He’s something that this wiki NEEDS. He’s an entertainer.
9.) You already have a bad name. Lol. He’s just making videos because he’s tired of his baby girl being insulted. You people slander him on this wiki, and prevent anyone from speaking out against it, which is why he goes to other sites, and replies to it. You then CHOOSE to go view his replies, then complain about how he’s slandering you. What a SCREWED up mindset; Jesus Christ.
10.) Almost everyone on this wiki agrees, even many of the people that oppose his unbanning, that what he did, did NOT deserve an infinite ban. You, yourself, yes, Parax, You, have done worse than he has on THIS wiki; FAR worse. Pearson never meant to hurt, ANYONE. He wanted to be the clown of the wiki, because he’s hilarious. You all used that against him, and tried to play it off as if he was “cyber-bullying” you. Seriously? Grow up. Grow some balls. Stop being so incoherent, seriously.
Hmm. So, after spending however long he did to write that, he's still not going to be unbanned. LOL. The Seven Seas Court is for admins to vote on, not users. So all those users' votes go nowhere. Admins said no, it doesn't happen. If you want to prove you're not obsessed with this website, stop obsessing over it. You're acting like a child who can't get a toy. It doesn't matter how "unfair," or "mean," your ban was, the fact is you were threatening someone, and that got you banned. Maybe if you thought about what you said for once instead of tramping around like an incoherent twat all day on YouTube, you'd be a bit farther in life.
--00:51, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
with John. As for Jason's post: Again, whoever wrote those 10 points completely misses the whole thing. As usual, everything is twisted around to make Pearson look like the victim. Of course, I see no point in arguing with people this childish, as anyone who actually believes those "10 points" Jason posted obviously won't be capable of thinking up to this level, and realize that Pearson is not the victim. So, rather than waste my breath (or… whatever you can think of related to fingers…), I'll just choose to ignore those childish attempts to counter my argument and let this vote continue. After all, only rollbacks and admins count in SSC votes. Take care now, bye-bye then. :)--02:02, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
-stands up in court and begins applauding, also thinking about the money I earned for winning the case-
The Majority of the Court has voted Oppose!
No more comments on this subject.
Jack, it's an admin-only vote, everyone else just felt compelled to pretend their votes counted in it.
--19:20, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
Rule Change Request: No Edits, No Chat service. (Raise to 200.)
As the brilliant rule that we instated (100+ [50 mainspace]) works extremely efficienty, I still find it rather useless as most people just create sockpuppets, get 100 quick edits in 15 minutes, go on chat for just that day, and never come back. And we put the rule in to verify that the user is "dedicated" to the wiki. The above scenario obviously indicates they are not dedicated. I request to the community that we raise the edit count to something for more signifigance - one that isn't easily achieved by users with malicious intent just getting 100, as I call them, "space-filler" edits. If we raise the limit to something like 200 or 500, then we can rad out the ones who are here to troll and truly verify whether someone is here to stay for the day, or for the month. It'll also make it harder for those certain sockpuppets to achieve their goal. I can see where lots of opposition can arrise from this and openly accept it - again this is just a suggestion/request that I would like feedback on.
I do like this idea, and see where you're coming from. However, many of the users who do frequent chat that are dedicated barely scratch 200, so I don't think we should go much higher after that. I'm not saying that we should conform to their needs, but it would feel like we're shunning them out of something they're dedicated to.
--10:10, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - sounds fair however many of the users complain already about the 100 edits.. 200 edits might make then wanna leave.. ~Unsigned Post
Hmm. While I understand this suggestion, I think 100 is enough. users who come here just to chat are usually too lazy to get 100 faithful edits anyways, and end up leaving or getting banned from chat for ignoring the rule. I think that if someone can make 50 faithful edits to a page then they should be able to enter chat. For now I think I'm going to Oppose -, but if a situation ensues I can see this possibly being taken into action. 14:21, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
Gotta Oppose - this one. 100 edits total and 50 to pages are enough to be able to chat. As Goldy said, most users are too lazy and end up getting banned from chat for refusing to edit. Stpehen Was HereHello
Oppose - I think 100 edits is just enough for new users. I understand they edit quickly with new accounts but the rule is okay for now. The users will actually want to stay on the wiki get the 100 edits with no problem. --KatBlueDogHiya! 14:49, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
Nope. I am Oppose - like a lot of other users.
Just a note to the other users voting: This is an Admin only voting session, so you don't have to use the templates :P, also, it's easy for us to tell which admins voted what if only the admins use the templates. Don't get me wrong, users opinions are highly valued, just a reminder :P -Facepalms at a random user who spends 5 edits trying to fix his vote template on the page- 17:19, September 27, 2012 (UTC) @Gold BUT IT LOOKS FAAAAANCY D: @Request Oppose - (EAT MY DUST GOLDY xD) There was much opposal to the rule itself when it was 100, 50 Main. Doing 200 would scare off too many people and even rid some of the users that chat (EVEN One of your slaves BNO D:) that have already shown dedication and loyalty to the wiki. We are sadly not like other Game Fanon Wikis, Such as the Halo Fanon Wiki (or whatever its called), POTCO doesnt have a large base like Halo, nor is it as addicting, like Halo is. This is just an example. Whether Halo Wiki uses such a rule or not is unknown so don't quote me :P.
I just read Bella's ban reason again.... um, the one-year ban was a bit excessive, her offenses were not equal to the punishment, regardless of any "lie" she told.
Can it be shortened to like a month or two months? That'd be way more appropriate.
--19:13, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
We were planning on doing an infinite ban. All she does is defend Pearson. We did the year ban in hopes that she will stop obsessing over Pearson. She never edits unless it has to do with Pears. I don't think we need to change the ban yet. --KatBlueDogHiya! 19:47, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
She didn't even break a rule....
--20:36, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
So what if she just defends Pearson? Are we not allowed to have different views, opinions on subjects or is it just Pearson? She has only begged you people to unban him? She is defending her own point of view not Pears. Bella edits with good faith still though.... You have has King Giorgio John thee Second pointed out no legitimate reason to keep her banned.
There's tons of users here that edit only to defend England, and John Breasly. I don't see them banned. You know why? You realize that you've already lost Spain's approval, and al the other major Nations. You know if you lose England you're just screwed which is why you're allowing all this crap to occur. The users may have their own views.
By the way, I defended Pearson, so why aren't I banned?
I'm staying neutral in this, but I will say a couple of things.
- It does seem like the ban is pretty long, even though I do not know the full reasoning behind it
- The next two are directed to Boogie: I do not believe the admins have any craziness over which role-play nation has "control." At least, I don't, and have never been told. We do not need the "approval" of a role-play nation. At least I have not been informed that we do.
- You are not banned because, from what I have heard, your exsistance is not souly to letting Pearson back.
@Gen: My purpose on the Wiki is of many things, edit stories/pages, talk with users, etc. Bella's purpose wasn't to get Pearson back, either. Sometimes, it was for her own dealings, not his.
- As I said, I do not know much about this. I have been extremely busy irl, and have not wanted to get into this.
- I agree with Law on all of the points he made
- @Boogie: The admins don't give a damn which "country approved us", and I'm getting tired of the fools that claim we have something against them in role play. Barely any of them roleplay, and those that do don't even make it personal like you seem to enjoy implying.
- Sure, there are people who defend John. Do they mindlessly agree with everything he says, attacking people who disagree? Do they vandalize or harass users when he gets banned? Not that I know of.
- Bella's apparent sole purpose on this wiki is to glorify Pearson and piss on those who dare to disagree with her.
- With the point above in mind, you, Boogie, do indeed defend Pearson. But you wonder why you're not banned? You actually show good faith on the wiki. You actually help, while the banned user we are discussing is barely active, and whenever she is, she's taking a massive dump on anyone who disagrees with her. Don't believe me? Go view her contributions (or at least the ones that aren't deleted)in any discussion about Pearson.
- I suggest you read the block logs before you start claiming that her nagging us about Pearson is the only reason she's banned.
Now, in the meantime, I'm Neutral - on this. While I agree that the block is a little too lengthy for a temporary ban, I still don't see much productivity from her. I might support, I might oppose, but we'll just have to see.--23:23, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
These are the reasons why we banned Bella.
- Harassment of users/personal attacks.
- Starting arguments and drama about Pearson nonstop.
- Ordering admins to unban a rightfully-banned user.
And since when in God's name are those three reasons ever worthy of a year-long ban? Admit it, they're not :/
--23:55, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
And suddenly, you are defending the girl you called an attention whore?
So because I insulted someone I must immediately hate them? Okay, Yaxley.
--00:14, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
I would have to agree. A year is a bit excessive, and it might result in more hatred towards us. We should lessen it more to one month.
Although Kat just said the ban was being lowered, I want to insert my opinion here, too. Like it or not, defending Pearson isn't against the rules. (If someone says "That doesn't matter; admins can determine if it's worthy of a ban", well, this isn't. If you, believe it is, that's 100% discrimination.) Even the month and a half is long for something like this. I've defended Pears, so have many others. Guess what? I haven't received so much as a strike. Sure, I know my bounds, but so does she and she hasn't yet overstepped them. Everyyhing you've said in her bsn, you could probably say about me in some way. Banning for that, especially at such a ridiculous time span, is like banning me for supporing this.
20:15, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
New Category Request: Boyz Night Out
Okay, before the admins immediately shoot this down, HEAR ME OUT!
Well, the BNO has many pages: the BNO main page, the BNO - the Show, the Mallace Pallace (recent winner of FAOTW), the BNO Band, the BNO Amusement Park, and many more. When a collection of pages are all related in one way or another, I believe they deserve their own category. I know, I know, many of you find the BNO to be "disgusting" and "immature". In the past few months, we at the BNO have strove to be less disgusting and less immature, and have bettered our relations with the admins (or so we think). That being said, the BNO is not your enemy! Many members of the community (even some admins) share our love for the BNO, and all you skeptical mammals out there should too. So whatdya say... Just a category called "Boyz Night Out", or even "BNO" will do.
-- Jeremiah Garland
I Support - this, because the BNO is one of the many things I enjoy about this Wiki. I also am a hardcore BNO'r, and I love the pages. I edit them very often. There are also many members of the BNO, and I believe it deserves its own category.
Um... this isn't really a major request and doesn't really need whole Court approval. Categories only need one admins approval. Personally, I don't see why this category shouldn't be created. It organizes the many pages affiliated with "BNO" and I think in this case a category is necessary. -Admin Approved 03:21, September 28, 2012 (UTC) Neutral - I would agree with this, due to how many pages are about the subject, however, the "Restaurant" page contains way too many inappropriate things for my liking. Such as the use of various animal nipples in dishes... Stpehen Was HereHello
Instead of having the admins always vote on ONE thing ex: Pearson being brought back and MANY other things, I think that votes, and every vote should be split in half. The rise of feelings take over with emotion. The admins all vote on the request, rule, etc. And everyone who VOTES becomes the 50% 03:01, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
Well, that kinda defeats the purpose of the Seven Seas Court. We usually make out decisions based off personal opinions combined with users opinions. Gonna have to Oppose - for now, because the Court was created so that major requests would go through Administrators before being put into a community vote. 03:18, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
I don't even understand what he's asking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7jhb8_UPfw&t=0m11s (Warning: cursing)
--03:22, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - As Goldy said above, this destroys the purpose of the Court. The whole point of it is such: Users propose something new, then the Admins vote upon it. If it passes, it happens or becomes a community vote as a new rule request. Stpehen Was HereHello
Um... wha? "Yes, but right now, the only thing that matters is the ADMIN votes... That, already, defeats the purpose.".... um... the purpose of the Seven Seas Court IS admin votes only. Users suggest things, admins vote on it. 03:32, September 28, 2012 (UTC) Admins pass what they think can be apart of the wiki. If they think a certain rule is necessary and a user suggests it, should they approve it, it will go to a blog vote. Oppose - This also defeats the purpose of Seven Seas as many have said befor eme.
Support - Even though it later is passed on as a community vote if approved by the admins, it still relies on the admins while it has more of an affect on the community. I didn't like the idea of the SSC in the first place for this same reason. With the admins typically leaning towards one side in most votes, 50% to the community actually isn't all that much, but it's a good start and I definitely agree with it. (I was about to submit a request very similar to this).
20:03, September 28, 2012 (UTC) Goldvane-If it was only the ADMIN votes, they could make decisions like this in there own time. If somebody had an important message, or rule, blogs could be made? The admins DEFEAT the purpose of the SSC alone with THEIR votes. If nobody else's votes mattered, nobody would really have an effect. 20:21, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - The whole idea of the SSC is that users put in an idea, and other users could put their input on it, but if the majority of the admins agree then the vote will either be done right away if it is not major or go through to a community vote blog if it's bigger. It's an organization system for us. Before this, random vote blogs were VERY often.
Chat Unban Request: Me
Erm, well, it's been a while, and I feel I spent enough time and accumulated a fair amount of edits.
Sorry, not a well thought out request, but there isn't much else to say.
Unban Request: Captain Matthew O'malley
Well, didn't think I would be the one to write this.... but this coming January, Matthew O'malley will have been banned for a year and three-fourths. Do you not think he's learned his lesson? He just wants to be back here, and he agrees to all of our rules. He served a fair punishment for what he did, and he should be able to return. His actions were long in the past, and we've all learned from it.
--04:35, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
Support - Though he may have done things, and though I may have been the one to bad him, I think he's ready to return. --Batorhos 04:45, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - He is a pedophile. Some of the things he has said on skype make me question whether or not he will one day contribute to a healthy society, and I fear that letting him back will possilby harm some of our younger members due to evidence of creepiness displayed on skype.
Thank you for your lovely opinions but this is an admin-only vote.
--04:50, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
You are most welcome my holy sire. ~This Unsigned Post was written by Lord Andrew Mallace
Hmm. We have currently been talking about this particular user's unban on the Admin Forums. I really don't see much of a reason not to unban him other than the fact that his actions were extremely severe. I have been talking to him in-game as well. For now I think I'll be Neutral -. I want to hear some more opinions before I vote. If O'malley promises to behave well, I might be up that. Depends what the others say ;P 14:25, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
m. Support - Matthew has served a good punishment. I'm all for second chances. - From Prime Minister Bsily Brawlmonk IV
Rule Updates/Changes Request
I got bored, so I came here and spontaneously looked at the rules :P Some are a bit outdated or should probably be altered or enforced so I decided to bring them up:
39.) Anyone who creates an unblock request for a user who has been blocked fairly will receive 1 strike. If it happens again, another strike will be issued. After the second time it is remade the user will be blocked for 2 weeks.
I knew we had a rule for no requesting unbans, but I still see unban requests made and passed onto admins for consideration (i.e. the recent Matthew O’Malley request.) I’d rather this rule stay unenforced, but think it should be altered so that they can be made just not constantly remade if denied.
4.) No bias. We, much like many other sites, do not allow bias towards or against any group or individual.
25.) No discrimination of users based off anything physical or intellectual.
13.) Please refrain from creation of blogs/pages related to the user formerly known as “Pearson Wright”. These cause unnecessary drama and fighting.
14.) Do not make any blogs about the defeat of Pearson Wright. This causes excess drama that is not needed here.
Yeah, go ahead and call me a “seedling”, whatever, but notice the contradictions here? Users accuse the wiki of bias and discrimination at times only to be waved off, when it’s happening right in the rules. “No bias.” and “No discrimination”, but there’s another rule that does exactly that. At least delete the rule? This has happened towards other users, too, it just so happens that the rule was made about Pears.
15.) You can’t make pages or blogs pertaining to the results of role-playing wars.
This one I’m requesting to be removed; this could probably be in its own section because of that. I know there hasn’t been much roleplaying as of late, but I wanted to suggest it anyway. The reasoning for the passing of this rule was that the topic “caused drama and controversy”. I said this when it was passed along with several others: If drama comes from it, close the comments, issue strikes. But it shouldn’t be disallowed altogether.
This isn’t a huge request (the last one may require more consideration) so please consider. Thanks J
Sharple (removal of "Pearson Wright" rules)
2. Stpehen (Rewording some rules)
1 . Parax
1.Sharple (removal of "No roleplay war results")
2.Jack Pistol (removal of "Pearson Wright" rules)
3. Stpehen (Removal of "Pearson Wright" rules)
01:07, October 2, 2012 (UTC) </span></span></span>
Neutral - While you have a point, these rules were made for a reason. For example, the rules concerning Pearson and roleplay wars caused excessive drama for days per page/blog, something we are trying to minimize. Anyways, I remain neutral for the time being.-- 01:14, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
Even tho this is an admin only vote and only sysop's votes count I'm still going to state my opinion I Support - and Oppose - I support removing the "No more making blogs about the defeat of pears" and any other blog about/of pearson, because she does have a point it is bias/discrimination and does butt heads with those rules, so yeah if it's a "pear" blog then yeah if it gets to out of hand at least close the comments unless its interfering with the Rules.
I strongly oppose the removal of " You can’t make pages or blogs pertaining to the results of role-playing wars." Mostly because most of those are bogus explaining that one side of the war won while someone else makes the same blog but says the other side has won and results in unnecessary drama and can lead to fake content.
Eh, Oppose -, because it is not bias, we are trying to keep the wiki drama free. Pears causes drama, so we do not allow messages to be sent by him, via other users.
I strongly agree and support, some of these rules should be altered if not done away with.
Also, Mad, check your talk page :P
Meeting of the BNO
So, lately, I have been in chat, and have gotten talked to about the "Boyz Night Out" pages, or the BNO. Many of an admin have clarified that the BNO has gone over-the-top with inappropriate content. Many users have complained, also. They talked to me about maybe moving it to the BNO Wiki, but I told them that we keep it here so people can actually READ it, because hardly any people go to the wiki. There are only three pages on that wiki, and the person with the most edits is Yours Sticky, BoogieMango. Yes, I believe that many of the new pages that some users think are part of the BNO, ( The Boogie Wonderlanders (Linked to BNO) was made right after BNO was made, in early July, before The Mallace Pallace so that can't be part of the NEW problem ), are NOT, and they are terribly disgusting. Take Blake's Pub for example. He added pictures of grilled bats, fried rodents, cut open non-developed mammoth eggs, larvae soup, duck eggs, you name it. He also added pictures of FAT people, which could offend some users that may be overweight. I practically FORCED Blake to take down the pictures of the animals, and John forced him to take down the obese people. THAT is over-the-top disgusting, WORSE than the BNO. See, those pages are what give the BNO a bad name. Yes, the BNO is inappropriate on its own, and we could possibly tone it down a bit. But, they are actually ENJOYED by users. They are funny, yet nasty. I will have a talk with Mallace, Garland, and Breasly when they come to chat, and we will have this settled down.
Ban Request: Tyler Crossbones
(Moved here by Jack Pistol, with permission of Sven)
An hour ago I checked another Wiki I currently am editing for pleasure, just to make stories and stuff of fake characters. Tyler edits my user page, saying "I'M A B*TCH". I then revert the edit into what I previously had. Tyler has been disturbing many users on this Wiki, vandalizing pages such as Jason Blademorgan's second division page. I do feel we must block him for a cool-down of the sort, I'd rather request this then roast him in an argument.
He is also causing much arguments between people, in his spare time he goes off on random wikis VANDALIZING them. Not to mention he's done that here too.
~ Svenny D.
Oppose - We cannot ban someone for something they did on another wiki. The vandalism, I can understand, but was minor, so I believe a warning or strike will be more appropriate.
Support - He doesn't know how to get what he wants!
You can't ban someone for what they did elsewhere. You need to find recent vandalism committed by him on this wiki, Sven.
--20:42, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
He did "vandalize" here, but it was not severe. As far as I know he edited Blademorgan's page stating that that specific group had been disbanded.
I Support -. I remember that Mr. Crossbones kept using the word "cum" to replace "come". He has done this TWICE. In chat AND in the comments. He never even bothered to edit it out. He has been banned more than once. He has also been warned more than once.
Promotion request: Albert Spark
I have seen what responsibility he has. And I can't believe it hasn't happened or requested before me. Anywho, I think, Albert Spark is responsible enough to be a Rollback/Chatmod. 03:34, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
Nothing against Al, he is a great friend, but I have to Oppose -. He hasn't been on the wiki all that long, and I just don't think he's cut out for chat mod status yet.
-- Jeremiah Garland
2 things; one this is invalid, only admins/burs can produce promotion requets. Second, although it doesn't count I also must Oppose - for reasons that I would oppose MY OWN promotion: We saw last month the playful things he likes to do (not excluding any BNO member here) and quite frankly we have no need for more mods. Agree with Jeremiah's points as well.
Support - he is always on chat 24/7 (It made me use ur sig mallace :o)
Oppose - Albert is great, but this is not happening. For one, this vote is invalid because only admins can request promotions. Albert is great, understands the rules and is active on chat, but I do not think he has all the qualities of a mod, at least not yet. He has not been here nearly long enough, I don't think he is fully aware of the mechanics of the wiki and I really don't think we have a need for anymore mods. I think we need to give our veteran users a chance at these jobs, they have been here for a long time and shown true dedication.
Also, what ever happened to rollback, then mod? I liked that system. I feel like it gave hopeful users a chance to get comfortable with responsibilities on the wiki, a few extra abilities and so on. I think we should bring that back.
I OPPOSE this request! - nothing against Albert but as Jeremiah said he hasnt been on the wiki long enough.
Oppose - This vote is invalid. Albert is a great guy and might even make a wonderful chat mod, but non-admin promotion reqeusts aren't accepted regardless of the administrator's opinions to avoid users making loads of requests. Even though they know it is technically "invalid", if they see us support an invalid request, they won't care that it is branded unaccepted, if we support it, they will keep trying. My vote has nothing to do whatsoever with Albert himself, but the very invalidity of this request. 19:24, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - I think AL can be a great chat moderator in the future but for now he is not had experienced like other users he still needs to learn from sysops and other chat mods, I also what Mister.Pistola said what ever happened to people getting promoted to rollback first then later on get promoted to chat mod?! I liked that idea WAY better because it doesn't throw the user straight into chat making difficult decisions choosing what to say and how long the ban should be if there's no admins in chat. I really really encourage people doing it like they did to me and Jack both of us were rollbacks and look at us today Jack is now currently a Bureaucrat and me a retired user. I think I went off topic a whee bit :3. Oh and i also oppose this because only burs can make requests. Sharple Talk Page 00:42, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
Already on it Sharpe :P I made a request for this system to change back to the original rollback first way, it seems to be doing well...
Deletion of all BNO Stories
The BNO...The Boyz Night out. If anyone...any PERSON...any animal...do you think this is mature? The BNO was made to target admins and people of the wiki. The BNO is what makes this wiki look bad, we should be making pages about guilds, pirates, fan creations...not talking about dirty stuff. I do admit I get dirty but for a Pirates Online Wiki no. Make your own wiki and put it there, because to me the BNO is a group that just bullies people and is inopropriate. It turned people I liked into complete...I don't know. They joke about homosexuality in a lot of their pages, it isn't something to joke about, and any referance toward it isn't funny. I might crack a joke, but it's always off the Wiki if it is too graphic. I flipped out on chat on some BNO members, I think the admins should have a vote to block all BNO writings and novels off the Wiki.
I hope the admins can really feel what I'm trying to point out.
New Wiki Rule Request: Edits
Okay, so, here's the idea. Since we don't ever know who is online at WHAT moment, unless they edit, of course, I'd like to suggest something. Take admins, for example. Let's just say a certain Stpehen was online the Wiki. But, let's say he wasn't here for a month of two (breaks are excluded). What would we do, demote him? Well, that is my suggestion. Like, Voxelplox. He is NEVER online, so I think he should be demoted (Rollback and admin have agreed). Let's cut straight to the idea. I think that a user with power, of "special user" will have to edit on the wiki 25 times a week, unless they are on vacations or just can't. (Jack Pistol, Parax. Captaingoldvane2) But, Voxelplox is NEVER online, or at least WE don't know it. That is why I believe a demotion request shall be put into effect soon. Please vote.
NOTE: Exception of Jack Pistol, Stpehen, Captaingoldvane2, Parax.
You may also join chat if you cannot edit.
Thank you :)
Neutral - I don't get the rule. O_o
Line five, second sentence.
I think that a user with power, of "special user" will have to edit on the wiki 50 times a week, unless they are on vacations or just can't.
Oppose - Sorry, but I have school to deal with. I'd rather focus on school instead of editing that often. When I'm not busy, I still look on the wiki and go on chat almost every day. Stpehen Was HereHello
Oppose - Throw the request out the airlock. Not every "powered" user can do this, and it's not just vacations. It's schoolwork, family-related "things", etc. These "special users" are already online enough and when they are, they are capable of doing their jobs very well, but having to edit 50 times a week just won't work. People like Step already have things to deal with that are more important that editing constantly, or they're stumped on what to edit.-- 00:31, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, have to Oppose -. This just isn't necessary. We are busy doing things behind the scenes like coding, creating new rules/systems/features, and much more. We also plan ahead to events and promotions. Also, we discuss rulebreaks and what to do about them. I am on chat daily monitoring. Add all that to every user with powers having schoolwork right now, we can't be on all the time. People think we are so lazy and that we do nothing to stop rulebreakers. This is complete rubish. Everybody thinks they can do better but if they actually spend a few months being an admin, they will take that back. This just isn't needed. If someone isn't active enough, they will be demoted.
I was neutral at first, but after thinking about it, I have to Oppose - . One, because as Step said, school is a big issue and may create a large unexcused absence. Also, there's already the Inactive Administrator Policy, which is very similar and already in use.
Agreed upon education comes first, then this game.... Do you now realize how many of us are actually intelligent or responsible enough to take Honor or Advanced Placement classes to excel in education and reach a more full potential. Either way yes, Admins should edit the wiki more often, but they shouldn't have to deal with a stupid rule when most of us have more pressing issues to tend to... SO I'm going to have to Oppose -
I already agreed that it was not important, thought Voxelplox is never online, and SHOULD be demoted.
And, by the way, Johnny, I am in Gateway (Advanced classes) and somewhat responsible. :)
Official Clarification and Legalization of "Pissed"
Hello Fellow Friends, Neighbors, Soldiers, and Wikians. I come to you with a request: The clarification of whether the word, Pissed, is allowed to be said and if not, its official legalization. We have all used it multiple times. Though not striked for. According to many Stpehen, fellow administrator, outlawed it. I would argue the fact that he is only ONE Admin, but I will not. If such word is not legal then I ask for it to be legalized. We have really already proven we could use it maturely I am sure, and I honestly do not see anything wrong with it and if anything is just as "bad" as passing the recently legalized word, ass. I hope ypu take this into consideration and as well as clarify it. Thanks,
Support - I support the legalization of the word "pissed" because I don't believe it's a very bad word, and it's only going to end up getting more and more people in trouble: i've been quite a few people accidentally say the word and get scolded by admins for it. In any case, if words like "ass" and "damn" are allowed, why shouldn't this word be? Nults McKagan, Governor of Kumamoto, A Hazarapatish of The Persian Empire, A Pirate 02:41, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
Just clarifying, apparently some people used the word in chat before I entered chat one day, CaptainGoldvane2 was online at the time and wanted me to clarify why I "outlawed it" because apparently people were arguing about how I said it couldn't be used. I, personally, hate the word. If you can say you are "pissed", you can easily say you are mad instead. That is why I "unofficially outlawed" the word. I particularly don't like how the word has evolved from urination into the state of being mad because you messed up and people are annoyed with you. So, in short, I Oppose - the legalization of this word, it's a truly awful way to say you are angry. Stpehen Was HereHello
I completely Oppose - the legalization of "pissed". I think it is a stupid way to say you are mad about something. I have hated the word for a while now. I said yes to the other words because they can be used in stories. The other approved words are also used in daily language. "Pissed" is a horrible word that should not be added to the list of approved words. --KatBlueDogHiya! 02:59, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
I Oppose - they already allow "ass" and "damn" sooner or later people are going to slowly work up the chain of curse words to be legalize, and I also agree with Dubstep. Sharple Talk Page 03:03, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
I also Oppose - for some reason, I also have a strong hate for this word. I do not know the seriousness of the word in American slang, but in Britain it is much more serious, sometimes being put at the same level as the "s" word, etc. I strongly object.
Hmm, I think I will wait on a few more votes. I agree with the above votes, but I personally do not find it that bad. The one vote that is definitely making me consider is Sharpe's, because we do not want to legalize too many and then end up with a lot of "allowed swearing" or requests for more harsh words.
I had always wanted a pony. So therefore, you are a cactus.
Non-admins, stop wasting space on the page, only admins can vote here. ~Unsigned Post
Hmm. I don't really mind the actual word, but Sharple makes a fair point. If we keep allowing more and more, people will get used to the process and work their way up. I don't know why our community strives so much for foul language, but it seems to be an issue. We already allowed "crap". I don't think we need to allow anything else. People can just say "I'm ticked off!" or "TO'd". I think we need to keep the words we currently have an possible reduce those, not add more. I Oppose - this for now, we have allowed enough curse words. 16:24, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
I myself really do not find the word all that bad. What is bad about it, anyway? Words that are considered ‘bad’ are usually thought of as such due to meaning, correct? Well, I realise some find it ‘rude’ but some people find words like ‘crap,’ which isa negative expression used in the scenario of, for example, ‘Oh crap! I forgot my wallet!’ and that is different from flat-out swearing. ‘Pissed’ is similar. If you are pissed, you are angry. What is so bad about that? I understand it can be taken as rude, but if we allow ‘damn,’ ‘hell,’ and ‘ass,’ three slightly worse words, then why not pissed? I don't know about you guys but in my case it is used as an everyday word, in such cases as ‘I'm pissed that I didn't pass my AP World History test.’ What is so bad about that? It is naught but a slightly more extreme way of saying you are angry. There are certainly worse words that could be used . . . And going at what Sharple said, more extreme words like ‘shit’ (just an example) obviously will just be turned down, despite people wanting to use them in chat. The words currently allowed, ‘ass,’ ‘damn,’ ‘hell,’ ‘bastard,’ and ‘wench,’ are really not what I would call swear words. Those are all very minor, low-key words that most people use in everyday life in various situations. As is ‘pissed,’ which I do not see why was not allowed in the first place.
And @Jerry, I don't know how much where we are from differs, but the word is certainly not treated as equal to words like that.
I Support - legalizing the word, for the same things Shower said above.-- 22:28, October 22, 2012 (UTC)
Humans sure love to say words similar to that of their daily bowel/intestinal movements.
Request For the Removal of Votes on SSC Unless Administrator
I'll make this plain and simple. I request that since the Seven Seas Court is for admin votes only, all other "votes" that have been given by members be removed. I don't mean remove what they said, I just mean remove the template so it doesn't look like there's more supports or opposes than there really are. This is exempt from the Ex Post Facto rule, as it is cleanup and reinforcing a topic that was already discussed.
Support - The SSC was created for users to suggest things to the administrators of the wiki, not for everyone to vote. Only admin votes count and other votes mask our votes. Yes, users give input, but not votes. Stpehen Was HereHello
Hmmmmmhmmmm... Do rollbacks count? lolz
Support - We should remove at least the templates. I don't mind seeing users give their opinions but this is for admins only. I think from now on, users shouldn't use the vote templates on the SSC. --KatBlueDogHiya! 17:04, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
I support. Didn't use the template: Win.
Hmm, so you mean admins edit out their vote templates? I guess I am fine with that, but it is not really needed because we simply do not count them. Only votes from admins, rollbacks and mods (yes, you Guv) count. I don't want their comments removed though, because often user opinions (and I mean people actually giving valid opinions not randoms who have no idea what they are talking about) help in the decision.
In reply to Jack,
-Black Preacher voice- Hallaluyah! Testify brothah! But seriously, the opinions of the people must be taken into account, if they are not, then you are no better than some nameless dictator in the anolds of history.......
Support - I almost created this myself at one point but John told me he was going to make it. The templates are not needed and confuse people into thinking they can vote here. I don't mind opinions, ( Actually, I think opinions from users DO help out here, so to all of you who post here, keep giving us your opinions! ) but the templates aren't really necessary since it is used for actual voting and user's votes don't count here. 21:14, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
A Large Proposal
Alright so I have been thinking of alot for a WHILE! I have been trying to find new things and ideas to add to this fine wiki, something to do for bored user, and a few side things we could use for sure.
Wiki Mentoring System
I remember Jim talking about how there should be Wiki Mentors on this wiki, ones that show the ropes and how to operate here, what you can and can not do, etc. NOW, this is TECHNICALLY Jim's Idea, so give credit to him, but, I want to propose an official system of Wiki Mentoring for this wiki, to where, trusted people on this wiki, more so Vet Users than others, can show new users what to do and other things like such. It would NOT be a power grab, only something for Vet Users or anyone bored on the wiki to be able to do.
And should you not think that is a good idea...
THEN, my friends, I am willing to do some kind of video tutorial or guide, whatever you want to call it, that tells them how to start on the wiki. Taking them step by step from Rules to Making an ideal page.
In List Form
- Would give users an oppurtunity to do something for this wiki other than contributing and not having to be Admins, Rollbacks, or Chat Mods.
- Would put in place a system of help to new users to the wiki
Ex Post Facto Template
Alot of people find pages that were made before certain rules came out but are protected by the Ex Post Facto Rule in the Wiki Rules. I think we should put up a banner so they know it is a protected page. AN Official Banner that is.
- Would help ensure there is not a fight about how it conflicts a rule
A Secondary Seven Seas
Okay I know what you're thinking: He's doing it again. He is proposing something completely USELESS.
This is what it would really do:
It would be a place for Users to post their opinion on a certain proposal seperately, rather than spamming it on one page, I am already seeing this page growing in length and this proposal will only make it longer. The Original Seven Seas Court would be for Admins only to comment and would shorten the length of the page incredibly. Now I personally think we should try this and see how it goes, and if not remove it. I mean it is a suggestion. nothing more. And once again, this is not like some bicameral congress thing, Admin (Senate) and Users (House of Rep.) this just clearly seperates Admins Votes + Opinions and User's Opinions.
In List Form
- Would seperate Admins' opinions and User's opinions and reduce spam on the Original Seven Seas Court
- Would be allowed for Admins to debate, if needed, on their Seven Seas Court.
- The User's Seven Seas Court would only be for User's Opinions, and would have no power at all.
A Week of True Dictatorship
WOW WOW WOW ALBERT! THATS TOO FAR. I think it is needed though. Here is why:
Alot of users (No people, it is not just the BNO, in fact some of the BNO don't accuse of such. Well I should really say the Former BNO) accuse of the Admins being dictators and not allowing freedom, so I think the Admins should have a week of TRUE Dictatorship and show the users how forgiving they are. This would put in more strictness for a week, temporarily, and would have harsher consequences. I have seen enough wikis that are more strict and annoying with rules than us. And I believe the Admins should highly consider this.
What if it goes to the point someone is banned?
I, personally, think they should be banned until the end of the week of "True Dictatorship"
Now once again this is JUST asuggestion so don;t freak out, plus this would not be forever.
In List Form
- Would put in place harsher punishments for a week
- Would be temporary
- Would demonstrate to doubting users, edgy users that we are much more forgiving than other wikis
I oppose. Users don't actually can the administrators "dictators" anymore, and we're all on good terms, honestly. I don't see why this is needed, and would most likely just end up creating chaos.
I forgot a detail, I meant to add in the fact that should it go back to the old ways a few months ago then we could maybe pull this out. Just a suggestion though. Also Step, Everything from A Large Proposal down is a request, just different ones smashed together :P 02:32, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
All these I believe are needed and should all be considered and thought over by Admins. And I am sorry for the extensive length of this request.
I definitely see some great ideas here. I Support - the Wiki Mentoring System, as we did indeed try to start that up months ago but to no avail. Neutral - on the Ex Post Facto Template... I just don't think it will serve much use as there are less pages that fit that criteria than you think. Also Neutral - on the Secondary Seven Seas Court. Again, a good idea, but I can definitely see trouble resulting from that, and it might be best to just keep it to one. I do, however, Oppose - the Week of True Dictatorship. As Step said, nobody has called the admins "dictators" in a while - at least any of our regular users - so I don't see the need. If they need to be more strict, then they will gradually tighten up on the rules, rather than morphing into all-out totalitarians in a week of hell for many... Like I said though, these are some great ideas and I will have to ponder some of these points.
I like the video idea. I could defiantly make it myself, if anyone wants. For all of the other ones, I agree with Jerry in his votes. Mainly his True Dictatorship one. If this was proposed a few months ago when people were saying it, then I would possibly agree. However, I have not seen any real fighting in the past several weeks between admins and users, so not needed at this time at least.
Off topic time. Just so people know, I am still watching the wiki. Although I may not edit/comment, I am watching quit often. Been pretty busy as of late... school work, outside jobs with the PSO (the school's form of a PTA), along with social life and getting a new computer... I'm pretty busy. But, I am still able to come on and watch what is happening.
I Oppose - Wiki Monitoring System, because regular users can already help out new users, and admins, rollbacks and mods should anyway. They do not need a fancy title for it, and although you said it is not, it is probably a form of power grab. Believe me, it has happened before.
I am Neutral - on Ex-Post Facto, because I can see its usefulness, but it is not a major concern.
I Oppose - a Secondary Seven Seas Court, because then there will be 2 pages where admins will have to look through opinions and that sort of thing. Users can already comment and propose here with their opinions, however, their votes do not count.
I Oppose - a the Week of Dictatorship, why when everything has basically calmed down, would we want to lash out at our users with a spiteful ruling to show we are kind? I would only ever consider this idea in a state of total emergency.
I Oppose - the Wiki Mentor system in which I opposed when Jim requested it. It's simply not needed as users can just help others in a matter of pms saying "Hey, you need some help with that page?" or by them asking for help. It just seems like another way for people to get a title if you ask me.
I Support - the Ex Post Facto template, because I have witnessed many fights over old pages that break recently-created rules.
Oppose - the new Court. Sorry, it's just that having to go and look at two different courts would be hard and frustrating, and our current system seems to work fine.
Oppose - Mentor program, Jim tried and it kind of fell apart.
Support - Ex Post Facto template, it is needed.
Oppose - second SSC, I don't want to have to check 2 of them.
Oppose - Wiki dictator week, no one calls us "dictators" anymore. It is pointless to do this if nobody accuses us of it. Also, if we do act like dictators, users will start calling us such again. Stpehen Was HereHello
Oppose - Wiki mentoring. It didn't really do anything for new users. The new users would usually create blogs to ask questions instead of asking their mentor.
Support - Ex Pasto Template. The template is needed for the wiki.
Oppose - Second seven seas court. I don't mind seeing user's opinions on the main court. I support allowing users to not use the templates who gets rid of confusion of who is winning the vote.
Oppose - The week of dictatorship. I don't really see why we need this. I haven't seen a claim of dictarship in a long time on the wiki.
New Background for October/Halloween
Well you guys already saw the blog and I guess I need to go through this SSC thing just so it can get approved. Please admins for support even though you supported already on the blog xD
It actually should have come through here first, but it seems the other admins let it slide. I was going to ask you to move it, but I saw all the votes thus far and decided to leave it be.
Please do not do that again. All user requests MUST come through the Seven Seas Court FIRST. We said we would be tightening down on that rule, and we will. Next time, it will not be valid.
We are letting this slide this time, but next time something like this happens it will be deleted.
@Jack Pistol - Okay Jack, oh yes please vote if you want to. Happy Late Halloween! BTW Jack welcome back xD!
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
- The most Sven would get is a chat strike, so a ban request here is redundant.
- Sven explained that he intended it for a PM, and didn't even notice the cursing.
Thus, Oppose -
--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, 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.
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 Neutral -, 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!
--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...
--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.
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)
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.
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)
-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. File:ILLUSIVE
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.
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.
--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.
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.
I'm not even going to be nice. This is ridiculous. Where should I start?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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."
- 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. --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!!!! 02:10, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
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>
<font color="<font color=" </font> </font>
<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. </font>
<font color="Oh, and as for the Swastika images, we went through this months ago, and decided they're allowed. </font>
<font color="OFFTOPIC:Jeremiah get on UN chat :3 </font>
<font color="Secondly I Support this. Both sides present reasonable arguements, but I find them too offensive. </font>
<font color=" Talk</font> <font color=" </font>
<font color="Not to bring anyone down, but this is an admin only vote, you wrote all that for nothing. </font> <font color=" </font>
<font color="^ @Daylight Owl: They can still hear our opinions. </font> <font color=" </font>
<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> <font color=" </font>
<font color="Also, though, certain users sometimes spam swastikas in chat, which I find a bit over-the-top. </font>
<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>
<font color="Respect for Goldvane = lost. </font>
<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....). </font>
<font color="-- 14:46, October 30, 2012 (UTC) </font>
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.
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.
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 society----Ok 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
Ban Request: Jack Goldwrecker.
Plain and simple. Three-day ban. I'm tired of Jack's loud, know-it-all mouth.
- He pretends he completely understands the universe.
- Still occasionally preaches.
- Spams "opinion," when people are against him.
- Can't hold a real argument, so he in-turn starts accusing people.
I'm done with it. Are you?
--19:50, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- I don't troll... That is plain ridiculous.
- I never accused anyone in this political "debate," in fact, it was Boogie who did a lot of the accusing.
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.
Let's add this up here.
- You claim a lot more than you know, and deny it when it comes back to bite you.
- You still preach a lot. Denying so would be completely foolish.
- So you admit to spamming, and to trying to get me mad. Trolling at it's finest.
- Addressed above.
- You don't accuse people? Please. If I have to, we can get the logs where you blatantly accused us of several different things.
Only when you do that same.
--20:04, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
For now, I'm Neutral - but leaning towards Oppose - 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.
Support - 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.
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.
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.
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."
Other than that, I did nothing wrong except defend my beliefs.