senatus consultum de re publica defendenda
Support - Just because the Discord channel exists should not be an excuse to not contribute to the wiki. Many of the users in the last community vote, even myself would not have been able to vote, because none of us had the required edits in the past 4 months.
Although, I believe this is a "hidden" attack on our democratic process, I believe that in the end, common sense will prevail.
I am faithful to the community's recent efforts to revitalise and most importantly modernise our Wiki to that of the same standards of the newer and more popular Wiki communities.
Support - President Bush's administration provided this ban reason: "User proven to be underaged; multiple videos uploaded by user and found by other users. Will unblock when data acquired of user being at the right age."
I call upon this administration to uphold the PROMISES of it's predecessors.
"Used to express contentment or pleasure."
Support - Make Wiki Great Again (MWGA)
Message Walls are beautiful. So clean, so organised. Talk pages are unorganised, filthy, and the amount of times I've had to edit my talk page to fix the formatting was abysmally too many.
Support - Wiki chat has undergone several severe changes over the years, and most times a lot of the CSS and coding for said wiki chat have proven to be buggy or nonfunctional making modifying the chat an inconvenience. Not to mention how many times the chat has crashed with regular usage. Discord is reliable, available via browser, or it's own .exe, has bots, and other tools that could be used for moderation, etc.
I don't feel it should be a replacement, but I feel it should be an option made available to our users.
Oppose - If you need to swear to express your opinions, they're most likely not good opinions. Keep swearing off our Wiki chat and keep it on Discord. Whenever I enter a wiki chat where there is swearing, it is a place of anarchy. It is a community I do not want to be apart of. We will be giving a bad impression to anyone who wants to join our community.
These are the rules of the community wiki chat. Swearing is not polite.
Although we do now allow unregulated Youtube links with profanity; Youtube does unfortunately host some very toxic comments (depends where you look) that would potentially put other websites such as reddit to shame. If any particular user were to link inappropriate content hosted on the Youtube site, then I would personally take action and warn the user for "abusing" the lenient attitude.
In my experience, I've always warned about "potential profanity, or even potential offensive content" to remove all blame from myself since I did provide a warning to click on their own discretion. Better safe than sorry. Someone could nitpick a website, such as what was done concerning Youtube comments prior to it being brought before the SSC. These comments would be completely unrelated to the content of the video, but again we would expose users to potentially outright offensive/toxicity that would be normally against the rules if it was posted there.
I believe we should instead add a warning to our welcome message/rules for if someone were to forget to warn their fellow users, they cannot be punished. All links would of course be moderated by our moderators, but if we the wiki provide the warning for all of our users, then we could more a less focus only on those who seek to abuse it, instead of witch-hunting our own rule-abiding users and limiting their ability to chat.
I state this given people were apprehensive/lazy about providing a warning for content on the youtube domain. I believe
So, I wouldSupport - per Squirto.
Lord Andrew Mallace wrote: Switching toOppose - - my evidence can't be "proved" but I'm compelled to give my reasonings. My talks with Breasly have been this - personal information WAS leaked and Josh DID contact storm/Breasly inappropriately and on-the-phone, which violates our policy. He was, however, not convicted or charged with being a predator and isn't a "criminal" per se.
Regardless, he violated the policy and a determination was made to keep him banned forever. I would feel wrong undoing that decision with 1: no compelling evidence to do so, and 2: that it's been so long - both sides arguments are hurt by how long it's been.
So, the fate of Wag lives with Wag.
Breasly and Stormwalker leaked their own personal information to the user in question, instead of notifying the administration that Josh had asked for said personal information, etc.
No actions were taken against them. Any exchange of personal information violates our policy. Stormwalker, Breasly, and Josh would be all at fault if handled by a proper administration. It is a blunder by the previous administration. We cannot keep a user banned because of what occurred off-site, and in the private messages of Stormwalker and Breasly.
My opinion still stands that the user should be unbanned and given a second chance.
We have the original Captain Josh account to whom was banned for "reasons" unclear.
And we have as Garland stated on chat, an imposter account. I am one for second chances. It is our civic duty to review the bans of previous administrations and clarify if the reasons behind each ban is ban worthy. It has roughly 3 years. I agree with Nults on this issue. Josh was not a repeat offender nor can he be labeled as a "defiler of the wiki", and henceforth he should be unbanned.<del>
I Support - his unban.
Switching toOppose -, after consulting multiple parties to whom were involved in the issue, as well as the fact that Josh has no intentions of returning to the wiki as of this moment, I don't see a particularly good reason to unban him given the community backlash it would produce.
But, if Garland has contact with Josh, he can instruct him to visit potcobritain or a neighbouring wiki for him to "plead" his case.
I also wish for Nults to make a process for banned users (even infinitely banned ones) to make an appeal somewhere.
"You all can thank my BNO roots for even giving you the right to protest. If you remember back to the days of 2012, those who created blogs or whined about things were punished."
Please stop thinking that you are more important than other people, especially when you believe that you have the ability to take away our rights without repercussion.
This wiki has a long outstanding history of democracy. People were allowed to "whine" about things in chat to an extent, and express their opinion appropriately elsewhere on talk pages, etc. Blogs were deemed to be drama. The forums feature was added or introduced to this wiki in 2013. Before that is was very different.
"First they tried loosening the restrictions to "encourage new players to come" so we don't just kick them right away."
It isn't my fault one staff member did not know the protocol for handling new users. You being the former Vice-President should have instructed the newcomer better. Oh well.
"I was going to post some screenshots of the staff chat so we can show everyone what we were discussing but unfortunately, Gold timers used the N and F words every other line which has complicated such efforts:"
Firstly, I consider that online libel and formally ask you retract your statement. Secondly, what is agreed upon or said in the staff chat does not reflect the opinions of the ENTIRE community no matter how small it may be.
This executive order or 1ASA does not hold the best interest of the community concerning profanity.
Per Zoomer, and Nults,
As Nults said; Edit #2: Due to Mallace and Lith disregarding the community's opinions on this matter, I have no choice but to oppose this and oppose any similar requests in the future. Pushing rule changes on profanity through a system that doesn't require community input or even a staff majority is shady as hell and I refuse to support pushing requests like these through in a manner like this.
Links with profanity on Youtube have been abused in the past without any repression or care.
It is silly that not noticing a minor cuss in a Youtube comment warrants the same punishment one would receive for swearing at someone. - Mike Pence
Youtube comments are VERY unmoderated and break our ToU/Wiki policy.
When you link a Youtube video, you expose the user to the entire page. The comments CAN contain and are certainly not limited to; adult content, forms of cyber-bullying, offensive topics, insulting other users, spamming, excessive arguing and drama, potential personal information, links to inappropriate content, and references to offensive or inappropriate topics.
Youtube comments basically undermine every single rule we have in place to protect our users. To let this loophole slip by a 1ASA only displays our President's disregard for the thought of our users.
A simple warning (even if you are unaware of what is detailed in the comments) will void you of any punishment if a user finds the link offensive in any manner.
I believe a proper SSC is necessary but first I would like to see everyone's opinions on this matter regardless of their voting rights.
Support - Per Mallace. He has done more work than certain current administrators.