I have long held democracy a sacrocant privilege to the people of the Gamers Fanon Wiki ever since I reluctantly took office as your President in September of 2016. It is with great pleasure that I announce the next evolution of that democracy. The people have willed for this bureaucratic board, formed as a ploy of the BNO, to end it's reign of backstopping, slow progress, and nepotism it has had over our wiki for ages.

Democracy will continue under the new "imperial" wiki move, but admins, rollbacks and all staff members will remain just as important in fulfilling a critical role by keeping our historical wiki clean, accurate, and available for all to see. But no longer shall votes have to go through a diminshed community and laregly other-involved staff. Instead, they'll go through me. So I present this vote as the future of the wiki - the end of bureaucracy, and the beginning of efficiency and eternal happiness. Long live the Supreme Leader!

This wiki has changed so much since its creation back in 2010, it's changed so much from how it was back in 2013. We've changed as a community, from new faces to just overall growth as individual people. So why should we continue to stick with policies that defined a completely different wiki and community?

The ISP was put in place to keep the staff of the wiki as active as possible within the community. A need which almost immediately passed as soon as content began to slow down and POTCO drama began to leave our doorstep. Some of the current staff may not satisfy the edit requirements of 5 years ago, but they still contribute to the wiki when they can. While also remaining a very active part of the community, no matter what form the community has taken.

Instead of continuing on as we have for years now, by simply changing the ISP to fit a new definition of activity, why don't we just remove the ISP entirely? It has been a completely useless and obsolete policy of the wiki for years now. Some of you might ask, "why would staff want to continue making contributions on the wiki without the threat of being demoted?" To that, I point to the fact that the staff have made contributions to the wiki over the past 2 years (since the ISP was last brought up for a revision) all without being threatened with the ISP. All without even remembering the ISP was a part of our policy. Maybe it's because we all still hold a special place for this crazy place in our hearts. Or maybe it's because you don't need to be threatened with a dumb policy to do something you already want to do. Whatever the case, even though we might not all contribute at the same pace, we all still take the time to do so.

There might be questions about how we would deal with an inactive staff member without the ISP, and I really think it's quite simple. If someone is blatantly inactive for a bit, the other staff members would try and get in contact with them, and if they didn't hear anything back from the inactive staff member, then that staff member would be demoted. We don't need a policy with specific rules on what edits from staff members are required to tell us when someone is inactive. I fully believe staff members can have the common sense to know when someone is inactive and to take action.

Obviously, if this proposal passes and anyone thinks the staff are failing at taking action against an "inactive" staff member, then it can still be brought up and discussed without pointing at a rule such as the ISP. Let's not make everything harder than it needs to be guys, let's put some common sense back into the wiki.

It's time.

Even if he was 7, it's been 6 years and he's 13 now. He can be unbanned. This has to happen, you all know it.

Per the advice of our esteemed Admin of Coding and all things technological, there has been a recent stem of interest in switching from talk pages to message boards in order to modernize our incredibly ALIVE and WELL ROUNDED wiki. Most people know that I am a huge fan of my talk page and love re-reading history, but I do believe the time has come to switch. Luckily we can archive our talk pages, which I highly suggest you do!

Vote away

When I made my proposal to legalize most swearing, this is what I really wanted, I just settled because I figured it wouldn't get approved, but I'd like to try it now. I propose we make an official discord, added to the sidebar of the wiki, entitled "Gamers Fanon Wiki" or something of the like. We could do what the last proposal suggested and allow most swearing, other than slurs, and basically just enforce common sense rules like no spamming. I also suggest we lock nicknaming and tie every account who joins to a wiki user, as to prevent any influx of socks or other people who cause trouble.

If this passes, I can give server ownership of MOKAD (the current unofficial wiki discord) to Mallace since it already has people in it and we can just repurpose that. We can always keep chat and have a discord on the sidebar along with it, like POTCOBritain wiki does, if we so choose.

I think the time has come that we finally take the last step in the quest to legalize profanity. I know I've been a staunch opponent of this for a long time, but that was mainly because I was so focused on expanding back into the former POTCO community that I didn't even think that we could just exist without them (or at least without those more prudish members of the community). So here I am with this:

I propose we legalize all swearing in chat, with the exception of slurs (specifically those that target one's race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.). I still want profanity warnings on pages, but chat would become a place where swearing is permitted.

We already did this to YouTube links but I think it should be done for all links.

No porn though.

Or gore.

G-man.

21:07, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

This may seem completely out of the blue, and it probably is. But a few of us were talking about Josh the other day and I decided there's really no reason he should be banned. He has been banned and unbanned multiple times in the past few years due to impertinent rumours about him that have never been proven to be true (and even if they were true, they wouldn't provide cause to ban him at all anyways).

His latest block log entry simply states:

• 04:38, August 25, 2014 G-man. (Talk | contribs) blocked Captainjosh98 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) (what)

I'd hardly call that a compelling reason to keep someone permanently banned.

And for the record, I'm well aware he's an inactive user who has not been on the wiki in over 5 years. But that isn't a reason to turn a blind eye to an injust and unspecified infinite ban. There was originally a ban request for him (written by Sharple) that has since been deleted, but as mentioned, he has been exempt from his ban in the past only to once more be infinitely banned by G for some reason he didn't bother stating.

First of all, I think the section of our policy about "Role-Play" should be renamed "POTCO/TLOPO Roleplay" since it pertains specifically to roleplay from those games. I also think a link to the TLOPO Roleplaying Nations page should be added to assist first-time roleplayers or old, returning roleplayers who have no idea what's going on, but I doubt either of these need a request to be done, so onto the main reason for this request.

With the passage of the Vienna Accords, there isn't really a need for actual rules about how roleplay should be conducted anymore. However, since we are a wiki and we still need rules about roleplay page/blog creation to cut down on drama, I suggest that the roleplay rules section of our policy be changed to look like the section of this request in quotations:

"This section of the policy doesn't dictate how roleplay must be conducted, only the rules for how it can be recorded on this wiki. To see the actual rules for roleplay conduct, click here.

The rules of recording Roleplay on the Wiki:

• You cannot create pages for a nation unless you are the ruler of the nation, or have permission from the ruler (this is to prevent false claimants)

• If you are rebelling/conquesting a nation (without the intention of adding it to an already-existing empire), you cannot create a page claiming to be the ruler of that nation, but you can create a page about your rebellion (ex: if you try to rebel in Spain, you can make a page about the “Spanish Liberation Movement” or whatever you want to call it). Once you’ve usurped the entirety of the original nation’s land, then you may create a page claiming to be that nation’s ruler.

• • If your rebellion is only a rebellion for independence (ex: Indian independence from Great Britain), once you’ve legitimately conquered the land you intended to take in the rebellion, you can make a page claiming to be the ruler of that newly-independent nation

• You can only make blogs about the results of roleplay battles as long as proof of the result is attached."

Please give feedback below, and thanks for reading!

Mall requested that we do this through the SSC and a community vote, so here we go.

The whole purpose of this vote is to see if the majority of staff/the community are in agreement for having a new Bot. If they are we'll send a request to Wikia to tag the account (SquirtBot19) as a Bot so that Activity isn't spammed up from any of the multiple edits it will be making in a short period of time.

Again this will move on to a Community Vote if all staff are in support here, but everyone should feel free to voice any opinions they might have of the bot on this thread.

Now that community input has been given (and the thread will remain open on Off-Topic for further discussion) the previous motion will be voted upon in a simple staff vote, not 1asa. If a majority staff vote is reached, the change will be implemented.

To reiterate, just because profanity theoretically won't need to be marked for Youtube links, abuse won't be tolerated. Users who are obviously found to be abusing this will be striked for a profanity offense and refusing to comply with staff will constitute further punishment. Common sense.

The original post:

"In order to avoid arbitrary warnings and strikes and crack down on extraneous rules that serve no practical purpose other than to punish otherwise policy-abiding users, I propose that the current rule in place concerning marking profanity in links to other websites be removed on these conditions:

If a link is pasted in chat that contains profanity (swear words that are strikeable if typed) it should be so marked by its poster. If they fail to provide such a warning, they should be given a reminder of our policy from a moderator. Unless it is clear that a user is posting profane links with obviously malicious intent (ie to get around our swearing policy) no strike should be necessary.

However, links to the generally reputable and Youtube should not require profanity warnings if they simply contain swears. Links to these sites are 99% of the time only posted to share interesting stories or opinions on topics at hand. It is silly that not noticing a minor cuss in a Youtube comment warrants the same punishment one would receive for swearing at someone. Especially considering it is already a solemn enforced rule, its inclusion in our policy is simply superfluous.

As it currently stands, one could simply (as pointed out by Nults McKagan) put a profanity warning for every single link they put in chat. That is redundant and defeats the purpose of warnings entirely and is certainly not something that should become the norm. We can start by loosening our silly restrictions regarding at least Youtube."

Your obedient servant,

This might belong on the 1ASA board, but I figured I'd put it here instead. Since music that autoplays can now be put on pages by anybody as opposed to having needed go through an admin, like it used to, I figure we should put some rule in place to prevent obtrusive songs from being put on the wiki. If you want an example of what I mean, go to The British Empire (TLOPO) page. The song playing on there (as of the posting of this request) is obviously not intended to enhance the page in a positive way, but rather to intentionally bother those who view it. This wouldn't be an issue if it didn't autoplay upon arriving to the page and there was some kind of warning, but as it stands, people could potentially have to play a guessing game of what pages they can view without destroying their eardrums. Thanks for considering.

HAHAHAHA isn't it funny how time changes? The very man who did all he could to demote Nults is now spearheading the motion to re-promote him. Trivia: I also started his very first promo request back in '12-13.

Regardless, Wag has made a point of wanting Nults on the team, and after speaking with him, he is up for the job. Despite past issues with anger, I believe the pro's now outweigh the very few con's with having Nults as a chat mod. He is responsible, spends plenty of time here, and has shown a newfound appreciation of enforcing our rules. Additionally he's promised that the past is the past, something we can all respect. 

Vote away

I am seeking to promote our Vice President to permanent adminship. Pretty straight forward, will be interested to see any opposes. He possesses good leadership qualities and cares about the wiki moving forward. Its time for a new administration to take over the wiki.

Um.. basically only Gold can vote. But feel free to add your opinion

This has been a turbulent week. With the unfortuante development that several of the president's accounts have been compromised and the apparent news that he will still be sparsely active for possibly the new few weeks, I believe it's paramount we promote at least one Bur in his stead. As such, there's no better and more obvious choice than current interim president Lord Andrew Mallace.

Only staff members may use the voting template on SSC topics, though regular users are encouraged to send their support or, conversely, their opposition to the proposal.

Wishing you well,

In light of recent events, it is clear to most users that the ISP, as it stands, is outdated and not applicable to current standards. This has led to regrettable debates in which some users favor enforcing the current rules to the word and others arguing that the policy is outdated, so it should not be enforced. In an effort to reach a common ground, I think it's time to amend the policy.

Changes are in bold:

1. A staff member is inactive when they do not make (1) non-minor (examples of minor edits: correcting spelling, participating in discussions unrelated to any of these games, editing their userpage) or 8 minor contributions within four weeks. Both types of edits must obviously be made in good faith.

2. Staff members will be given a reminder after four weeks of inactivity. This will serve as their first and only warning. If staff members do not make a non-minor, good faith edit or 8 minor, also good faith edits within (1) week after their warning, they will be subject to demotion.

3. Making a non-minor, good faith edit after their 1 week warning expires cannot save a staff member from demotion, as at that point, their window for "redemption," will have already technically expired. However, if a demoted staff member wishes to be repromoted a maximum of 3 months after being demoted, a simple staff vote will be held to decide their fate. If the vote passes, they will regain their position; if it fails, they remain a normal user.

I encourage all interested users to share their input so that we may reach a clear middle-ground which everyone can agree on. I know there have been talks to incorporate chat into the policy; though I personally don't think that attending chat makes a user "active" in a sense, I am willing to compromise with any who disagree.

EDIT: 1 major edit or 8 minor edits in four weeks.

EDIT 2: Changed around third clause; if a demoted staff comes back within 3 months of the ISP kicking in, a simple staff vote may be held in the forums: if the vote passes, the staff regains their positions. If it fails, they remain a normal user.

This has been an issue for a while now. In light of "kys", "retarded", "autistic", etc. being banned, I think it's time we take the next step forward and ban "gay" and all variations (gai, ghey, etc.) from being used as insults. Even in a joking manner (ex: "r u gai?"), they shouldn't be used. "Gay" should only be used when explicitly referring to homosexuality. Thanks for considering.

It is clear to me that things will be re-requested quickly when a few qualifiers change or the situation changes. Regardless, some may try to propose the same thing rather too quickly and as a result thrust unnecessary voting drama through the same measure all over again. There is plenty of instances that can be drawn as examples, but to keep this request simple I ask that the following be put into motion:

- A previously failed SSC Request/Community Vote may not be considered for a timeframe of 3 Months. (This could be modified by the Administration to better fit what they feel is appropriate)

I feel strongly that this rule will keep the peace and furthermore, reign in unnecessary conflict much like the purpose of cooldown bans in which enraged users are cast out temporarily in order to wind down. I urge the administration to strongly ever so carefully consider this measure in order to keep this site at peace.

The purpose of this site is not to ram through votes over and over and over, but to create quality content and to enrich users old or new in this creative content, and not dwell on failed measures quickly re-requested.

I probably should have just lumped this in with my last request as one big "#ReformVoting2k16" vote, but I didn't think of it. Basically, some of the voting rules we have aren't really any good and need to be changed or repealed entirely:

1.) "Must have 10 votes to win or reject" (only listed for "major requests"). I don't know how this rule is meant to be interpreted, but the way it has been is that if somebody has 10 voters ready to go right when the blog opens up, they can get the vote passed within a very short amount of time without any kind of discussion. Discussion is necessary (as long as it doesn't become a dramafest) to ensure that everybody understands the nuances of both sides' arguments. The way things have been done has resulted in a few votes (including recent ones) being closed within a day or even a few hours, when they should have gone for a couple of days longer. Interpreting the rule like this results in any conversation about the vote being squashed as long as somebody has 10 voters ready to go right when the blog opens up.

2.) "All votes require the Support or Oppose side to have at least 2/3 Majority and the required amount of votes or days (whichever comes first) to be fulfilled." Again, not really sure how this is meant to be interpreted. I assume it ties in with the last rule about how you need 10 votes to win, in which case it should be tossed.

Voting needs to be simple: the vote blog is opened up and left open for the amount of days required. At the end, whichever side has the most votes wins. I don't understand why things have to be more complicated than this.

3.) Rollback and Chat Moderator promotion requests should be re-classified from "Minor Requests" to "Major Requests." Anybody who will receive moderating privileges of any kind and voting privileges on the SSC should have to go through the community first.

Edit: Removing #3 from this request due to a misinterpretation of the rules (also: never promote somebody as just chat mod or rollback, do both at once or i'll find you ok)

Thanks for considering my request. #ReformVoting2k16