POTCO Players Wiki talk:Archive5

Archive5

Rules

Administrators

Rollbacks

Chat Moderators

Community Newsletter

Wiki Calendar

Featured Article

Development Suggestions

Welcome to the Seven Seas Court! The Admins will review this page Daily for New Suggestions What you can do here.. Suggest Block, Demotion, or Promotion requests. Give feedback on the Wiki systems and provide suggestions. 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. Community Votes Lord Andrew Mallace • 26 May 2020 11 Community Vote: The Future of the Wiki Copied from the "Dissolution of the SSC and Granting of Eternal Presidency" thread here: "Friends, I … Read Full Post Squirto19 • 21 September 2018 12 Community Vote: Removal of the ISP Copy pasted from this thread: "This wiki has changed so much since its creation back in 2010, it's c… Read Full Post Squirto19 • 5 September 2018 11 Community Vote: Bureaucrat Demotions For some time now, G-man has been allowed to hold Bureaucrat powers on two separate accounts since … Read Full Post Lord Andrew Mallace • 15 June 2018 12 Community Vote: Unban Request - Will Greasescarlett As per our rules, Unban requests must be passed through a community vote. As much as I'd like to j… Read Full Post

Approval

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

Suggestions

Example Suggestion

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

Example 2

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

Idea: Alternate History Discussion Page

Robert and I were talking and we decided that there should be a page for discussing alternat history say, "Britain Wins the Revolutionary War" so users will be able to discuss and argue ideas fairly and calmly rather than ranting at each other on chat. It would be a great way to keep users occupied as well and so they'll actually participate. Robert and I would make the topic for the week and they would discuss and give suggestions. However, this may also flood activity like any wild argument would, the only difference would be this is a controlled circumstance. I am ready to make the page myself I just need your approval. Thankyou for considering this suggestion.

Sincerely,

Jason Shiprat CEO of Shiprat Industries

Captain R Goldvane^TalkSpecial:Editcount/Captaingoldvane2 Edits 20:14, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Category:Fan Books

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

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

Captain R Goldvane^TalkSpecial:Editcount/Captaingoldvane2 Edits 02:53, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

--KatBlueDog^Hiya! 14:22, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

I like to talk to people, I don't exactly get to talk alot, and if you count 3 swastikas in one comment once and information that was needed (which was then used by Jarod himself) as Spam then you are gravely misinformed anf foolish. But, it's good to know that theres another admin here to keep him in-check.

Jason

Shiprat CEO of Shiprat Industries

Request for the Block Blog of User:Pencil-...

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

Official reasons:

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

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

Action has been taken by Shade -- Tama63

20:28, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Eric the Flammable Unban Request

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

Thanks,

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

He got unbanned a few days ago. --KatBlueDog^Hiya! 00:27, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

Block Request of Robert Mc Roberts

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

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

Official Reasons

• Ignorant towards the community
• Breaking the "no claiming land" rule
• Claiming false titles
• Causing two weeks worth of drama (something I think even I've failed to do -_-)
• Harassing people on chat
• Creating a Minecraft server and claiming it's "the official POTCO Players Wiki server"
• Does not understand the concept of a fact, and believes if he was not there to witness it, it did not happen
• Created a community vote without admin approval (that got deleted by admins)
• Trolling people (ie "It's not like you would have won anyway.")

I'm willing to support this , but I'd like other Admin Input --Tama63 15:28, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

I think I'll agree to this for about 3-5 days. A whole week is not needed, he hasn't been here in awhile and is probably confused, but his actions call for a mark of a small punishment. I think 3 days, possible 5 should do. Captain R Goldvane^TalkSpecial:Editcount/Captaingoldvane2 Edits 15:38, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Demotion Request: Davy Hookwreaker

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

Official Reasons:

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

Please consider this. Thank you.

19:18, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I have to agree. He's been rather unbecoming of a moderator lately :/--Parax 20:11, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

An admin conversation has already been posted about this.

Suggestion

I'm thinking of a little… request:

If a user was banned for a good reason, users do not deliver messages for the banned user. We're trying to isolate the banned user from the wiki, not keep him/her in touch.--Parax 00:25, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

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

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

John, I was just joking around. I didn't mean that only Pearson asks for messages to be delievered to the wiki. --KatBlueDog^Hiya! 00:39, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I created the blog becasue he asked me to, I didn't know it would cause this small bit of unfreindly-ness. I apologize, I thought you might want to know what he had to say :/ 00:44, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Underage Registered Users

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

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

Johns Blog Deletion Request

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

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

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

18:15, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

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

Tired Of The Complaint Blogs

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

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

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

G-man.

21:38, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

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

Support - If a rule was agreed on by the community, why should we let one person ruin it all by whining and causing arguments, all because they can't take not getting what they want?--Parax 21:44, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

"

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

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

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

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

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

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

"

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

G-man.

23:08, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

User Representatives Assembly Proposal

Dear fellow Wikians:

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

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

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

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

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

-- Jeremiah Garland

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

Benjamin ^Ƭ 01:22, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Parax. – Look up high! In the sky! It's a guy! He can fly-*splat* ParaxHermit, Ecsyth, my epic Story Quest, and My epic Island TALK – Friday, April 19 2024 (Eastern Standard Time) My only comment on the manner… but I think John is exaggerating this a bit too much…

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

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

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

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

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

Benjamin ^Ƭ 02:58, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

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

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

-- Jeremiah Garlander

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

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

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

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

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

-- Garland

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

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

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

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

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

-- The Jeremonster

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

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

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

Robert Mc Roberts ^{For Crown and County!} 11:18, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

^

What Robert just said exactly proves why I don't want this. People want power. Stpehen Was Here^Hello

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Mc Roberts ^{For Crown and County!} 16:35, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Robert Mc Roberts ^{For Crown and County!} 16:45, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Please respond with substance and stop name calling.

Robert Mc Roberts ^{For Crown and County!} 17:03, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parax. – Long live Hermitism! ParaxHermit, Ecsyth, my epic Story Quest, and My epic Island TALK – Friday, April 19 2024 (Eastern Standard Time) Mmkay, adding my input on this issue. John, you need to lay off the admin team and learn your place here. Ever since your demotion you've been hating on the admin team and trying to convince people that they are evil. Get over it, okay? Ever since your demotion, you've been opposing every admin nomination and acting like it's based out of bias. Your "ability to argue politically" doesn't help the wiki at all. You said earlier that the only people you and your buddies are nominating have the ability to argue beyond that of a toddler? Err… whatever you say John… whatever you say… I've seen plenty of users here that you haven't nominated (that I know of)who can argue pretty well. This is a wiki, not a place for political arguments. If people stopped making all these grabs at power and just edited and had fun like we all did last year and before, there would be less fighting. The problem here isn't how the admins run the place, it's the fact that so many people want power. It would be appreciated if you stopped insulting people in your posts whenever they disagree with you, John. I've noticed you doing that a lot; you're lucky to have not been blocked for harassment of users/personal attacks. I'm warning you to stay civil; further insulting will result in a cooldown block. Quite a number of users have come to me wanting you to be permanently banned for your behavior. You know what we did? We gave you a chance. We keep giving you chances. But if you keep behaving like this John, you're going to end up banned :/. That's the honest truth; I don't want to ban you, and I don't want to see you banned, but it will happen if you keep acting like this whenever someone disagrees with you. Much more I can say, but I'm not at my best in arguing when I'm angry >_>and the last thing I want to do is end up exploding on somebody :/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17:49, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

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

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

18:06, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Parax. – Look at that! Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No! It's Captain Underpants! Wait, this isn't a book, it is a place for books and movies, etc., but the whole thing is not a book, right? but then again, we do read here... Ugh, I confused myself! ParaxHermit, Ecsyth, my epic Story Quest, and My epic Island TALK – Friday, April 19 2024 (Eastern Standard Time) Here we go again…

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

~~Madster~~

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

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

Benjamin ^Ƭ

-

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

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

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

-- Jeremiah Garland (still no sig :P)

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

Benjamin ^Ƭ

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

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

- Garland

If everyone just sat down, shut up, trusted the admins, edited the wiki and had fun like we all did last year and before—instead of trying to get more power and complaining about not having enough—there would be much less drama here. So far all the recent issues have been on power and not having a say. I know, somebody's gonna bash me for this because I just exposed their motivation for power, but they know I'm right.--Parax 04:06, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

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

--Garland

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

Indeed. I agree. :P

- Garlander

Off-topic: Testing new signature . . .

Jeremiah Garland (I know, really basic :P)

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

I used to be a marker. . .

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

Unfortunately, you are going to get more users asking and wanting to join, because they will feel their views will be better represented if they are a part of it and they will see a chance to get things to be the way they want. It is how people are.

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

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

--John Breasly, Former Admin 14:02, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

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

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

-- Jeremiah Garland

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

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

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

-- Jeremiah Garland

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

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

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

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

-- Jeremiah Garland

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

Tired of the Complaint Blogs: Comprimise Suggestion

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

Jack Goldwrecker

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

It wasn't me request, but I did post that it should be handled on here. - points above -

G-man.

02:56, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

That's basically what the admins were saying in the first place, and I have to disagree with it. "Complaint" blogs aren't all that often, and why should their voice to speak out against something be blocked? Users bring up things that they dislike in hopes of change to the wiki community. I wouldn't go as far to call it "communism", but I do think it's something we shouldn't be deprived of on here.

Madster _{was ^{here 03:27, June 17, 2012 (UTC)}}

We're not "depriving" any of their rights; they can still "complain", but they shouldn't be allowed to make a full community-viewed blog about it that starts drama. The only difference actually is that the complaints are private; they would still reach the admins and be considered.

Jack Goldwrecker

All that needs to happen is to have them make their suggestions here, as that was the way it was meant to be. The complaint blogs do no help at all, they just cause more drama. If one is made it should be deleted, the user then left a message saying to make their suggestions here. This is what the Seven Seas Court was meant for, yet people prefer complaint blogs, which is not convenient and creates drama. Loads of it.

G-man.

03:41, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, definitely.

Jack Goldwrecker

Having it so people can only speak against something on the Seven Seas Court will just transfer "drama" over to here. In reality it just spams up this page, and it'd be better to have it distrubuted. That set aside, if the blog causes drama, there's a simple solution. Block commenting or delete the blog. Why should feedback be limited to the view of the admins only? The community should be able to give its input. Without needing to come here.

Madster _{was ^{here 04:04, June 17, 2012 (UTC)}}

That is what this was meant for, all suggestions to be here. It is more organized than a blog. It also seems to get better results than the blogs, here there is an actually discussion. Mostly on the blogs is everybody yelling at eachother in comments. Deleting a blog or disabling comments doesn't fix everything, more of it goes on in different places. 04:14, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

G-man.

I am going to disagree Jack, I can just see people are going to say "you guys will never approve them" and actually it will just direct the arguing about the rule here, instead of on their blog. The user will request it here, and unless it is a well informed complain, admins and other experienced users are going to just tell them why the rule is in place, not going to change etc. We actually made a compromise above and on chat, where either just the chat rule is not allowed to be complained about, or if more complaints are made, the admins state our case one ( instead of drawn out arguments ) and if there is too much drama the comments get closed.

Ban Request: Lord Law

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

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

And he sticks his under-aged nose into other people's business despite numerous warnings not to, and, on the topic of noses, he deliberately and openly insulted a fellow user's nose.

-- Jeremiah Garland

--Parax 20:00, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Support - He is very attention seeking.

Robert Mc Roberts ^{For Crown and County!} 20:03, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

閎黎皇帝 Sorry have to support

1 day cool down block has been issued. This vote will continue, and the block lengthened if passed and time approved.

Demote Request: Jarod Pillagebane (Removed by creator)

This doesn't need to belong here, I was just shocked that only I was banned.

Sincerely,

Jason Shiprat CEO of Shiprat Industries

I've been told you did in fact spam. You can't stand being away from chat for 2 whole hours? Stpehen Was Here^Hello

You can't ask for a demotion request when Jarod didn't do anything wrong. I saw that you were spamming which deserves a chat ban. Deal with it. I will be getting more evidence before this goes though. --KatBlueDog^Hiya! 01:10, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

Wow... Kat... you seem annoyed with the "deal with it" part. Never heard you sounds like that :o

I was annoyed because this is a revenge demotion request. --KatBlueDog^Hiya! 01:18, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

I knew it was hard to read emotions through this but I could read Kat's cold hatred like looking at a crystal clear stream bed. I also didn't spam and if I supposedly did show me the evidence, to let you know I haven't even raged and I don't believe in "Vengeance", it is a pointless and silly exercise. So please, if you are going to accuse someone make sure you have correct evidence and a non-biased opinion. Thankyou for your time and I hope you've find this experience, enlightening. Also, I was wondering why I was the only one banned and John wasn't and he was arguing with him. I mean, I got him info. that Jarod used in the argument. I guess tying up loose ends.

Jason Shiprat CEO of Shiprat Industries

Also like to point out a few things. "Made a joke that offended no one." Jason, last time I checked you don't have the power to hack into people's minds and determine whether they were offended or not, so ergo you can't speak on behalf of everybody in chat. The joke could have been offensive to everybody in chat. Also, do you realise that the mere image of a swastika, whether it be Hindu, Buddhist, Nazi, or whatever, is outlawed in several countries. There aren't any laws concerning it in the US, but many could be offended by a swastika. And ask yourself this question: had he not kickbanned you, would you have written this demotion request?

-- Jeremiah Garland

P.S. I thought there was a rule that users couldn't write demotion / promotion requests?

With the way you're acting, Jason, I just may give you a cool down 24 hour block. I would suggest calming it down (Yes, I can read the the emotion behind it, the cool anger.)

@Jeremiah , There is a rule about demotion requests. 38.Users may not create demotion requests for users with additional powers but are welcome to vote on any made by admins. Demotion request denied. Case closed. --KatBlueDog^Hiya! 01:41, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

This request had already been removed 10 minutes ago by myself. I am sorry I offended you Jerry. I was also very calm during this.

Jason

I would agree with Jeremh. He is right. Jason, you spammed some, and may have been given a warning. I would love to hear the joke, maybe you could tell us to see if you are lying? But honestly, this is almost laughable. Please do not make demotion requests on here unless it is really needed.

P.S. Yes, you can't write demotion requests; it must be approved here first.

Jack Goldwrecker

Okay, I'm sorry, but I have to continue on here even though I am trying desperately to retain myself from arguing on anything that doesn't involve me, but Jason... I fail to understand your logic. Kat and Step didn't accuse you of anything, and even if they did, they certainly didn't with a "bias opinion". Don't say "I don't believe in vengeance" because that is frankly impossible. Every human being believes in vengeance, it's a given. Practically an emotion. And also, I got a kick out of "I hope you've found this experience enlightening". What experience did you provide us with? You accused two admins of being bias, and you wrote this revenge blog on an admin who did nothing but his job. So no, this wasn't an "enlightening experience, Mr. Great Philosopher. And lol, you didn't offend me. You have to try hard to offend me. But I'm saying, some people may have been offended by this. And the only reason I'm still ranting about this is because I'm really annoyed about people making demotions like this.

-- Jeremiah Garland

It's a good thing this doesn't happen everyday then! :P But I hope that in the future the accused gets to argue his/her case before immediately sentenced, kinda feels like a dicatatorship without a proper court. This is beneath us, we should just move on and leave petty grudges in the past.

Block Request: Robert Mc Roberts

I, John Breasly, hereby request the short (just a few days, admin's choice however long) block of Robert Mc Roberts, for several reasons

• Has done nothing but cause drama

• Has not made a real, constructive edit in a while, unless it benefited himself

• Argues constantly

• Argues with admins, argues with rules, and tries to work out loopholes to squeeze himself out of it

• Whenever he makes a mistake, he turns the argument on the accuser, saying, "Well, you did this once!" Problem is, we're not talking about that time, we're talking about this time.

• Seems unable to accept the idea of being wrong

• Assumes he's smarter than everyone else

So.... yeah.

--John Breasly, Former Admin 18:00, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

I am going to wait for other admin votes, but I would like to say this RIGHT NOW! Nobody even dare spew one insult, one wise crack, one swear word, break any bloody rule or in anyway turn this healthy discussion into a dramatic and painful argument. You will see what happens if you do.

I Support - He needs a cool-down. And just to annoy Jack... - Spews one insult, wise crack, swear word, breaks all the bloody rules and turns this healthy discussion into a dramatic and painful argument - :P (jk)

-- Jeremiah Garland

• Not True, I have made several pages that have not "caused Drama" and causing Drama takes two people to act.

• I have indeed made edits for other people, just ask Albert Spark with the Romania page to name one (and its not like half of the users have done that either)

• I argue because others disagree with me.

• Admins are not infallible, and I can try to convince them my case is correct.

• Examples?

• I can accept that I am wrong (and have in fact), I just don't like being told im wrong without any argument of substance

• No I do not, If someone gets a historical fact wrong I will correct them, If I make a mistake, I expect others to do the same.

Robert Mc Roberts ^{For Crown and County!} 18:11, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

I support the idea of a cooldown, and you may also want to add to your list John, that he thinks he can't be wrong, hes better then everyone else. If you look at his recent post above me, you'll notice that my before mentioned statement, he can't be wrong, is justified. And Robert your causing drama right now.

Edgar 18:14, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

I do not think I am better than everyone else, I don't like to accept others statements immediately, I like to be reasoned with. I don't expect anyone to take my statements immediately without proof. Also how am I "causing drama" be responding to accusations against me?

Robert Mc Roberts ^{For Crown and County!} 18:19, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

"I like to be reasoned with." I find that hard to believe, considering you don't allow anyone to reason with you, because, you know, you're always right.

--John Breasly, Former Admin 18:21, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

I am not always right, John, I was reasoned with and changed my mind over who owns Poland for example. I am currently not convinced over the steam engine argument (which is why I assume you made this), If some new, better arguments are offered, or I get more than 1 admins opinion I will more than likely change my stance.

Robert Mc Roberts ^{For Crown and County!} 18:33, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

Bump.

--John Breasly, Former Admin 01:40, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

I unfortunately have to agree with this block. Robert, over the last month or two, has behaved in a very... "reckless" type of way. He seems so set on discussing politics on this Wiki. I respect the discussion, but why is it so important to have here? It almost seems like he's attempted to purposely cause trouble. He also seems to ignore the fact that sometimes, others have good points as well. Though this is not enough reason for his block, he has made other questionable edits, including the proposal of a very unneeded system, and he has argued with a large amount of contributors. I think a 1-7 day cooldown is necessary. Robert, this doesn't make me happy, agreeing to your block, but I think you need some time to cooldown and come back with a fresh start. Sometimes I go inactive for a few days, whether I want to or not. When I return, I feel fresh, and good. I feel like I want to go and edit some pages, and make some good contributions. That's what I aim for you users to have if you receive a cooldown.

18:33, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Rule of Peace

I would like to propose the following rule. Explained it is, in my blog. I'd like to propose the Rule of Peace.

I think I am going to stay Neutral - on this one. I want to think it over a bit before I make any votes.--Parax 18:48, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Chat Ban Request: Eric The Flamable

This Community Vote has Ended! The side of Support won in the vote!

Hello everyone, it has come to my attention that Eric The Flamable has been breaking quite a few rules in chat lately. I have a few reasons to ban him below:

• Spamming, claiming it's a song. It's just gibberish. has been spamming a lot lately. Talks one word per message and says very long and pointless things that take up 75% of the chat screen.
• Trolling
• Swearing, threw the N-word, Robert Mc Roberts has screenshots.
• Very rebellious when someone helps correct him.
• Has been talking in foreign languages without a translation.

I thank you for reading this admins, I really do. Eric has been discussing this in PM with me since I said I'd be writing this. I'm expecting this to be a rough conversation. Admins may decide his ban length. If you ask me, at least three days.

Pencil- (talk)

I believe this is worthy of a one-day block (saying "n*****") and a 3 day chat ban, but I need the opinions of my fellow admins.

Hmm… I would say 1-2 days as a cooldown and first warning, as well as a 3-day chat ban. What do my fellow Adminsaurz say?--Parax 03:05, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

Most people who do that recieve worse. He curses a LOT in chat, always spams, and acts like he's the admin's lieutenant just because he and Parax talk. He needs much longer than a three-day chat ban. By now he should not only know the rules, he should be able to recite them. This behaviour is unnacceptable and he should recieve a ban, not only for saying "nigger" (an EXTREMELY offensive word!) but for all his other misdemeanors.

--John Breasly, Former Admin 13:03, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

These actions are unacceptable. I see Jarod and Parax's points as well as Johns. I think perhaps a 4-7 day chat block, and a 3 day cooldown. The "N" word is extremely offensive, and shouldn't be brought to this fansite!

15:37, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Goldvane. A 7 day chat ban and a 3 day cooldown. --KatBlueDog^Hiya! 15:51, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

I am back! He has been bugging me with his nonsense-talk for a while in chat. He choses the worst times to say something immature. I agree with Goldvane's proposal.

I also agree with Goldvane, 4-7 day chat ban and maybe a 5 day ban. Stpehen Was Here^Hello

I haven't yet to see his behavior, but from what I can tell, I support a 4-7 chatban. Its completely unacceptable.

Voxelplox ^Ƭalk

Agreed with Gold's from what I have heard.

So what will be done about this?--Parax 00:40, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

I have banned Eric the Flammable for 1 week (7 days). Voxelplox ^Ƭalk 04:08, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

Unban Request: User:Captain_Matthew_O'malley

It has been a full year about since Matthew has come online the Wiki due to a global ban and a infinite ban on the Wiki itself. But the global ban was lifted some time ago by which the ban was placed upon him due to some naughty crimes to the wiki he was found guilty on. You see I noticed he coming online more often and asked him if he had a Wiki account. This is when I discovered this past history that haunts him to this day. I as a faithful User on this Wiki ask you please consider removing his ban due to the information I've uncovered that his Global Ban was removed and I have believed he has changed from his terrible ways and by giving him another chance would be the only test to see if he actually did change his behavior and mind to be apart of our great community by which we all inhabit.

00:30, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm always willing to let O'malley get another chance… but this all depends on what the rest of my fellow admins/users say. :/--Parax 01:19, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

I heard that he was complaining about us to Pencil on the game, so I'm going to have to go Neutral - on this one.

G-man.

09:48, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

I honestly dont think it should happen if you ask me. As a member of this community I dont believe he has posssibly been changed enough in ur guys eyes. I want to Oppose - because recwntly OMalley had whispered to me about what had happened today about our society is corrupt and it is humanity and bla bla bla. He persisted until I found something to shut him up. He wouldnt le tit go though and seeing this JUST on the game make sme fear itll just get wors ehere and more will just rage quit the place due to Xtreme Drama levels. I mah have never seen OMalley active on this wiki, but, as far as I am concerned I dont want to until he proves otherwise.

09:55, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, he said that to you? I thought he said it to Pencil, or was it both of you? I can't remember.

G-man.

10:05, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

I think I heard the same thing from Pencil, either way I have to change to Oppose - on this one.

G-man.

10:21, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

Both I guess, I remember him harassing my about the wiki.

Isolation of Pearson Wright

Alright, I think it's time to bring this up. Lately the user "PrincessElizabethO'malley" has been trying to justify Pearson non-stop, ignoring everything bad about Pearson (simply disregarding his bad deeds and sometimes accusing people of "lying" about Pears), changing the subject when someone points out something bad about Pears, and delivering messages for him. This is not a ban request, though. This is a request to completely isolate all these Pearson blogs. We're trying to isolate him from the wiki, but people—especially Elizabeth—have been making blogs about him and attempting to justify him constantly. This has caused unnecessary drama and fights about him. The point of this request is this:

1. Users must stop making Pearson blogs and accusing this wiki of starting his hatred for us.
2. All Pearson blogs created after the passing of this will be deleted.
3. Users who write these blogs will get a strike; "new" users will get a warning, as they are rather inexperienced and were likely not aware of the rule.

That is all for now.

--Parax 00:28, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I am so tired of the Pearson blogs. It causes too many fights to be allowed. --KatBlueDog^Hiya! 00:29, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I'm sick and tired of all the Pearson crap. Stpehen Was Here^Hello

Support - It must be a pain dealing with all of the drama with those blogs.

G-man.

00:35, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

I support. I am sick of hearing of this guy, he is gone and we need to just forget about him. He is not at all important....

Support - It's not that I think Pearson is "evil", or want to "cover the evidence", it's just that with Pearson, it's like politics. Everyone has a different opinion, and the arguing is inevitable.

I totally agree with this, and what Goldvane said. We don't, (At least I don't) hate him, but he was banned for not just 1 good reason, but many, and more are added with his ban-dodging, sock-puppeting, vandalism, cursing, etc. that he still did/does AFTER he was banned. We don't need him or his actions here, and we certainly don't need blogs trying to justify his actions and accusing us for causing him to do said actions while also trying to force our hand to unban him. They are just rather annoying.

Also, sorry about being a bit inactive as of late, I have been really busy in real life, but I still have the wiki open, watching as much as I can.

In ALL fairness, one of your rules is "No discrimination of users".... this is absolute discrimination.

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member 02:41, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

It is the isolation of a malicious user from the wiki. A user whose constant mentioning in Pearson blogs cause issues on the wiki. One less thing to deal with if this passes.--Parax 02:46, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

John, I believe that the rule is mainly for racial/editoral thing. This is the ultimate isolation of a user who is banned infinity and I doubt will ever BE unbanned, and just his name being brought up in a blog causes controversy. You should know exactly how it feels first hand the actions he has done. We could do much harsher restrictions a long time ago, but we haven't. It's has just gotten too much to the other users, that is why this topic was brought up. Also, do you have any other things about this proposal, because I can see you oppose it and would like an in-depth reason why, because I am curious as to your reasoning (Not saying it's wrong, I am just a naturally curious person).

I Support - completely, I am sick of the crap that people have been showing me because of him. Elizabeth O'malley, Grace Redskull, Madster, Leon, and even Blake were very rude to me concerning Pearson Wright. Also, it sickens me that the main seedling(Elizabeth O'malley) is trying to defend him when he caused so many users sorrow. She says both her and him view it as an acomplishment that Pears caused wars, made users quit, and filled a guild for the sole reason of be a nuisence.

05:21, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have a wonderful analogy for Elizabeth O'malley and Pearson Wright, it's like Batman. Elizabeth used to be your average normal pirate until Pearson planted the seeds into her, making us (Batman) sound so wretched and ruining all of Pearson's fun and actions (The Joker). Just thought of this, I say it's a great analogy, where's my cookie?

05:59, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

Very clever, Pencil. - gives cookie -

G-man.

09:47, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

Well, it appears this rule has passed. I will be adding it immediately.--Parax 02:16, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

Rule Request: No Hate Blogs

I'm tired of all of these hate blogs, such as this one. I don't really care who they're directed at, be it Pearson, or Goldtimbers, I just don't care. They are unneeded and just cause drama and arguments. Most blogs created end up having the comments closed. Does everything have to be so hateful? I believe that these blogs should stay off of the Wiki, we would be better off without them.

G-man.

10:38, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

As with the proposal up above, I agree. There is no need for blogs that are meant to just cause drama and hate. I'm not saying that the users shouldn't have a say if there is a bad user, they could of course come here to request the bans -looks up above to the few proposal bans going on right now.- Anyway, we don't need them here, what-so-ever.

There's a defined difference between hate and opinions, but the two are commonly mixed up. Still, a blog is someone's OPINION, so you really can't limit what they say as long as they're not cursing, being racist, or being sexist.

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member 16:41, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

I second this rule, most blogs have been about hating Pearson or just drama, most on purpose. I support this all the way.

Oppose --Unless a Blog contains vulgar content, it should not be removed...

Robert Mc Roberts ^{For Crown and County!} 01:32, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose -

My opinion is everything but contradictory to John's. That actually is not a "hate blog." I have taken the time to read that blog, and what has been written here, and I can tell you that if you consider that blog a "hate blog" then that is very foolish of you. She is stating what she has seen through her eyes. And, through my eyes, forgetting about Pearson and what he has done, she's in every way innocent. I, of course, conclude this by a firmly expressed oppose.

Jack Goldwrecker

Ban Request: RealBasilBrawlmonk

I think the user RealBasilBrawlmonk deserves a ban. He admits to having sockpuppet accounts, violating the Role-Playing rules, trolling and yelling to try to get attention. He also says if he's banned he will keep coming back, so I

Proof enough?

would say an IP ban should be put in place. He was kicked from chat for not having the required amount of edits and just kept coming back.

That is all,

G-man.

01:48, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days.

Thank you Law, that guy is a serious troll. He says he was born in like 1584 or something. O_o

I honestly don't see why you can't handle a "random" user who claims he was "born in 1584 or something" and that sort of "lying for attention" go.

Jack Goldwrecker

I honestly dont' see what's right about keeping a user like that here. It was a 3-day cooldown block for his trollish behavior, sockpuppetry, and violation of rules. No biggie.--Parax 03:28, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even know about the 1500s thing, and I wouldn't see that as a big deal. My own pirate is supposedly from the 1600s, and is alive via an overdose of Fountain of Youth water. It's the other reasons, the reasons posted bu G-man, that showed me that a cooldown ban was needed.

Demotion Request - Parax.

Okay, before I begin typing, NO. This isn't "just because I hate Parax" or whatever you want to believe. It's because me, and a LOT of other users are tired of his attitude, his crude and childish humour, his un-admin-like behaviour, his constant arguing, and his personal grudges against users. So stop accusing me of hating him, because you're just outright WRONG, and I will kindly ask you to "shut the hell up." Anyone who's going to leave a reply and say that can kindly navigate to another page RIGHT now.

Now! I, John Breasly, officially request the demotion of the administrator Parax. for several reasons, which I shall clarify below.

• Immaturity - Whether it is in chat, or on the wiki, he has been acting VERY immature lately. From singling out users, to behaviour in chat. He caps-rages all the time, and spams his crude humour everywhere in chat. Oh, and he marches around calling everyone "maggot," trying to be friendly.
• Let's Too Much Slide - Let's face it. Everyone loves Parax. as a chat mod. Why? He lets EVERYTHING slide. Someone a few weeks ago yelled "f*ck" in chat, and Parax just said, "I'll assume that was meant for PM and let you off with a warning." I mean, REALLY? I could literally post a porn link and get away with a strike at the worst. He's slacking off on the job.
• Misbehaving in Chat - Well, no one can disagree here. He posts so many inappropriate videos, it's not even funny. A few weeks ago, he and Bad Kitty were in chat, and he posted a link to "Scrubs" just as I came on. The video said "penis" about fifty times. Besides that, most of his jokes and general conduct in chat have broken our own rules.
• Singles out users - We all saw this a few weeks ago. Even the burs all agreed (besides Kat) with me (or they did when I asked them, not sure what they'll say now I actually posted this) that he's been singling me out as a target for everything. He brings every argument down on me, and when he realizes he's losing, he accuses me of either being power hungry (uh, wut?), holding a vendetta (which is actually just his only defense against me. And it's false), or "pimp-slapping" his points, which doesn't make sense. When all else fails, threaten me with a ban. That's fair. Besides that, he holds a MAJOR grudge against Pearson, and is ALWAYS talking trash, or making rule requests, or just plain aggrivating him.
• Fails to Perform Administrative Duties - I rarely see him do anything but leave the most random of comments everywhere, and occasionally do something helpful. Occasionally.
• Ignores rules - This came up with the Skyrim page that G-man made. There was copyrighted material, I informed Parax, and he ignored it. I told him he was ignoring his administrative duties, so he flipped out and attacked me. I went to Step, then he replied to my message to Step, moaning his usual speel about how I hate everyone or something. Step deleted them, but had to restore them after Parax didn't stop whining. I mean, really? The rules say no copyright.... but you ignore it because there's copyright elsewhere on Wikia? NOT. RIGHT.
• Agreement with Other Burs - I've talked with some other burs. They all either agree or want to stay neutral. They've agreed he's been acting up a lot.
• Tantrums - Parax just throws a complete tantrum whenever someone challenges him. "-flings Breasly out window-" is not how you deal with a problem, believe it or not!
• Cannot Accept Being Wrong - He is always right. Obviously. Because he's Parax. You know. -_-
• Abuses Powers - He has done this several time. He will re-open blog comments just to toss in his rude and accusatory opinion, befroe closing them again. He did this to me, actually, AFTER I said not to. Goldvane deleted the comment though, so I guess it's no harm done, but still...

I have nothing against Parax., I actually have a lot of respect for him. But this is just going on too long. I know you all love Parax because he's chill, and barely punishes you for misbehaving, but stop and think about everything above.

I assume this will need an actual blog. Users opinions are appreciated but uneeded. I would rather keep this clean so the admins can vote as to whether or not this passes to the blog stage. And this will not go pass or go down until both Kat and Step vote, because honestly, they're president and vice president.

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member

Ok John, a couple things, one, I Oppose - this, for, he is a great admin. But again, I agre, when in chat, and we have a little "roleplay" battle, he just goes "dodges"/"Miss"/"Summons little green people" etc. Then blah blah blah, we beat him, then he says we lost. I am getting off topic, I oppose this because Wikia has some clause or whatever that allows us to use copywrited images. But you are kinda being a hyprocite with the "talking trash about Pearson" thing, for the past3 years, all you have done is trash Pearson, call him a loser, amoung other things, you need to see that.

The Instant Classic 03:13, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion, but this is admin only. And the demotion isn't about the copyrighted images thing, it's about ALL of that. You statement just tells me you've ignored everything and looked for the weakest supporting detail, to oppose.

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member

You're welcome for my opinion, weakest thing, maybe, it's the only thing that truly didn't bore me to death, I am sorry, I thougt this was an open wiki thing, and I am sorry for using your sig :P

The Instant Classic

1. Immaturity… singling out users… you mean like when I argue with you when you single me out? Caps-raging? You mean like when I am joking with people? Crude and childish humor… err… where? Maggot… you mean like when I'm joking around with my friends and playing "drill sergeant"?
2. Lets too much slide? I apologize for being AFK every now and then. Yes, a user swore, and they said they meant for it to be in PM. I let them off with a warning to to do it again. Why? Because it was an accident. Now if I saw a PORN link, that person wouldn't get away with it, as they shouldn't be putting that in public OR private PM.
3. What inappropriate videos? That video was meant in PM, and it is not what the people reading what you said will think from seeing "It said 'penis.'"
4. Singling users out? All I do is argue with you when I feel you're harassing me. BTW the admins who "agreed" with you later spoke to me privately, acknowledging that you are the one causing the trouble. That I am not "singling you out".
5. I accused you of being power-hungry a while ago, and I'm over that. Yes, I believe you have a vendetta, because of your rude/crappy attitude whenever I do one thing you don't like.
6. "When all else fails, threaten me with a ban." You mean when I warned you on your talk page about a "final warning" from the admins? The one all the admins (except Jack, as he was away)agreed on in a group PM?
7. "Fails to perform Administrative duties." Yes, I make random comments. If I see a blog breaking the rules, I will delete it. If I see a vandal, I will block him. Neither have I seen lately.
8. Ignores rules. Ahhh, I see… you're still not over me refusing to delete those pictures. I made my points, you just chose to ignore them. I did not "attack you", and I will happily remind you that you attacked me, as well as going on about "going to another admin. Maybe one that will do their job."
9. Agreement with other burs. I spoke with them privately, and they agree with me, thank you very much.
10. What tantrums? The "flinging" comments=my playful comment wrestling.
11. As per the Rules#Rules for editing, section "Rules for editing", rule 38, this demotion request is invalid and must be created by an administrator.

Take care.

--Parax 03:26, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no, the BLOG must be created by the administrator, silly! The request can be made by anyone!!!! :D

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member

Incorrect. I quote from rule 38:

Users may not create demotion requests for users with additional powers but are welcome to vote on any made by admins.

--Parax 03:32, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no. Correct. Stop trying to save your skin. You know as well as I do that refers to the blogs themselves, not the requests in the Seven Seas Court. I've already spoken with other admins about this. You are wrong, suck it up.

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member,

If you don't believe me, go look at the rule yourself. As I said, the demotion request is invalid. Take care now.--Parax 03:36, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

Parax, I have spoken with several other admins beside yourself who have all said I cannot create a BLOG, but I may create a Seven Seas Court request. You. Are. Wrong. Just stop, okay?

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member

Hi. I know this is admins only, but I Support - for the reasons John said.

-- Jeremiah Garland 03:44, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

No John, I will not stop. Perhaps you can name these other admins? Second, the rule clearly states that a non-admin cannot make a demotion at all. It says nothing about blogs.--Parax 03:48, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, just shut up, Parax. Step told me I could create a Seven Seas Court request. You're wrong, you are, and you always will be. This is why you need to be demoted. You can't accept you're WRONG.

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member

1. No, I won't shut up.

1. Step hasn't been on the wiki/chat lately. Where did he tell you this? Isn't he on vacation?
2. Not accepting that I'm wrong doesn't merit a demotion.

--Parax 03:52, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

He told me a while ago when he agreed with me you've been acting ridiculous! Well then you're ignorant and supporting several of my points up there.

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member

1. That I've been acting ridiculous? He came to me later privately and agreed with me.
2. How am I supporting your points by saying it doesn't merit a demotion.

--Parax 04:02, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

I never gave you a date, you can't say "he came to me later." You're just being ridiculous now. Just stop commenting, take a demotion request like a man. Like Jz did, like Batorhos did, like Skull did, and like every other admin demoted.

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member

Holy.. O_O well this is... sudden. I see both sides here, this is a difficult issue. You guys need to get over each other. You both hold grudges ( no offense to either of you ) with each other and seem to be in some type of... war! As temporary president, I believe I have the ability to do the following - I delay this request until the time in which KatBluedog and Stpehen return. This is a serious matter and needs a full team agreement. Personally I was to review other opinions before I vote, and demoting Parax while Kat and Step are gone would not look good when they return. Henceforth, NO User Rights changes on any user shall be made until the return of Kat and Step! 04:21, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

Step told me himself that you spoke to him, and that he at first believed you, but agrees with me now. As I said, this is an invalid vote. If someone couldn't make a demotion blog, but could go here, what's the point of the rule? Where's the sense?--Parax 04:13, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

I Support - for John's reasons. - Is it just me or did the wiki's pages drop 2,000?? O_O? Zel Marque

Oh great... Firstly @Gold: John said he insists on waiting for Kat and Step either way, because they are President and Vice President so it had already been delayed :P

Secondly: Before anyone starts going completely mad here, can I just say that this argument is to be kept completely civil and that "You are stupid" is not a valid argument for either side, if you get what I mean.

Now onto my opinion. I agree with Gold. You two both seem to have some issue with each other that you truly cannot get over, which is leading to the rest of this. Don't even deny that, it is true and a lot of us see it. Like Gold said this is a very difficult issue...Why? Because everything John said has been true, however, I am not so sure if Parax shoild be demoted for it. For now I guess I am neutral.

A few users ( to remain unnamed ) have been coming to me lately and complaining about you Parax. As John has stated, they say you let too much slide, are generally inappropriate yourself and link to inappropriate images or videos. I have witnessed you do all of it, so do not deny it. I have seen you link to videos/images with sexual references, swearing and so on. Now, it those things truly do not bother me, but they are a part of the rules and must be upheld. I myself tend to be lenient, but there are boundaries.

A user was once making inappropriate jokes and when I tried to reprimand them they said "Oh please, Parax does worse..." and I really didn't know what to do. The fact that you do worse is actually irrelevant to me, because I punish as I see fit, but how could I be a hypocrite and punish this person but you can carry on? I can't exactly pull you aside and tell you to cut it out Parax, because I am not sure that I am in a position to do that. I do not feel like a "superior admin" but now, and with other cases, I am starting to see that such might be necessary, no matter who you are.

So this means that users are either getting away with inappropriate behaviour, complaining about your behaviour and the behaviour you allow or are feeling immune because "Parax does it". You need to set an example Parax, I don't want to have to be seen as the devil when I punish users because in comparision to you I seem too strict. The admins should all be a fairly similr level of strictness. Varying levels is actually good, but extremes of too strict and too lenient are not going to work out. This is proven by the fact that John went to another admin when he felt you had not done your duty, if we were all on a similar level we would have all given John the same verdict and ended the situation.

Yesterday, when I came onto chat, from what I could resd into the chat history you posted a link that a user was unhappy with and when they said that you should not do that you said in caps "DO NOT ORDER ME". This is a case where the caps were not a joke. You were being stubborn. You were ignoring the concerns of a user who didn't approve of your behaviour and this can be related to a few of John's reasons.

Although I am not at all comfortable with this situation, I have been worrying about what exactly to do with all the complaints I have been getting and this has been an oppurtunity. Parax, look at yourself and the facts I have presented you and ask yourself "Am I really doing what is right here? How are my actions affecting everyone? How do they affect the people who are benefiting from them? How are they affecting the admins? How are they affecting users who do not approve?". If after this situation users still come to me or give me that excuse I am not going to put up with them and I will be acting on what I feel is right, and if that makes me look like a bad admin so be it.

Anyway, despite all this being said I still respect you Parax and I still consider you a friend. I actually do think you are a pretty good admin and you often help resolve many arguments and are quick to act upon vandals and ban dodgers. Like I was back then when the issue was first brought up, I am neutral, but my vote can definitely change. Everyone please read what I have said and take everything into account. I would like to once again remind you not to insult anyone in this argument and to keep things civil. I don't want ANY bans, strikes, demotions or anything to be given to anyone after this is over.

First off, I have nothing against John. I think he can be a good guy, and I like hanging out and joking with him.

Second, I do not post links/videos with sexual references. I would like an example of this, if you will please.

Third, saying "Parax does worse" doesn't automatically mean I do worse. I do not tell sexual jokes, I do not post videos/images of it, and so on. That is something I discourage myself from, and I have absolutely no memory of posting a sexual link at all. Yes, I'm denying it, because I have no recollection of doing it.

Each admin is going to have a different opinion. The only other thing I know if that he went to another admin for would be that image issue.

If a user has a problem with me, they need to take it up with me in a polite tone. I only do the "do not order me" thing if someone says it in an ordering tone. If they ask politely, I tend to listen better. I tend to listen to people who are more respectful, rather than those or outright tell me what to do or… talk rudely (not saying the people I apparently went "caps" on was rude). And of course, I took the user's request into consideration, and haven't publicly posted an inappropriate link.

Still trying to remember me saying that in caps… Just remember that everything I say in caps is a joke >_>

Anyways, I said whatever I need to say in my previous posts. I hope all other admins who see this acknowledge I am in no way a "bad admin", nor fit for demotion. Am I lenient? Yes, I tend to be lenient. If I see a major rulebreaker, like a porn link, a ban-dodger, a vandal, etc., I act on it. Hence, as you and other users/admins have said, I know when to be lenient, and when to be strict. I'm not likable because I let them get away with everything, because I don't. I'm likable because of that mix of being strict and lenient at the same time.

Go on readers, roll your eyes… but I try to be strict. I just tend to be shot down or ignored, and then when I finally say, "Alright, I guess you guys WANT me to be 'mean'" and prepare to do something, I am immediately shot down. People can deny it, but they know it's true. Second, I tend to go AFK sometimes, whether it's to get something, help a family member, etc. Third, I don't click every link people put in chat. If I missed one, I likely simply chose not to click it.

And finally, if I was half as bad as certain users claim me to be, I would have done a lot worse. Quite a few users would have been banned a while ago, and so on. I have nothing else to say. Incapable of wording well when tired/stressed.

Honestly, that's all I can say. I'm done with this crap. If someone wants to keep trolling me in hopes that I finally snap, be my guest.--Parax 10:15, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

We have a had a major discussion in PM about this, but for the sake of the community and especially the other admins I may repeat a few things.

I have informed you in PM of those sexual and swearing links, and you did acknowledge it.

Whether you do worse or similar, it is still wrong and I have no grounds to punish users when you do similar actions. I have reminded you of one of those links, so now you know.

Obviously politness should be expected, but no matter which tone they address you in you should still at least consider it. The incident where a user tried to take it up with you was being polite, and you simply said "Do not order me" and left it at that. You did not consider what the user was saying at all. I apologize, for some reason I remember you replying in caps but I was apparently wrong.

As I said in our PM if you are shot down or ignored when trying to be strict you should not allow them to do that to you. They obviously do not respect you, which is why they shoot you down, so you should assert yourself and show them that you will not tolerate bad behaviour.

Yes, I acknowledge that my links tend to swear. Sexual? Only one example of a reference like that was given, and that was an accident.

You are correct in that, I admit.

Yes, I did consider it. The user told me not to post inappropriate links; I told him not to order me—as I felt what he said was in an order-ish tone—but obliged nonetheless. I have not posted any inappropriate links after that.

And I intend to. Using the advice of you and several unidentified users, if someone shoots me down they're going to get what's coming to them :/

--Parax 11:05, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are some other sexual ones. John has given examples and I am sure a few other people could vouch for this. I don't see how it was an accident because you were sharing several funny images. You are not the only one who does it, a lot of people do.

I dont think it was an order-ish tone, but whatever. If you do in fact intend not to carry on posting inappropriate links then obviously that is a good thing.

Guys, I think that all of you should let go of your differences and try to work together on this wiki. I agree that JOhn has some right to be pissed off, but in the meanwhile, he's attacking Parax. with every little detail, as if he was breathing down his neck even when he sleeps, watching when he messes up again. So... fresh starts for everyone? I don't want to see the person I promoted be demoted. --Batorhos 11:35, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

As per Bator. I apologize for whatever behavior perceived as so horrible, and shall try to do better as an administrator.--Parax 11:56, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

It worries me how after we have brought forth evidence, and it has been confirmed true, Parax. is still denying it. We all know he does the things listed above, but he will continually deny it, and claim I have a grudge against him, which I don't. I also noticed a few people above accused me of holding a grudge. I just lost quite a bit of respect for them, as I clearly said above to NOT do that. That would just be ignorant, and the certain user that said that informed the community last night to NOT be ignorant.

In any case, Jack has said what I listed above is true, and if it is, a demotion should be in order. Jz, Skull, and I didn't do nearly as bad as Parax has done, but we've all been demoted. I think that should be enough of a push for anyone on the fence: Admins who have done less have recieved worse punishment.

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member 13:23, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

This is directed at Batorhos' and Parax's last comment... it doesn't work like that. People don't get to say sorry and move on in the real world. Jzfredskins, Skull, and myself were all demoted, and none of us did as bad as Parax had. We all apologized several times, but our demotions still went through. "Sorry" doesn't cut it, unfortunately. You do bad, you get punished. That's the deal.

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member 13:37, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

John, you are holding a grudge as well - against Parax. How many time were you demoted? Once. How many times was I demoted? Three times. So, tell me why I am not mad, like you, at the wiki, especially Parax, who I promoted, for demoting me? I proposed Parax's promotion, and he demoted me, but am I angry about it? No. Get. Over. It. --Batorhos 13:58, July 14, 2012 (UTC)