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

Screens

Just thought you guys might want to look at these. Have a nice day (:

Cher Bear =D (talk) 21:14, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Dealt with both of them with kicks. They stopped after being kicked, and the vote is now on-going.

Great one-sided story, Kitty. I get provoked by Leon's racism, and you cut that out, and just get the part where I lose my temper. BRILLIANT JOB! You always talk about how we need to be kind, but then you cut out that? Real good job.

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member 21:21, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Well, you managed to break two rules in the process, and the fault for that is not mine.

1) The no using "ass" to insult

2) Cursing.

The others on chat have to obey the same rules that you do, regardless of the situation. Bye bye now dear.

Cher Bear =D (talk) 21:26, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

That's called trolling. Running around and acting nice to everyone after attacking/provoking them. You're more worthy of a ban than myself.

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member 21:37, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Wait, are you talking about yourself or me? (seriously though, just asking). I do genuinely like people and their company... It really does tick me off when someone goes around insulting others and making their days quite unhappy, though. This will be my last post on the subject, as my ankle is starting to behave again so I can be productive. Appreciate the input.

Have a nice evening (and I actually mean this).

Cher Bear =D (talk) 21:42, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

I seriously can't believe that all of this is happening today due to my mistake. I sincerely apologize at the most extreme level. It seems like there's almost groups of users that seem to be on teams against each other (Ex: Jim, Cherie, Bill, vs John, Garland, Mallace, etc ), and it hurts me deeply to see that you are all fighting due to my behavior. I really regret saying those things, and I apologize for it, I really do, ok? 21:52, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Don't blame yourself Gold. I was the admin online and I did not handle this properly. I kicked them both from chat and luckily the sort of cooled off, but yeah... things got bad :/ I feel awful... Also I agree with you on your users against users thing. I didnt want to say it, but I sort of noticed the arising Logan, Cherie and Bill alliance.

Don't blame YOURself Jack. I am the one to be blamed here, I stirred up a bloody mess and now it's burning the Wiki in flames and pushing us down on the meter. You did the right thing by kicking them. 22:03, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, it was my fault! I shouldn't have been at the eye-doctor! Teeheehee--Parax 22:04, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe, but it should not have got that far and afterwards I should have cleaned up better. Par is BLIND O_O

Nah, my vision is just really weird now (O_o). If anything gets close to my eyes it gets blurry, but that never used to happen! CURSE THOSE EYEDROPS! D:--Parax 22:09, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Rofl alliance xD That's really flattering, it sounds like we were plotting to do it all along... Would have been epic, but I haven't really spoken with Jim for the past couple weeks or so, and Bill is sorta hit or miss, so I take whatever time I can with him.

My point in all this is not to create some sort of user versus user megafight. I just wish John would apologize to those he has hurt thus far and make an effort to be less hostile... temper or not, he should not have said what he said. A cold world it may be, but our frosty behavior isn't making it any less chilly (and no offense but I'm freezing my ass off).

John: did I mean to provoke you? Hell yes. Was it hypocritical to do so? Yes. Did I enjoy your reaction? Most likely. But that doesn't make what I did morally acceptable, and I apologize for it- honestly. To spell it out: WHAT I DID WAS WRONG AND IMMATURE even though it seemed like a good idea at the time.

I'm not going to be on the wiki as much, and may stop checking altogether sometimes, but I'm as tired of putting up with crap from you as you are with putting up with crap from me. Let's not make each other's lives more difficult, eh? We get enough crap to deal with from other people, and I won't throw poo at you if you don't throw poo at me. I'll swallow my pride even if I see you being mean to people, because it isn't my business, and I have more long-term things to get stressed out over. In return, stop insulting me directly. I'll come through on my side of the deal first if it makes you happy.

No, this is not a ploy to gain sympathy from the admins. If it were I'd have addressed them and not you. I'm just sick of butting heads with you when we both have other, more important things to finish.

Truce?

Cher Bear =D (talk) 05:07, September 1, 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate Talk

Some users were "misbehaving on chat." I attempted to control some of it, but they wouldn't exactly listen. Hope these are useful.

I would say the users most misbehaving were Davy and Albert.

Jack Goldwrecker 05:19, September 1, 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? First of all, you didn't "try to control us". Stop acting like you're some great hero in chat, because you were taking part in it earlier. Second of all, I know you want to be a chat mod, everybody knows, but this is really how you want to get there? Screenshots of users doing absolutely nothing wrong but having a good time? Yeah, we did nothing wrong. We didn't curse; there were no insults or discrimination; and no sexual references (the only thing slightly sexual that was said was the word "sexy", which is allowed). Honestly, and I'm not just saying this because I was involved, I don't see anything worthy of a ban or strike here, and this frankly reached a new low.

-- Jeremiah Garland So I was misbehaving for saying "Sexy"? That really is not even worth a strike lol. If you want to see what breaks the rule, scroll up to where I was banned 3 Days, thats what breaks the rule, not "sexy". Many users use sexy and~ I have seen others say things I say up there, not just me. That is all I am going to say. 05:47, September 1, 2012 (UTC)

After looking over this, I have come to realize that this isn't needed. I ask that this be disregarded and/or deleted. I really didn't want to get anyone banned; I have nothing against anyone here, I just thought the admins might want to see it and then decide if it was worthy of any "punishment," which I now agree that it's not. I'm sorry if I've overreacted, because I did.

Jack Goldwrecker 07:10, September 1, 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted, Jack.

- We should archive this page.

15:37, September 1, 2012 (UTC)

Block: Lord Andrew Mallace

First, he never even benefits the wiki.

Next, all he does is insult anyone to disagrees with him. It's his way or the highway in most cases.

Therefore I propose a short-medium block on User:Lord Andrew Mallace. —This unsigned comment is by YaxleyCola (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

I'm Neutral - for the time being. While I agree he does insult people, I do not agree that he "never benefits" the wiki. Stpehen Was Here^Hello

This is not exactly a well set out request. No official reasons or anything. I agree he can be insulting, but I honestly do not see much reason for this. Oppose -, for now.

Um, lol. First of all, who the hell made this, rofl. Too scared to even put their name, I see. Mallace may be assertive at times, but that's the wafflezway. Besides, as I've said before, it's the assertive people that will finish strong, and actually go places in the world, unlike you fruit cocktails who sit back in your little homes going "guyz pls be nice". Step, you're turning into Cherie... No, the world is not perfect; no, it never will be; and no, Mallace does not insult people. At least I've never seen him insult anybody. If you're really going to be neutral on this, that kind of shows you have a bit of a thing against him, because this request is... well, lol, crap. OH and yes, Mallace does contribute to the wiki. He's the grand lord admiral of the Looterz.

I wrote a song for this...

"I Oppose -

You Oppose -

Let's get Oppose - in here

Because this is too weird to Oppose -

So I'll Oppose - your Oppose -

And we can Oppose - the Arab times"

-- Jeremiah Garland <3

Don't bring me into this, especially since you don't know me well enough to judge. Please and thank you, Jer.

Anyway, Neutral -.

Cher Bear =D (talk) 22:12, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't see any valid reason to ban Mallace. He is just being himself on the wiki. --KatBlueDog^Hiya! 22:31, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

I'm changing my vote to Oppose -, I thought about this and it's basically another one of Slappy's revenge ban request. Stpehen Was Here^Hello

This is completely uneeded. What did Mallace even do? I don't see any rulebreaks mentioned. I don't think he "never benefits the Wiki". This seems to be a grudge request, not a reasonable request at all. We can't just ban somebody because he "doesn't benefit the Wiki" ( Which is untrue. Mallace is a fun helpful user ), and we aren't going to. I Oppose -, and seeing the other votes, I believe this request is denied by the entire Bureaucratic Council. 23:12, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Support - This is totally needed! He has done so much for a ban!

Reverse that.

I really hate when I make one of these requests, everyone gangs up on me and refuses to see the other side of things.

Whatever. I really couldn't care less because it will happen later.

And Step, I imagined you and I had cleared our grudges. I guess not :/

02:11, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

Cooldown Block Request: Jim Logan

Herro.

I'm requesting the ban of Jim Logan for the following reasons.

• Vandalizing as of late
• Seems to be a bit of a hot-head when confronted
• Talks about users behind their backs occasionally

I'm just requesting like two days. Not much. If it doesn't pass, whatever. Just hope it's a wake-up call to a certain user....

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member

Support - although it doesn't matter, he has vandalized my page 3 times, with what he claims " a valid reason" however it is against my will and I do not condougne it, and as per I am "legally renting" the page from wiki, I request this block be put through so he spots vandalizing.

Talk

Hmm. Though he has reasoning to edit the pages ( Which are basically taunting him ), he should have contacted an administrator first. I'm going to put Neutral - for now, I see both sides here. 20:25, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gold, and was actually going to say the same thing. Jim needs to realize that such a thing as administrators exist on this wiki, and he is not one nor does he represent them. He should have contacted us and we would have gladly tried to resolve the situation.

I am thinking of a compromise, where some of the more offensive stuff on those pages gets removed ( the authors are not striked ) and Jim is not punished for his vandalism and vigilante behaviour. If talking behind people's backs is still a proble, he needs to resolve it soon.

Neutral - I think Jim is acting up quite a bit, but he had a right to edit that page, it was mocking him, I agree he talks behind his back a lot though, he always talks about John and how he'll be overthrowing all role-players, but for now I stand neutral. --Pencil 21:18, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral - I think Jim is acting up alot. But for the page mocking him.... he had a right to be upset at the person. But his hot head is getting him in alot of trouble with admins and rollbacks........So I remain Neutral for now

Actually, per Wikia and this wiki's rules, he had no right to edit the page. He simply edited it because it wasn't praising him. It's vandalizing, no matter how "justified" you want to pretend it is. He can be upset all he wants, but the page wasn't offensive, and he had no right to vandalize. On top of that, he's been mocking me and others for quite some time, and I'm getting quite sick of his "I'm immune" attitude.

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member 15:47, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

I believe this situation is handled, let's us leave it be. 15:52, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

Demotion Request: Lord Matthew Blastshot

As of lately, when Blastshot is on chat, he has been a jerk, telling everyone to,"shut up" when they won't listen to them, then slams you with threats if you don't listen. He has been overly-aggressive with an attitude against everyone. 04:46, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

Support -, Matthew seemed nice at first, but as of lately, he's shown his true self. He constantly will threaten you and he has made racist remarks to me. He called me a freak for saying I had this girl hitting on me; he was racist to the Irish too, if I say something in foreign he will shout out "Pencil! Perma ban unless translated!". I translate it in 30 seconds, thankfully.

Matthew has shown he is an aggressive chat mod, Matthew will be ranting on here if anything. He will defend his position at all costs. But of course, I'm supporting his demotion. I didn't want to write it because I felt it wouldn't end well, just a hunch. But Blake finally stepped up. Thank you Blake.

EDIT: Speaking of Irish, he seems to take a dislike for users that are Irish. (Me, Peter Coalvane, David McMartin, so on.) He will act very snotty to us.

--Pencil 04:49, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

Support - he has been very rude to me telling me to shut up when i go to say a simple comment.. he is very unfit for a chatmod and should be demoted at once! Lord Jason Blademorgan, EITC Officer 04:58, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Matthew, but as a friend, I must Support - this. Your behaviour has become a bit extreme.

05:45, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

I must Support - this fully, as I deemed earlier in my blog. His emotional stress is getting to him and affecting his environment in a dangerously negative way.

Talk

As in the words of my fellow comrades, perhaps a demotion would be best for now. I Support - due to an increase in emotional behaviour.

-- No sig Garland

:Very sorry Matthew, but I must Support -. You have become very hostile in chat. Stpehen Was Here^Hello

Support - After reading what other users have stated. I must support this demotion. Sorry Matthew but we don't need a hostile chat mod. --KatBlueDog^Hiya! 12:37, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Matthew is not material for a rollback. His behavior and abuse of power is to much for an rollback. He should know better

ROFL Pencil. He's not racist against the Irish, what the hell? First off, the translation thing is a RULE. Second, you're just throwing out accusations, he's not racist. It's actually quite funny you think that, it really explains a lot...

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member

Hmm. Well, it's hard for me to vote here becasue of a few reasons: 1- Matthew is my friend, and I wouldn't think he would be very aggresive. 2: I really haven't been on chat to see the actions. For some reason, I'm not usually on when he is, and since I really don't know what he did, it's hard for me to make a decision. Yes, I have seen him rather moody, and if that's what you're talking about, then I guess I should just say "oh", but it seems like for this amount of support on his demotion, he would have to have done something a bit more extreme than what I've seen. 3: Now, if I end up supporting this, I don't want anyone claiming "You admins just hate roleplayers!" I could be considered a roleplay due to Indonesia, so, henceforth, I would be hating myself, and not to mention just about every user here, if I hated roleplayers, so, don't want any of that mess.

I think before I vote I would like to get on chat and talk with the users who have seen him. I would like some opinions on this, and for now I'm Neutral -. I will be on chat in a bit, and when I am, please feel free to PM me and shed some light here, I want to know the community decision before voting ( I think I'm going to do this more often, now ) Alot of you are probably angry with me for being neutral all the time, but in most coses, I see both sides, and I usually get PMs from both sides in an argument, and I can understand multiple people's frustrations/opinions. 15:45, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, for now I am Neutral - leaning towards Oppose. Matthew is not really abusive, racist or agggressive. He was put on his final warning a little while back, and from what I can see he has not been out of line since. He sticks to the rules of chat and enforces them. What you mistake for racism and aggression is actually joking, sort of like Par. Matthew, often comment wrestles people in chat, because he is being friendly! He insults people and disses his friend to be friendly. I have not seem him act hateful towards any user, and the only people he complains to me about are troublemakers and users who do not behave. I think he likes David, and that was the fun of making David change his avatar.

Support - Hes very rude on chat.... User:Marc:Cannonshot/Sig4

I think the real issue here is that for some users, it's hard to tell when Matthew is serious or joking. From being on chat, it seems like some of the things that he has said were mean't as jokes, but taken as insults. I think this request is a bit unneeded, and that perhaps we should give said rollback some time and see how things play out. 16:04, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

@Pistol- "I can see he has not been out of line since." Well 1 fact to that is you see him 2 days a week, not that that isn't enough, but their is a wide range (the weekdays) of which you DO NOT observe his behavior, so I belive your statement their is a bit ill-supported. Secondly, if you notice the nature/time of this blog, it was created yesterday evening, so obvioulsy something had to have happened recently. As step and Kat also supported, the hostility is most likely being caused by some emotional distress. He has shown us on days such ast last saturday with the avatar incident that he does not yet have the control to maintain himself in an orderly and professional way. I supported his demotion, don't call me bias, but it has proved for the worse. He claims he has many emotinal things going on in his life... and I think it may be getting to him. And Goldvane, whether or not its a joke or being serious, a mod first off should be able to distinguish the two before stating something to the community, and secondly, they both can become offensive and "hostile" on many levels. SO please consider this comment before you go all "BNO" crazy on me, as usual. Sum up: He is not emotionally ready for this volunteer Job. Talk

Well, i think i am going to go on the side of Support - Sorry Matthew, i thought you would be a better mod, but you've proved me wrong several times. - Jeffrey B

Neutral - I'm neutral because I wasn't here when said things were done, but I am feeling reluctent to support because of what some have said, however I remain neutral. :)

Voxelplox ^Ƭalk

I can see both sides of the story here, but must defend Goldvane's reasoning (as far as some of Blasty's comments being misunderstood). I got a strike a while back because I took something he'd said as literal, when he was actually joking (and dissed him big-time). Since I haven't been on much recently, however, I cannot really formulate an accurate opinion as to who is correct in this, so I will remain Neutral -.

Cher Bear =D (talk) 23:38, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, honesty time. In my eyes, Matthew doesn't deserve a demotion. Yes, he's gone off the deep ends a couple times. Yes, he's let emotion and grudges interfere a couple times with his work. And yes, I myself have held grudges on him, as he has for me and several others. But isn't that just being human? In the long run, he hasn't done anything worthy of a demotion, and I think maybe most of the supports here are due to grudges or bias views. He's screwed up a couple times; there's no denying that. But, as I said, everybody screws up. The important thing is, is that through recent events, he's learned that he screwed up, and, knowing him, I can't see him making the same mistake twice. And quite frankly, I don't very much trust "Second Sealord Blake Stewart's" insight on this; Matthew probably said something to Blake that Blake doesn't agree with, and Blake took this as an offense and therefore assumes Matthew is "corrupt" and "has a bad attitude". Haven't we seen this plenty of times before, especially from the newer users such as Blake? Matthew is a good chat mod, when you get to the bare facts, and I don't believe he should be demoted. Sorry for the confusion; I'm chaning my vote to Oppose -

-- Garland

Meant to do this earlier, but I Oppose -. Blastshot is not a bad mod, he sticks to the rules, but also knows how to have fun. He jokes around by threatening people and forcing, by some odd deals, bets and so on, to do strange things to his, and others', amusement. This should not be mistaken as hostility. Few people on this wiki know where to draw the line between roleplay, friendships and their responsibilities. Mattthew, among a few others ( Garland notably ), is one of them. I may not always be around during the week, but I keep a close eye on the wiki and if I feel it is needed I will make a plan to get on. Since the recently resolved controversy where Matthew was put on a warning I have seen no reason for his demotion. The fact that two of the people that were opting for his final warning and possible demotion are now opposing clearly tells me that he has been behaving lately. John and Garland are more active and veteraned on this wiki, so I would hold their word ( as users ) to be true, while I trust the word of Goldvane too. I am not saying I think Blake is a liar or too new to have a say, I just suspect he does not understand Matthew's sense of humour or intentions. I beg to differ with Garland on his point that most supports are bias and grudges. Some may be, and I do suspect that, but I believe quite a few are a result of misunderstanding or not enough evidence. I think Kat and Step gave the users the benefit of the doubt, and took Matthew's recent warning into consideration when voting, although I am not their spokesperson. I truly do not think that Kat and Step hate Matthew, as I think they were just acting on what they were told and doing their duties.

Changing my vote to Oppose -, while he has been doing these things, we need to give him a 00:36, September 17, 2012 (UTC)chance to change. If he does not change then we should renew this vote. Stpehen Was Here^Hello

As far as I know, and I may be wrong, he has changed since we gave him that warning.

Changing to Oppose - because I will give him another chance if he changes. I hope this is an eye-opener to him. --KatBlueDog^Hiya! 17:01, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

I'm also changing to Oppose -, which I was leaning torwards from the beginning. I have talked with Matthew and it seems like he is usually joking when the users do not like him, but I still expect him to change a small bit and just have a bit more happier of a mood while moderating and in chat. Also, when joking ( And, acting like you're being rude, but your not, for example: No more caps or it's a perma ban, you fools! ) it helps to use faces ( :P, :D, xD, etc ) to show you are joking.

Oppose - Same reasons as above.--Parax 01:21, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Cooldown Ban Request: Victoryous

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

I'll keep this short and sweet, because I do not have much time right now.

Recently, there's been a rare time of peace on the wiki; no wars between players and admins, no major roleplay disputes, and no attacks from fruits.

Save Victoryous.

In the past few days, he has not only been extremely immature on the wiki, but has acted in an aggresive behaviour and continously picks fights with other users. For those of you who are unaware of the roleplay fiasco involving him, a couple weeks ago, the then-monarch of France, Duchess, passed on the French roleplay crown to a named heir. Even still, Victoryous continues to believe that he is indeed the king of France and refuses to take no for an answer. Now, I am not requesting his cooldown because of this absurd claim, but because of what has followed: several unnecessary war roleplay blogs, obnoxious and immature behaviour, and the classic feeling that he is better than everbody else. I believe his horrible ranting and claims that he's "smarter, more mature, more awesome, and better-looking" than other users has gone out of hand. In addition, he claimed one user was racist, when indeed, there was no discrimination against another race or ethnicity subject to the conversation at hand. From the way he's been acting, I wouldn't even be surprised if he's underaged for the Wiki, but I'll make no accusations there. For more proof of his childish and immature behaviour, as well as his obsessed thirst to control a meaningless roleplay nation, reference here.

In conclusion, I feel that a slight cooldown ban of a couple days, a week at the most, is necessary to teach this guy not everything in life will be handed to him, and there are consequences for what you say and do. He has, as I've said, acted very immaturely and very brash toward other users. His temper has certainly gone out of control, and I believe a slight cooldown will be best. Thank you for reading and considering, and have a superb day.

-- Jeremiah Garland

Support -, I've been seeing this user being aggressive and fighting when an Admin came to stop it. I think 3 days at the most for this ban. Stpehen Was Here^Hello

Support -, although I have avoided all this drama, I can see that there is definitely a good reason for a cooldown. I don't think it should be too long, as he is a fairly new user.

Support - I was considering a cooldown block for this user. 3 days sounds good. --KatBlueDog^Hiya! 15:37, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

EIOFBNILAEGUFNBLJE

IEOSFOBUABFB. HIM. ETOIAUBFBLIASGVSGE. DERP. HERP. SYSTEM OVERLOAD!

Also read that picture.

-John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member

He has been banned for 5 days since everyone agreed.--KatBlueDog^Hiya! 20:37, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Hes a very rude person to people in this wiki. Must I say more?

Block Request:Jack Goldwrecker.

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

I am hereby requesting the temporary block of User:Jack Goldwrecker. for the following reasons:

• Sparking religious arguments
• Attacking homosexual members of the community
• Attacking non-Catholic memebers of the community
• Continuing to "Preach God's Word" after receiving numerous warnings to cease.
• Using his religion as an excuse to break rules, when it, in fact, gives him no reason.

Now I know Jack will comment saying his religion is making him do this, or something like that, but I will prove otherwise.

• Honour thy father and thy mother - This not only refers to your father and mother, but your elders as a total. By refusing to listen to Captaingoldvane2, and other admins, who have told him to cease, he is disrespecting his elders (elders does not refer to people older than yourself, but people who are in a higher position of power.)
• Thou shalt not kill - This commandment does not refer to killing only, but harming yourself or another creature in any way, shape, or form (with exceptions such as slaughtering a pig for it's meat, or if another man has attacked you and you kill in defense). By hurting these homosexual and non-Catholic users, he has broken this commandment.

That's two of God's commandments broken, so he literally cannot justify his preaching here.

In any case, Jack has broken several rules and harassed members, and in my (and many others') opinion, needs a temporary block.

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member

Support - Jack has been warned multiple times and knew of the consequences of his actions. He needs a temporary block.--Parax 00:53, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I told him multiple times to stop being openly religious. I thought he had stopped, but I guess not. I'd say a week block. Stpehen Was Here^Hello

Support - I agree that he should get a short block. It clearly says to not force your religion onto other users in the rules. One week sounds good. --KatBlueDog^Hiya! 00:59, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, Jack. But, this has gone on long enough. You continuously disobey our administrators, and no other user likes it. (I don't care, frankly) I know for a FACT there was an atheist, Jew, and whatever the Hell in CHAT while this was going on. How do you think THEY FEEL? Also, GibbsGirl1111 has been disrespecting the Homosexual Community (Population:Bator). I believe she requires a strike, also, because I wouldn't even call anyone a "fag". You have annoyed the most of users on the Wiki, and in chat. I'm sorry, but I have to Support -.

Support - Whilst I respect Jack and his religion, I agree this has gone too far. He failed to halt the religous topics far after I warned him and told him to stop. ( BLAST these edit conflicts ) 01:04, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I agree with John, I have seen him preaching in chat multiple times, it's unnecessary and the wiki isn't about damn religion (Sorry god). Sharple Talk Page 01:10, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

I apologise, Jack, but I must Support - this. He has been forcing it onto everybody and many users are sick of it. He agreed to stop but really has not done so.

In addition, on one of his blogs he said Protestants “scare him,“ acting as if they were lower than Catholics (not capitalising ‘Protestants‘ and then capitalising all of ‘Holy Roman Catholic‘) and as if they were some sort of disgusting pagans. I myself took slight offence to this, being Protestant . . .

01:23, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Support - As to what Jarod Pillagebane said. --Pencil 01:33, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? Jack is still at this? Wow. If only he knew how ignorant and arrogant he is because of this. He tries to preach his own religion, which, apparently he knows nothing about; as John said, he's broken two commandments, and every time I engage in conversation with him on the matter, he always ends up failing to have a reasonable comeback to my questions. A week break will do him good, let him learn that this needs to stop, and he is not on any "holy, saintly mission" as he believes himself to be. Word to the wise: if you're going to preach an idea or religion to someone, A) make sure you thoroughly understand it, and don't simply go by the knowledge others have told you, B) when people want you to shut the hell up, then shut the hell up. C) Realise that Christianity, while the most dominant religion in the world, does not grant you special rights to ignore other's fragile beliefs and try to impose your own beliefs on them, which is indeed, as John said, illegal for a Christian to do. I wasn't even involved in this, but I'm still extremely offended that Jack has kept this up. Jack, seriously man... Obviously your holy mission isn't working out. If you're going to play priest, don't do it on the wiki; obviously people hate it. Anyways... I realise this vote is over, but I still Support - :P

-- Jeremiah Garland

Jack Goldwrecker has been blocked for 1 week since all of the available admins agreed. --KatBlueDog^Hiya! 04:15, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

I know Kat, read the last line of what I said :P

Just adding some emphasis to this most dramatic moment.

-- Garland

Just to let people know, Jack did not say homosexuality is wrong, or a sin, or anything. He agrees with me saying it is not wrong. Gibsgirl1 also has the right to her own opinion, whether that be for or against gays, but I ask her not to use the "f" word (faggot), which she has used, because that's what lots of gay people, including me, find extremely offinsive and crude. I just ask she be told this, not for a strike nor a warning. --Batorhos 04:26, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Pearson Wright: Possible Unban Blog, Please Read.

The Council has made a decision! The Majority of the Court has voted Oppose!

This is not meant to cause fights or drama. Thank you.

The past few days have been extremely argumentative, and violent. I haven’t seen this must drama since The Paradoxian Wars. I have seen over 8 videos on Youtube, all from different users, requesting the unban of Pearson Wright. He has been invited to Skype conversations by Sven Daggersteel, Jason, Hippie, Francis Chiphawk, Brooke Parker, Bella, William Yellowbones, Boogiemango, Skull Catcher, Firelegend, Sharkhound, and several other people all urging me to support to unbanning of Pearson Wright. Whether you administrators support it or not, the fact of the matter is, if you don’t adhere to the community, this wiki is going to start losing users, as well as contributions, decreasing activity, and ultimately, driving the site into inactivity, potentially destroying it. The majority of the community wants Pearson Wright unbanned. Due to his previous unban blog, you technically are obliged to unban him, but whatever. Let’s have a fresh start. He’s given me his word, and this isn’t some empty promise. I trust him. He’s never betrayed me before. I’ve known him a very long time. Curycoo would say the same, had Tama63 not demoted him. What I request, is that we the community be allowed to vote for the unbanning of Pearson Wright. If it does not pass, then okay. He'll understand.

I’m certain that you all know deep in your souls that Pearson Wright only had, three, REAL chances, almost 10x less than Samuel did. I remember once when he returned here, bandodging, and said, “I am sorry for what I have done.” Parax said. You expect him to change? He came to you, apologizing promising to change. You never ALLOWED that change to occur which is why this wiki is progressively declining. Look at the statistics. For the past YEAR, he has been banned. Look at the wiki. Look at how bad this situation has gotten. Clearly this isn’t working. Try something new. What could he possibly do now that he hasn’t already attempted in the past? He doesn’t even play the game anymore. You say this isn’t a social site, but the majority of the contributions made by administrators here are comments, I.E.: Social interactions. Don’t point out his flaws when you’ve still not corrected your own. Perhaps that’s why he keeps fighting with you. He tried changing for you, and you blew him off. You, brought this upon yourselves. This time, YOU will have to approach him, telling him that you will allow him to change, and that you will change as well. You’ll both start off on the right foot. Put your differences aside, and move on.

It is prohibited by The TOU to make a single rule, taking away a person’s right to be MENTIONED on a wiki. It is allowed here, on this wiki, to request the unbanning of users, and ALL users, so I therefore officially request the unban of the user Pearson Wright. Delete this, and you only prove that you truly are the bias, and unfair dictators that so many people have portrayed you as in their videos, blogs, comments, etc. Thank you for understanding.

Support - - Pearson Wright being unbanned:

1. Jason Blademorgan
2. BoogieMango
3. First $ea Lord Sven Daggersteel
4. Reyes De Luz (Albert Spark)
5. Madster.
6. Jim Logan
7. Jason Shiprat
8. Blake Stewart
9. Basil Brawlmonk
10. Duchess Natalie Andrea
11. Dog Sharkidd (TheMaTr1x)
12. Capt. Jack Darksilver
13. David McMartin Son Of Sparrow

Oppose - Pearson Wright NOT being unbanned:

1. JosephCoalSmythe
2. Tyler Crossbones
3. Lord Andrew Mallace
4. Stpehen
5. Parax
6. Captaingoldvane2
7. Grunt56
8. John Breasly
9. Katbluedog
10. Tyler Crossbones
11. YaxleyCola
12. KittyNomsYou

Here are some of the many videos of the known users of POTCO, and The POTCO Players Wiki that request the unban of Pearson Wright!

Oppose - while many say he has "changed", I don't think he has. If he has "changed" why would he continue making hate videos about this site? Stpehen Was Here^Hello

Let me just say this: If Samuel had 10x more chances, why does that make it ok for Pearson to have just as many?

Explain that logic, please. Because it makes no sense at all.

00:34, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Samuel's block is very different from Pearson's block, bringing Samuel into this is quite unnecessary since Pearson and Samuel reasons for being block were very quite different. Sharple Talk Page 00:51, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

That's not an excuse, try harder.

00:55, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Nightmare but that wasn't an excuse I know for a fact that I am correct Samuel and Pearson's blocks are quite different. Sharple Talk Page 00:58, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Number one, this is not the place to fight. Number two, I WOULD Support - as long as he is told the simple reasons why he was banned, and told what he can do to fix it. 01:08, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Support - First, before you go after me and say "Oh, you always want Pears unbanned" or try to bring up your side, know that I have my reasons to support. He definitely should've been unblocked after the vote in which support won. Though the admins tended to choose oppose on it, that didn't make it right for them to disregard it. A lot of the "drama" that's said to come from Pears is actually other people trying to unban him. Maybe it would end if it happened. It's been a long time since he's been on the wiki and there's a chance he's changed his attitude since then. Of course, when/if he's allowed back, he should be given the normal rights and restrictions and punished at the amount of time (if any) for any action (if any) he may have done; it's not like he'll get a special treatment, and I would hope he doesn't get different treatment from certain dislikes. If it becomes severe enough, go ahead and issue an inifinite ban again. If it's done rightfully then, there should really be no dispute.

Madster _{was ^here}

I have seen his videos and listened to him harass people on the game. I don't see any proof of him "changing" God, people like him annoy the hell out of me. Constantly thinking he is better then everyone else? How could anyone want him back on the Wiki? In other words, I Oppose -

William (Grunt) Daggersteel Also Parax, I need to edit my signature. How can I do that?

Support - I believe Pearson deserves 1 more chance. He doesn't hate the wki he wants to make a statement. Just perm ban him from chat

- Prime Minister Basil Brawlmonk IV

Why do you say oppose has won? It clearly says support is thirteen, and oppose is twelve. I am sorry If I'm wrong, so if I am please correct me. But until then I believe support has one, and Pearson Wright is going to be unbanned. Jack Goldwrecker

Oppose won. Check the top of the page; it clearly says that only rollback and admin votes count. Non-admins/rollbacks can post their opinions and end up listed, but in the end, they won't count.--Parax 19:20, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

01:11, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

As I told Pearson, I said I wouldn't oppose his unbanning, however I never supported It. You have added my name illegally, Boogie, and I intend to take action against you. I now Oppose due to Boogie's completely immature and illegal allegations.

Talk

Well, why not. We're all human, and I honestly wouldn't care less if he was back or not, as I see all this fighting would be solved if he's unbanned. Support -

Honestly, I wish I could believe he changed. Really, I do. But I don't. I don't believe an ounce of it. We get told that he has "changed" and is a better person, yet he makes slander videos, attacks the wiki nonstop, generally obsessing over a website, an encyclopedic website about a pirate-themed game. For God's sake, if he is this pissed off about it, and if he really has sunken this low to the point of slandering the wiki and admins in videos, I just don't think he's as good as people claim him to be. Before anyone starts going, "Oh, you just hate him for what he did a year and a half ago" or "Stop holding grudges", I have forgiven him. I have, but that doesn't mean that I think his personality has changed. With the videos I see from him, and the fact that he shows a complete hatred for the wiki and its users makes me wonder why he wants to be on it so badly.
My point being, his behavior simply tells me he isn't a different person. Maybe some day, I'll be convinced, but with what I've seen, I just don't see a reason to let him on the wiki. Thus, I Oppose - the request. I might edit this to add some more points in some time, but for now I'll leave it at that.--Parax 01:23, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

I don't have much time tonight to type a long message, but I want to agree with everything Parax said. He just put my thoughts into words. Also, why is it your life goal for a banned user who was banned fairly ( Yes, at the time he broke rules, his action were worthy of a permanent block. ) unbanned on a site he hates? I mean, according to his friends,he doesn't even WANT back here, so why is it so important to call us dictators over not unabnning a user a year later after his ban? If he wants back, perhaps he can apologize for his actions and ask nicely? No, instead you try to make us look bad for banning a user for a right reason, aka doing our jobs. Oppose - 01:38, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

I was laughing as I read this. "Most of the community"? No. Most of us actually want him unbanned so he can get his sorry ass banned again. Most of his little community of jumpers that have edited here once want him unbanned. Not the whole wiki. Also I'm removing Mallace's name because of his request to have his name removed. The people you listed, save two, don't even edit here. This pitiful excuse of an unban blog is TERRIBLY written.

You compare his three chances to Samuel. I'm sorry, but Samuel's banned, it don't work like that. And Samuel didn't threaten to track someone's IP. And most of the edits aren't administrative, that's incorrect. Finally, I'd like to top it off with this - " Don’t point out his flaws when you’ve still not corrected your own." Well, unfortunately, dumbass, that works both ways. Correct your flaws before you point out ours. He has had his "chances" to change. He obviously haven't. His hate videos prove he hasn't. His verbal attacks prove he hasn't.

He's not being unbanned, give it up. Btw, if you didn't figure it out already. Oppose -

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member

I completely Support - the unbanning and return of Pears, most of you are letting your personal feelings nad propaganda get in the way of change. Let us bring back monseiur Pears, our distant brother from Espana.

Jason Shiprat CEO of Shiprat Industries

Oppose - 100%. Why would we let a user who hates this wiki come back? I don't think we should let someone who makes hate videos come back to this wiki. By the way, Samuel just broke the rules not cyberbullied users. Samuel is not the same as Pearson. --KatBlueDog^Hiya! 14:16, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

I believe he should come back, the fact that you hate him to the core is sick, alot of you anyways. Not going to say names but this is something we need to realize, if you really feel the need he'll do it again, then make a compromise, see if it comes out again such as, monitor him for a PERIOD of time, like a week NOT harassing him or anything and if its not what you expected and IS change as you never thought it would happen, Congratulations you WILL have peace, we're always fighting each other, thing is you guys dont want to be flexible, I realize he has done horrible things, but how about other who have had more chances? He has my support in coming back, and if you cant be flexible or compromise for peace, you are one mindless ass, I honestly hope others will support. Support - 23:55, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I think Pears deserves at least one more chance, I know he has made mistakes in the past, but everyone has. And the reasons we banned him were pretty biased compared to now-a-days. If he is unbanned, and he does cause trouble, let's not flip out and ban him right away(etc). Come on guys, we gave people dozens of chances and we gave Pears what 2, 3? So he makes a few hate videos, everyone does, now I am rambling, god dang it. POINT IS! Pears deserves another chance, for all we know, he can bring some livley hood to this place.

The Instant Classic 01:39, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, Mallace. I was informed that you were a supporter. Please forgive my idiocy. :)

And, by the way, John, I'm sorry I don't live up to your expectations. I'm just have that type of dumbassery.

I follow him on youtube and Facebook and stuff so don't go start saying I hold grudges. Oppose - Pearson doesn't even play POTCO anymore if I am correct. He threatened to track someone down using their IP. "The majority of the community wants Pearson Wright unbanned." What the hell? Not the majority, only the people who just follow Pearson around like his dogs.

Jim, Pearson didn't just make a FEW hate videos, his whole channel is practically devoted to hating on all of us! And, idk about you, but, I don't see hate videos coming from every single one of us.

I Oppose - this, because if this happens, then Pearson will just break some more rules, get banned, then the cycle begins again with someone making an unban vote, reason being "He's only had, like, 3 chances."

Plus, he doesn't even WANT to come back, why would he make all those hate videos if he wanted to come back?

14:57, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

After recent events, I have seen Pearson really starting to change and feeling sorry for alot of what he did, he is taking down those horrid hate videos forever and is promising change, I mean come on, it has been a year or so, he must have changed! We don't know until we try, and if you're not willing to try something then I don't know what to say to you. He is a great man outside Wiki and Role - Play, and is not the devil we make him out to be. Alot of the newer Role Players need to get to know their so called "enemy". If you have not personally met the guy and just start hating him based off what others say then it doesn't look good. I remember my brother Al, used to hate him because others did, but after a while he learned things and became curious, eventually he discovered Pearson is actually pretty cool to talk with other than Role - Play. I must Support -

19:25, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Just curious, how come you never disagree with your brother or anything?

There have been all sorts of cyber bullying on this site... like I said before in my comment on Breasly's blog. It is also true that Samuel had more chances than Pears, but still their bans are quite different. Look I've known Pears for a long time and I know that he changed. Look the hate videos to Breasly etc... Are only to protect Bella. And that what some people including Breasly saying that Bella's family didn't die is a form of cyber bullying (yes, it took place on the wiki i was there). I believe that Pears deserves one more chance. If you think he didn't changed just give him a chance to show you that your wrong.

-Dog Sharkidd (TheMaTr1x)

Now, as long as I've been here, I've only met Pears once. He wasn't hostile towards me in any way, we just talked and that was it. It was a short conversation on Chat. Everyone says he's a horrible person, but, other than his YouTube Videos, I really don't see any proof. I say that you guys give him a kind of, err, test run. Let him be unbanned for a week. If he acts up in the slightest, ban him.

@Dog, Couldn't have said it better.

@Parax.You’re saying that Pearson slanders the wiki? Might I remind you what slandering is? Slandering is a federal crime, where you intentionally run around talking crap about people when you know in fact what you’re saying is not true. Everything Pearson says in his videos is either true, or controversial; I’d say 95% of it is complete, fact. MANY people would agree with me. I think you have your terms mixed up. Seeing as you all are the ones that made the “hate mail” page about him, in which you depicted him as talking bad about the entire wiki, and everyone on it, when in reality, he never did that, and gained him a TON of enemies; that in itself is the definition of slandering. You’d not only be contradicting yourself, but also be a complete hypocrite to say other wise. Now, does Pearson insult you? Does he roast you, and make fun of you and call you a dictator? Yes. But guess what? He’s not the only one that does that. You’re not as NEAR as offended by it when some random noob does it. I’m certain by now that the reason you’re so hung over on keeping him banned is because not only does he insult, you, but when he insults you, he brings up facts from the past, which really get to you. Now, he has clearly proven his point and is the bigger person because he was sworn to ALL of us that he will remove every hate video he has, AND apologize for what he did. HOWEVER, he is expecting the same from you. You can keep this up, this absurd internet war, whereas you continue annoying him, and he continues dissing you on Youtube, or you can both just stop and he can delete his videos, and you can unban him and we can try and all get along. He’s been banned a year. I think it’s time he be let back. @Tyler, What's wrong with agreeing? Kat and Step are also in the same family and agree on alot of things, hell, they even work in the same field for a job, that is more than Natalie and I. Wish we were that close xD

20:07, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

1.) Exactly. His hate videos ARE him talking crap about people. What he says is NOT true. It's all freaking exaggerated, him playing victim to give us a bad name because he can't get over his ban.
2.) Hi7878 forged the "hate mail", WE as a whole did not. Pearson was aware of this, and threatened to frame us with it if we didn't unban him.
3.) How the hell am I contradicting myself or being a hypocrite?
4.) Damn straight, he does. You should've seen those "Views on the POTCO Players Wiki" slander videos. In them, he attacked the admins with false facts, used profanity, and told us to rot in hell.
5.) Sure, I'm not offended if a noob does it. I'm not offended if Pearson does it either.
6.) No, I am not "hung over" keeping him banned for that. What he did during his "last chances" here were bad/screwed up enough to get him banned for life. Don't believe me? I'll show you the ban requests.
7.) He has proven no "point". He isn't "the bigger person". We're trying to work as a cooperative encyclopedic site, and Pearson is attacking us because he can't get over a ban that occurred a year and a half ago.
8.) We don't want this "absurd internet war". He got banned, and he won't get over it. If he and his followers stopped coming here to flame us, this conflict would've died down a LONG time ago.
9.) He isn't "dissing" anybody; he's making hate videos to give us a bad name because of his grudge on the internet.
10.) Yes, he's been banned for a year. What's your point? A permanent ban doesn't mean we're holding anything against him when we refuse to ban him a year and a half later. It means he screwed up big time on his "last chance" and did enough to get banned permanently.
Have I made my point now?

--Parax 21:34, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Most of the reasons for Pears being let back utilize a "why not" mentality. Question: What good would it do for the wiki as a whole to let him back? The majority of what supporters have said is not fact, it is what Pearson SAID he would do: remove his hate videos and not cause drama. I agree with the fact that he has not received as many chances as others, but seeing as nobody else has done the same things as him, it's like comparing apples to oranges. That being said, I ask that if you reply to this, you do so without insulting me. I am willing to change my vote if logic and fact are presented, but for now I Oppose -. Cher Bear =D (talk) 23:24, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I had come up with a long message but I lost it all with edit conflict. Thanks Step :/

Anyway, I'm going to leave these here, in hopes of convincing the Supporters to change their mind.

John Breasly is my hero!

THIS is why I hate The POTCO Players Wiki

Jack Goldwrecker - POTCO Religious Fanatic

Pearson HATES us, doesn't even want to come back, and if he does come back, he'll act the same way he did with his OTHER chances.

00:18, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

September 27, 2012 (UTC) '1.) He’s talking crap about you, because you all were the first to insult him. When he first came to this wiki, do you know what his warm welcome was? “GET THE HELL OFF OF OUR WEBSITE TROLL”, and a funeral blog, telling him to burn in Hell. He isn’t even requesting to be unbanned. WE, the community, the people that make up THIS wiki are DEMANDING that he be let back. Do you know why? You’re boring us to death. This wiki is so bias, and cruel, it’s just ridiculous. It’s one-sided. There used to be so many pages, and now it’s just England, because you banned all The Spaniards, literally, right after you banned Pearson.

2.) Hi7878 did not make the hatemail. Jim Logan did. Stop casting blame on random users because in fact you never truly gave any proof that Hi7878 did it, and to my knowledge, him and Pearson are pretty good friends, so I doubt he’d do that. Pearson did not threaten to frame you. He threatened to destroy the wiki if the page was not removed. It took you heartless monsters 2 days to remove that page. You left it up there, knowing that it was a slander page. You just wanted Pearson to acquire enemies. I’m not an idiot, and neither is he. Clearly that’s why you infuriated half the game.

3.) How are you contradicting your self? You have the temerity to say that Pearson is slandering you, when, whenever I come on this wiki, or go into the chat, and ask about Pearson, I get the same bias, one-sided bull crap. “He cyber-bullied.” Pearson Wright has NEVER driven anyone to suicide. This wiki, has put 3 people on the edge of it, THEREFORE, you are a hypocrite. Do you understand now? Can you process that Parax?

4.) How are his views on The POTCO Players Wiki slander videos? They’re his views. Lol? Slandering is stating things that are false, and making them out to be facts. All he did was give his opinion; idiot. He attacked you with “false facts”? LOL, good choice of words there, Oh mighty one. He told you to rot in hell? Aww, that hurt your feelings? ☹ Funny, because didn’t you practically do the same thing, ALL of you? And then you called him a baby for making such a big deal out of it. Once again, PARAX, that is how you are a hypocrite. Do you understand now?

5.) I beg to differ, because if you weren’t offended by it, you wouldn’t be fighting so hard to keep him off this wiki, and don’t say you’re doing it for the “community” when over half the community wants him back.

6.) What exactly did he do, that was THAT bad? PLEASE, explain it to me. You have a rule here prohibiting banning users based on things that occur off this site. You don’t break rules? Ever? You just broke one. The worst thing Pearson has done is threaten to kill Sharple in which he was only joking. After John Breasly infinitely banned him, Sharple even SAID, “Wow John, that’s a bit excessive, he was only joking.”

7.) Pearson isn’t attacking you. Stop being such a baby. You CHOOSE to go watch his videos, they aren’t posted here. If you’re so offended by them, why do you keep watching them. He clearly states in all his videos, “If you don’t like what I’m saying, there’s a simple solution, don’t watch my videos.”

8.) He’s been over it. Once again, HE is not requesting to be unbanned. You are somehow consoled by the fact that Pearson wants to come back. He doesn’t give a crap. We’re just bored. Pearson’s cool. He’s smart. He’s attractive. He’s something that this wiki NEEDS. He’s an entertainer.

9.) You already have a bad name. Lol. He’s just making videos because he’s tired of his baby girl being insulted. You people slander him on this wiki, and prevent anyone from speaking out against it, which is why he goes to other sites, and replies to it. You then CHOOSE to go view his replies, then complain about how he’s slandering you. What a SCREWED up mindset; Jesus Christ.

10.) Almost everyone on this wiki agrees, even many of the people that oppose his unbanning, that what he did, did NOT deserve an infinite ban. You, yourself, yes, Parax, You, have done worse than he has on THIS wiki; FAR worse. Pearson never meant to hurt, ANYONE. He wanted to be the clown of the wiki, because he’s hilarious. You all used that against him, and tried to play it off as if he was “cyber-bullying” you. Seriously? Grow up. Grow some balls. Stop being so incoherent, seriously.

~unsigned posy

Hmm. So, after spending however long he did to write that, he's still not going to be unbanned. LOL. The Seven Seas Court is for admins to vote on, not users. So all those users' votes go nowhere. Admins said no, it doesn't happen. If you want to prove you're not obsessed with this website, stop obsessing over it. You're acting like a child who can't get a toy. It doesn't matter how "unfair," or "mean," your ban was, the fact is you were threatening someone, and that got you banned. Maybe if you thought about what you said for once instead of tramping around like an incoherent twat all day on YouTube, you'd be a bit farther in life.

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member 00:51, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

with John. As for Jason's post: Again, whoever wrote those 10 points completely misses the whole thing. As usual, everything is twisted around to make Pearson look like the victim. Of course, I see no point in arguing with people this childish, as anyone who actually believes those "10 points" Jason posted obviously won't be capable of thinking up to this level, and realize that Pearson is not the victim. So, rather than waste my breath (or… whatever you can think of related to fingers…), I'll just choose to ignore those childish attempts to counter my argument and let this vote continue. After all, only rollbacks and admins count in SSC votes. Take care now, bye-bye then. :)--Parax 02:02, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

SUCCESS!

-stands up in court and begins applauding, also thinking about the money I earned for winning the case-

02:05, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

The Council has made a decision! The Majority of the Court has voted Oppose!

No more comments on this subject.

Jack, it's an admin-only vote, everyone else just felt compelled to pretend their votes counted in it.

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member 19:20, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Rule Change Request: No Edits, No Chat service. (Raise to 200.)

As the brilliant rule that we instated (100+ [50 mainspace]) works extremely efficienty, I still find it rather useless as most people just create sockpuppets, get 100 quick edits in 15 minutes, go on chat for just that day, and never come back. And we put the rule in to verify that the user is "dedicated" to the wiki. The above scenario obviously indicates they are not dedicated. I request to the community that we raise the edit count to something for more signifigance - one that isn't easily achieved by users with malicious intent just getting 100, as I call them, "space-filler" edits. If we raise the limit to something like 200 or 500, then we can rad out the ones who are here to troll and truly verify whether someone is here to stay for the day, or for the month. It'll also make it harder for those certain sockpuppets to achieve their goal. I can see where lots of opposition can arrise from this and openly accept it - again this is just a suggestion/request that I would like feedback on.

Talk

I do like this idea, and see where you're coming from. However, many of the users who do frequent chat that are dedicated barely scratch 200, so I don't think we should go much higher after that. I'm not saying that we should conform to their needs, but it would feel like we're shunning them out of something they're dedicated to.

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member 10:10, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - sounds fair however many of the users complain already about the 100 edits.. 200 edits might make then wanna leave.. ~Unsigned Post

Hmm. While I understand this suggestion, I think 100 is enough. users who come here just to chat are usually too lazy to get 100 faithful edits anyways, and end up leaving or getting banned from chat for ignoring the rule. I think that if someone can make 50 faithful edits to a page then they should be able to enter chat. For now I think I'm going to Oppose -, but if a situation ensues I can see this possibly being taken into action. 14:21, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Gotta Oppose - this one. 100 edits total and 50 to pages are enough to be able to chat. As Goldy said, most users are too lazy and end up getting banned from chat for refusing to edit. Stpehen Was Here^Hello

Oppose - I think 100 edits is just enough for new users. I understand they edit quickly with new accounts but the rule is okay for now. The users will actually want to stay on the wiki get the 100 edits with no problem. --KatBlueDog^Hiya! 14:49, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I am Oppose - like a lot of other users.

17:07, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Just a note to the other users voting: This is an Admin only voting session, so you don't have to use the templates :P, also, it's easy for us to tell which admins voted what if only the admins use the templates. Don't get me wrong, users opinions are highly valued, just a reminder :P -Facepalms at a random user who spends 5 edits trying to fix his vote template on the page- 17:19, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

@Gold BUT IT LOOKS FAAAAANCY D:

@Request Oppose - (EAT MY DUST GOLDY xD) There was much opposal to the rule itself when it was 100, 50 Main. Doing 200 would scare off too many people and even rid some of the users that chat (EVEN One of your slaves BNO D:) that have already shown dedication and loyalty to the wiki. We are sadly not like other Game Fanon Wikis, Such as the Halo Fanon Wiki (or whatever its called), POTCO doesnt have a large base like Halo, nor is it as addicting, like Halo is. This is just an example. Whether Halo Wiki uses such a rule or not is unknown so don't quote me :P.

18:54, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Bella's Ban

I just read Bella's ban reason again.... um, the one-year ban was a bit excessive, her offenses were not equal to the punishment, regardless of any "lie" she told.

Can it be shortened to like a month or two months? That'd be way more appropriate.

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member 19:13, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

We were planning on doing an infinite ban. All she does is defend Pearson. We did the year ban in hopes that she will stop obsessing over Pearson. She never edits unless it has to do with Pears. I don't think we need to change the ban yet. --KatBlueDog^Hiya! 19:47, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

She didn't even break a rule....

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member 20:36, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

So what if she just defends Pearson? Are we not allowed to have different views, opinions on subjects or is it just Pearson? She has only begged you people to unban him? She is defending her own point of view not Pears. Bella edits with good faith still though.... You have has King Giorgio John thee Second pointed out no legitimate reason to keep her banned.

21:57, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

There's tons of users here that edit only to defend England, and John Breasly. I don't see them banned. You know why? You realize that you've already lost Spain's approval, and al the other major Nations. You know if you lose England you're just screwed which is why you're allowing all this crap to occur. The users may have their own views.

By the way, I defended Pearson, so why aren't I banned?

I'm staying neutral in this, but I will say a couple of things.

1. It does seem like the ban is pretty long, even though I do not know the full reasoning behind it
2. The next two are directed to Boogie: I do not believe the admins have any craziness over which role-play nation has "control." At least, I don't, and have never been told. We do not need the "approval" of a role-play nation. At least I have not been informed that we do.
3. You are not banned because, from what I have heard, your exsistance is not souly to letting Pearson back.

@Gen: My purpose on the Wiki is of many things, edit stories/pages, talk with users, etc. Bella's purpose wasn't to get Pearson back, either. Sometimes, it was for her own dealings, not his.

As I said, I do not know much about this. I have been extremely busy irl, and have not wanted to get into this.

Aaaaalllllrighty then.

1. I agree with Law on all of the points he made
2. @Boogie: The admins don't give a damn which "country approved us", and I'm getting tired of the fools that claim we have something against them in role play. Barely any of them roleplay, and those that do don't even make it personal like you seem to enjoy implying.
3. Sure, there are people who defend John. Do they mindlessly agree with everything he says, attacking people who disagree? Do they vandalize or harass users when he gets banned? Not that I know of.
4. Bella's apparent sole purpose on this wiki is to glorify Pearson and piss on those who dare to disagree with her.
5. With the point above in mind, you, Boogie, do indeed defend Pearson. But you wonder why you're not banned? You actually show good faith on the wiki. You actually help, while the banned user we are discussing is barely active, and whenever she is, she's taking a massive dump on anyone who disagrees with her. Don't believe me? Go view her contributions (or at least the ones that aren't deleted)in any discussion about Pearson.
6. I suggest you read the block logs before you start claiming that her nagging us about Pearson is the only reason she's banned.

Now, in the meantime, I'm Neutral - on this. While I agree that the block is a little too lengthy for a temporary ban, I still don't see much productivity from her. I might support, I might oppose, but we'll just have to see.--Parax 23:23, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

These are the reasons why we banned Bella.

• Harassment of users/personal attacks.
• Starting arguments and drama about Pearson nonstop.
• Ordering admins to unban a rightfully-banned user.

--KatBlueDog^Hiya! 23:48, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

And since when in God's name are those three reasons ever worthy of a year-long ban? Admit it, they're not :/

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member 23:55, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

And suddenly, you are defending the girl you called an attention whore?

00:00, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to side with Law on this one. I'm staying neutral. The block seems a bit long but I haven't been monitoring this particular user lately. 00:11, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

So because I insulted someone I must immediately hate them? Okay, Yaxley.

--John Breasly, Savvy Designs Member 00:14, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree. A year is a bit excessive, and it might result in more hatred towards us. We should lessen it more to one month.

Jack Goldwrecker

We are shortening the ban to 1 and a half months or 45 days. Step is shortening the ban as I'm typing this. --KatBlueDog^Hiya! 00:35, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

New Category Request: Boyz Night Out

Okay, before the admins immediately shoot this down, HEAR ME OUT!

Well, the BNO has many pages: the BNO main page, the BNO - the Show, the Mallace Pallace (recent winner of FAOTW), the BNO Band, the BNO Amusement Park, and many more. When a collection of pages are all related in one way or another, I believe they deserve their own category. I know, I know, many of you find the BNO to be "disgusting" and "immature". In the past few months, we at the BNO have strove to be less disgusting and less immature, and have bettered our relations with the admins (or so we think). That being said, the BNO is not your enemy! Many members of the community (even some admins) share our love for the BNO, and all you skeptical mammals out there should too. So whatdya say... Just a category called "Boyz Night Out", or even "BNO" will do.

-- Jeremiah Garland

I Support - this, because the BNO is one of the many things I enjoy about this Wiki. I also am a hardcore BNO'r, and I love the pages. I edit them very often. There are also many members of the BNO, and I believe it deserves its own category.

Thank you.

New rule

Instead of having the admins always vote on ONE thing ex: Pearson being brought back and MANY other things, I think that votes, and every vote should be split in half. The rise of feelings take over with emotion. The admins all vote on the request, rule, etc. And everyone who VOTES becomes the 50% 03:01, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

Chat Unban Request: Me

Erm, well, it's been a while, and I feel I spent enough time and accumulated a fair amount of edits.

Sorry, not a well thought out request, but there isn't much else to say.

03:06, September 28, 2012 (UTC)