Help talk:Laws

From Club Penguin Fanon Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
THE RIGHTS AS DEFINED IN THIS ARTICLE ARE NOW SITE DOCTRINE.
TO ALL WHO PARTICIPATED IN THIS WAR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT.
AS OFFICIAL SITE LAW, ALL USERS AND RULERS- YES, EVEN TURTLESHROOM -ARE BOUND TO THESE NEW DICTA, AND AS SUCH, THEY ARE TO HAVE THE FULL FORCE OF LAW ON THIS SITE.
PROCLAMATION: Policy Decree
This page is considered an official policy on the Club Penguin Fanon Wiki.
It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that everyone should follow. Except for minor edits, please make use of the discussion page to propose changes to this policy.






Friends and comrade-based rivals:

You all put up a great fight, and in the end, the better side won.
As a man of purity, I accept and hereby bidn myself to the laws that have emerged victorious. (I still hate them, though.)
On behalf of the government of the Club Penguin Wiki, I hereby certify these rules as official doctrine and as completely inviolable and binding provisions to the laws of the land/server/site.
It's an honor doing business with all of you.
Here's to many years of prosperity.


Your friend,
-TurtleShroom






Court House.png This bill, Laws, has passed the Wiki's Congress Committee and will be laid down as a law!



KNOW YOUR ENEMY: TurtleShroom

What set of laws do we use? Since COC is disbanded, then technically there are no rules and we can do whatever we want!

Why was the COC disbanded? What set of rules are currently being enforced? We really need to establish a set of rules (and might I also add that if we do piggyback off the old ones, they would need to be changed). As for the time being, anyone can do whatever they want. Am I right?

And we shouldn't use the same laws as before worded differently, they need to be changed.

-- Triskelle3 Talk to me! 02:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Triskelle is right, fellow Wikimembers. We can not let the CPFW go into a "State of Nature". We will need to make ammendments to the old COC or make a completely new law document.

--Swiss Ninja Signature.png User Talk SN.png 02:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We have the Policies, but they are incomplete.

-- Triskelle3 Talk to me! 02:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Here, We've come up with rights that we users would like to have and reforms we should make. --Swiss Ninja Signature.png User Talk SN.png 03:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


User Rights

Here are a list of rights that EVERY user must have:

  1. Freedom of Speech - Except swearing, insults towards religion, sexual references, libel, prejudice, or immorality, users are relatively free to discuss what they please. No user can be banned because they
  2. Equality Before the Law - All punishments must be equal; an admin shall be banned the same amount of time as a regular user who did the same exact thing.
  3. Freedom of Assembly - Along with the right to the freedom of speech, users shall have the right to Assemble against laws that they want to reform, or change.
  4. No Consolidation - No one user is allowed to have too much power that can be abused. The community should not allow one sole user, or even a group of users gain too much power that can be abused.
  5. No External Bans/No Cruel Punishment - A user can not be banned for what they have done OUTSIDE the wiki. Whatever they do on Facebook, Twitter, anywhere else and even in real life, can not have them banned on the Fanon Wiki.
  6. No Discrimination and Prejudice - Users are NOT to be insulted because of their religion, race, gender, age, or preferences.


Discussion

  • Oh, and TS, you can not delete this because of our amendments. We want reform, and we should have the right to decide the fate of the wiki, not you yourself. Me, Triskelle, Sancho, and Zone forbid you to do so. We, the group who want this change, are now called the Alliance of Wiki Freedom, or AOWF as Sancho has put it. That's just me, triskelle, sancho and zone. Anyone else can join too, but dont have to, and everyone should vote. --Swiss Ninja Signature.png User Talk SN.png 03:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • But, that was the old wiki, and I think TS deleted them.-- Sanchonachos OBAMA 2012 LIBERALS! LIBERALS! 14:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh BTW Swiss, anyone could delete this no matter how many times you "forbid" them. I hope they won't, but I don't think they would care about your opinions. --THE SHEEP! |FIGHTTHEPOWER! Crazy sheep.gif (Stuff I did and stuff) 16:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • These are only drafts. What we're saying is that we need some new policies, and this is only brainstorming. I don't see why there is a vote just yet, because as of right now we really should be taking advice and other people's opinions into consideration. -- Triskelle3 Talk to me! 17:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If the policies haven't been ratified, then as of right now we have no rules. We need to work on these rules, we shouldn't just slap them down and then send them to vote. They need to be worked on. These are fine, but we need to reach a point of agreement. -- Triskelle3 Talk to me! 17:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll join the Alliance of Wiki Reformers, however we need to use Zone's policies. I admit, this Wiki does need reform and earlier on, I was writing on how certain Bureaucrats and Admins abuse their power by promoting people with community consent and I was creating policy to combat that but I decided not to post it. I can rewrite it, if you wish.--Agent Johnson |  I'm Brit-ish and cause of that, I'm Liberal. 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention how I was partially responsible for mass demotion.--Agent Johnson |  I'm Brit-ish and cause of that, I'm Liberal. 18:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Who agrees with my two-policy idea? I also think we shouldn't have more rules than we actually need. That way, we won't have a slew of extraneous policies and all sorts of red tape. Yours Truly, Explorer 767 (Smoking... is not allowed.) v • e 18:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Policies are needed (can't believe I'm saying this) for order. There cannot be this wiki without order. Stability is paramount. Put the rules everyone should known in a simplified ruleset and the rest which are guidelines and information about consensus etc in their own. It's basically Zone's view of the way it should be. --Agent Johnson |  I'm Brit-ish and cause of that, I'm Liberal. 21:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


RE: Rights

Okay, this must have been that "rebellion" I was warned about. I'll respond to your sense of entitlement one-by-one.

My problem with all these "fundamental rights" is that, in this raw form, they very nearly strip the powers that be of all regulatory and censor-based authority. We can barely do anything without consulting the Masses in a long flame war consensus (couldn't you at least just have a vote?!).

  • I noticed "major" in your swearing clause. That is not an option in your reform. No swearing, no exceptions, period. If you want to push these reforms through without a filibuster or intervention from you know who, you should ban immoral speech.
    • On this wiki, freedom of speech on this site should NOT be absolute, or even constrained to something that narrow. After all, your speech thing could be construed very liberally and give you the right to say most anything.
    • Your draft bans some swearing, all sexual references, and libel.
      • What about political hot topics like abortion, drugs, or marriage? What about filth like homosexuality or perversion like losing one's virginity (which would hopefully be in the sex section)? I especially note that you didn't ban drug references nor things that a young child shouldn't see: the Holocaust for example. That's very immoral and not a subject that should be mentioned on this site. (Although you wouldn't bring it up, I'm bringing it up to explain the flaws of your "rights".)
      • What about Taking the Lord's Name in Vain? Your free speech would let Happy Too name himself Lucifer (Satan), and I could do nothing about it. People could say Jesus' name as an interjection or fully spell out "OMG" without punishment. Some of us- especially me -take this sort of thing seriously, and I can't just let you wonder around and slander celestial beings.
  • "All users must also have equal punishments, an admin shall be banned the same amount of time as a regular user who did the same exact thing."
    • Isn't this already in effect? Administrators and users who do wrong are both punished, aren't they? (I do not object to this "right".)
  • "Articles can not be siezed, or adopted by force, without the consent of the original creator, or if the original creator is no longer with us, the consensus vote of the community. If an article is to be adopted, it must be an LQA and must have not been edited for the past 30 days. The Original Creator HAS THE RIGHT to DENY adoption."
    • This is ridiculous! You've shackled the right of other users to take lousy (or immoral, e.g. sex out of wedlock tale in Mec's work) articles out of the hands of those who do not use them. Let me give you an example:
      • Maverick, the Inquisition, and Planet LOLZ were all adopted by me. The first and third were adopted from the same man. When I adopted Planet LOLZ, the old user returned and demanded me to hand it back. Your doctrine would allow him to take it from me, even though I did all the work in expanding my adopted article. What if Maverick's owner returns and objects to my Tropico thing? Does he have the right to snatch it?! Why do I have to delete all my work because someone who slapped a sentence together and called his own is jealous?
      • The will of the people should override the original creator. If a man can convince the site that he can handle the article, and can win votes, he should get it. He obviously has the intent to expand and greatly upgrade the article. No changes to the OOC code are needed, because seizure requres five users, not counting the adopter and current owner, and is open to discussion until the votes are obtained.
        • If there is some crappy LQA, and I want it, why can't I have it? They only wrote one sentence, and usually don't do anything else. The current law allows that if anyone expands a LQA to a MQA or higher, then they get to keep it, no questions asked!!
    • Those who contribute the most ingrediants to the pie should get to the biggest slice. It may not be equal, but it's fair!
    • This doctrine might also have unforseen results on the Final Solution as well.
  • "Users shall have the right to assemble, or peacefully assemble against laws that they want to reform, or change."
    • Yeah, give people the fundamental right to shake down the powers that be. I see what you're doing there. What if the holiness clause (the G/PG mandate) comes under fire? The goons apparently have the right to try and strike it down under your liberal ideology. That's not going to happen.
  • "If reform is requested, a consensus community vote shall take place and if the reform vote is a success, the law shall be reformed or repealed."
    • Ah, the right to start a flame war. Let me show you a little example of what happened when a "consensus community vote" was called forth. FORUM RESTRICTIONS.
“ I have just reallised that there is no reason why this wiki is G rated and all subjects escatological are banned. My proof of this is that no-one will be able to came up with a satisfactory reason below. Be warned, I will be very sarcastic here. Prepare to be seriosly insulted if you prepare a bad argument. Please don't take it personnally. You were warned.' ”
 
— AgentGenius; Forum Restrictions
      • The consensus that followed... was heck on the earth.
“ Do you know why the COC on these wikis line up with the Ten Commandments?! Do you really want to know why Bronze Age Moses-based law and a website code line up?! Censorship follows the same rules! They're the same thing! The Ten Commandments are a framework for censorship! I hate to snap on PogoPunk, but the COC is fine. Every time someone challenges it, something terrible happens, and only when someone challenges it does it happen. ”
 
— TurtleShroom (in his Noob era); Forum Restrictions

“ [AgentGenius,] I am sick and tired of your inconsiderate and disrespect for censorship! Is that understood?! 'Do you know how rare censorship is on the internet?! Are you aware that the domains that are not with porn sites or hosting units like Free Webs and geocities are bought out by companies full of advertisements?! The Internet is one of the filthiest places anywhere, and because it can be accessed by anyone, there has to be some place for people to go and have a good time without swearing! ”
 
— TurtleShroom (noob); Forum Restrictions
“ This is complete noobish stupidity. I'm saying this because every time AG gets sand in his canyon, TurtleShroom starts off on one of his 100,000,000 word borathons. Triskelle obviously went to the Irish Bar again. Austin makes people feel bad, and I'm pretty much being <censored> as usual. ”
 
— 1337-Lollie
    • DO YOU WANT ALL OF THAT ALL OVER AGAIN?!
    • See, if a consensus and a debate on the rules must be called any time one ask for it, you've ressurected the Court House. Like all good things, someone WILL abuse it. AG is destroyed, glory be, but what if someone else fills his evil shoes?
    • When you joined this site, you agreed to obey the rules, follow the censorship, etc., and most of you do that. The rest of you... just shut up and obey.
“ Might I add that PogoPunk can bend a character from a game called "Diablo" (Spanish for Devil") to fit these rules?! He put a DRAGON on here, wars, magical creatures, characters from T and M-Rated games (like Diablo), pretty much all ends of the "violence" spectrum, a prophecy (or two), all of which abide completely by the rules, all of which every user in this community has enjoyed, and all of which have never been challenged as anti-COC.

Do you know WHY PogoPunk can do all of these parodies from violent games, without a peep from the COC?! That is because he has imagination. He doesn't let rules crush his brilliance. He works around them, uses them to his way, writes an article without breaking them, but at the same time, not abandoning his enjoyment. I look up to him for that, and he deserves commendment for it. Thank you, PogoPunk, for writing those articles without challenging the COC. To make a ruleset work for you is a mark of true brilliance, in my mind. 		”
 
— Noob TurtleShroom; Forum Restructions


  • "No one user is allowed to have too much power that can be abused. The community should not allow one sole user, or even a group of users gain too much power that can be abused. Demotions can be made with a consensus vote if an admin is claimed to have abused his power brutally."
    • This opens a big avenue to strip and shackle me if I start doing things you don't like. One man's "brutal oppression" is another's just cause. Some whine if I clean up blood, others won't even flinch when I delete half a story on decency grounds. Our wiki is too diverse and too extreme in view to have a set definition of "power abuse", except for obvious things like "banning for the Lulz" or promoting others for fun.
  • "If a user is placed on the Wall of Fame, they have the right to stay there, no matter what had happened to them or what they did."
    • So if a WOF user suddenly starts posting porn, and then gets permanently banned, we can't remove him from the Wall? So, even though this man has done such wrong, his good still deserves one of our highest honors, despite showing an obvious disdain for what is right? Fluffy was once a hero before he went nuts. Under you doctrine, he'd still be on the Wall, had be been there before the scandals.
  • "Being banned can not demote you unless you abused your powers, and demotion needs to be done with Consensus."
    • That allows the admin to unban themselves immediately. They still have the unbanning power, remember!
  • "Users are NOT to be insulted because of their religion, race, or sexual orientation."
    • We haven't discriminated on religion, race, or sexual orientation since the days of Top Agent. Also, a strict interpretation of this would preserve Satanists, and come on, those are devil worshippers. DEVIL. WORSHIPPERS.
      • What about gender? You'd rather protect their perversion than their natural chromosome's biology?

There. That about does it.

Just as I- one man -does not have the authority to stop change, neither do you, a group of five, have the authority to change it. Why not just shut up and contribute? I only defend in these sort of wars. Why don't you just stop attacking and accept that this is a clean place with strict decency rules? Is that REALLY so hard?!



--† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) HAIR LOOPIES † † Insert something overglorifying Scott Walker here. ――–――――― 20:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Can I delete this yet? You won't win.

Replies

Andrew

I have more to add, my friend.

  • I noticed "major" in your swearing clause. That is not an option in your reform. No swearing, no exceptions, period. If you want to push these reforms through without a filibuster or intervention from you know who, you should ban immoral speech.
    • On this wiki, freedom of speech on this site should NOT be absolute, or even constrained to something that narrow. After all, your speech thing could be construed very liberally and give you the right to say most anything. oh lol
    • Your draft bans some swearing, all sexual references, and libel.
      • What about political hot topics like abortion, drugs, or marriage? What about filth like homosexuality or perversion like losing one's virginity (which would hopefully be in the sex section)? I especially note that you didn't ban drug references nor things that a young child shouldn't see: the Holocaust for example. That's very immoral and not a subject that should be mentioned on this site. (Although you wouldn't bring it up, I'm bringing it up to explain the flaws of your "rights".) There is some legitimate reason here. You ban the Holocaust. Then the purpose of Khanzem other than fighting some huge war?
      • What about Taking the Lord's Name in Vain? Your free speech would let Happy Too name himself Lucifer (Satan), and I could do nothing about it. People could say Jesus' name as an interjection or fully spell out "OMG" without punishment. Some of us- especially me -take this sort of thing seriously, and I can't just let you wonder around and slander celestial beings. You don't know some nonreligious folk then.
  • "All users must also have equal punishments, an admin shall be banned the same amount of time as a regular user who did the same exact thing."
    • Isn't this already in effect? Administrators and users who do wrong are both punished, aren't they? (I do not object to this "right".) nothing to say
  • "Articles can not be siezed, or adopted by force, without the consent of the original creator, or if the original creator is no longer with us, the consensus vote of the community. If an article is to be adopted, it must be an LQA and must have not been edited for the past 30 days. The Original Creator HAS THE RIGHT to DENY adoption."
    • This is ridiculous! You've shackled the right of other users to take lousy (or immoral, e.g. sex out of wedlock tale in Mec's work) articles out of the hands of those who do not use them. Let me give you an example:
      • Maverick, the Inquisition, and Planet LOLZ were all adopted by me. The first and third were adopted from the same man. When I adopted Planet LOLZ, the old user returned and demanded me to hand it back. Your doctrine would allow him to take it from me, even though I did all the work in expanding my adopted article. What if Maverick's owner returns and objects to my Tropico thing? Does he have the right to snatch it?! Why do I have to delete all my work because someone who slapped a sentence together and called his own is jealous? oh geez, please! (more later)
      • The will of the people should override the original creator. If a man can convince the site that he can handle the article, and can win votes, he should get it. He obviously has the intent to expand and greatly upgrade the article. No changes to the OOC code are needed, because seizure requres five users, not counting the adopter and current owner, and is open to discussion until the votes are obtained.
        • If there is some crappy LQA, and I want it, why can't I have it? They only wrote one sentence, and usually don't do anything else. The current law allows that if anyone expands a LQA to a MQA or higher, then they get to keep it, no questions asked!!
    • Those who contribute the most ingrediants to the pie should get to the biggest slice. It may not be equal, but it's fair!
    • This doctrine might also have unforseen results on the Final Solution as well.

start general comment

TurtleShroom, what I think to refer to is that the creator has to agree with the snatching unless they have been inactive for months at a time and not replying. Then it can be taken.

end general comment

  • "Users shall have the right to assemble, or peacefully assemble against laws that they want to reform, or change."
    • Yeah, give people the fundamental right to shake down the powers that be. I see what you're doing there. What if the holiness clause (the G/PG mandate) comes under fire? The goons apparently have the right to try and strike it down under your liberal ideology. That's not going to happen. DISAGREED! THE "MASSES" NEED THE RIGHT TO ADD CONSENSUS.
  • "If reform is requested, a consensus community vote shall take place and if the reform vote is a success, the law shall be reformed or repealed."
    • Ah, the right to start a flame war. <snipped>
“ [AgentGenius,] I am sick and tired of your inconsiderate and disrespect for censorship! Is that understood?! 'Do you know how rare censorship is on the internet?! Are you aware that the domains that are not with porn sites or hosting units like Free Webs and geocities are bought out by companies full of advertisements?! The Internet is one of the filthiest places anywhere, and because it can be accessed by anyone, there has to be some place for people to go and have a good time without swearing! ”
 
— TurtleShroom (noob); Forum Restrictions
basically, this site is automatically filthy too.
“ This is complete noobish stupidity. I'm saying this because every time AG gets sand in his canyon, TurtleShroom starts off on one of his 100,000,000 word borathons. Triskelle obviously went to the Irish Bar again. Austin makes people feel bad, and I'm pretty much being <censored> as usual. ”
 
— 1337-Lollie
    • DO YOU WANT ALL OF THAT ALL OVER AGAIN?! Sorry, but agreed.
    • See, if a consensus and a debate on the rules must be called any time one ask for it, you've ressurected the Court House. Like all good things, someone WILL abuse it. AG is destroyed, glory be, but what if someone else fills his evil shoes?
    • When you joined this site, you agreed to obey the rules, follow the censorship, etc., and most of you do that. The rest of you... just shut up and obey.
“ Might I add that PogoPunk can bend a character from a game called "Diablo" (Spanish for Devil") to fit these rules?! He put a DRAGON on here, wars, magical creatures, characters from T and M-Rated games (like Diablo), pretty much all ends of the "violence" spectrum, a prophecy (or two), all of which abide completely by the rules, all of which every user in this community has enjoyed, and all of which have never been challenged as anti-COC.

Do you know WHY PogoPunk can do all of these parodies from violent games, without a peep from the COC?! That is because he has imagination. He doesn't let rules crush his brilliance. He works around them, uses them to his way, writes an article without breaking them, but at the same time, not abandoning his enjoyment. I look up to him for that, and he deserves commendment for it. Thank you, PogoPunk, for writing those articles without challenging the COC. To make a ruleset work for you is a mark of true brilliance, in my mind. 		”
 
— Noob TurtleShroom; Forum Restructions


  • "No one user is allowed to have too much power that can be abused. The community should not allow one sole user, or even a group of users gain too much power that can be abused. Demotions can be made with a consensus vote if an admin is claimed to have abused his power brutally."
    • This opens a big avenue to strip and shackle me if I start doing things you don't like. One man's "brutal oppression" is another's just cause. Some whine if I clean up blood, others won't even flinch when I delete half a story on decency grounds. Our wiki is too diverse and too extreme in view to have a set definition of "power abuse", except for obvious things like "banning for the Lulz" or promoting others for fun. == dictatorship: TS will stay in power forever. You are not the wiki's fuhrer.
  • "If a user is placed on the Wall of Fame, they have the right to stay there, no matter what had happened to them or what they did."
    • So if a WOF user suddenly starts posting porn, and then gets permanently banned, we can't remove him from the Wall? So, even though this man has done such wrong, his good still deserves one of our highest honors, despite showing an obvious disdain for what is right? Fluffy was once a hero before he went nuts. Under you doctrine, he'd still be on the Wall, had be been there before the scandals. ...this one I may have to side with TS.
  • "Being banned can not demote you unless you abused your powers, and demotion needs to be done with Consensus."
    • That allows the admin to unban themselves immediately. They still have the unbanning power, remember! Another point that is well.
  • "Users are NOT to be insulted because of their religion, race, or sexual orientation."
    • We haven't discriminated on religion, race, or sexual orientation since the days of Top Agent. Also, a strict interpretation of this would preserve Satanists, and come on, those are devil worshippers. DEVIL. WORSHIPPERS.
      • What about gender? You'd rather protect their perversion than their natural chromosome's biology?

There. --Andrew<staff /> (3.14) 20:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

TS again

I can sum up my problem in this sentence:

  • What's with Internet folk and sticking it to the man? Seriosuly, why can't you just shut up and write content?

I think you're doing this just to tick me off. Really, there's no real reason for reform, except that you like to see THE MAN defeated. Toppling power is always fun: look at Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. Everyone loves screwing over the censor.



--† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) HAIR LOOPIES † † Insert something overglorifying Scott Walker here. ――–――――― 20:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

TS, you do have problems, so yeah. Andrew<staff /> (3.14) 20:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I read your response, but I'm having trouble seeing your answers buried in my fillibuster. Could you organize that so I can see it easier? --† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) HAIR LOOPIES † † Insert something overglorifying Scott Walker here. ――–――――― 20:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


Leader/Agent Johnson

That's not why I voted yes.....

Btw, I'm writing a mammoth reply to TS' view.--Agent Johnson |  I'm Brit-ish and cause of that, I'm Liberal. 21:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice, AJ. BTW, I have my summary.
Alright:
  • There is some legitimate reason for not banning the Holocaust (but making it less... you know). This adds more purpose to Khanzem and related war pages.
  • You have to understand that religious and non-religious folk contribute here.
  • Articles to be seized must be authorized by the author or the author must not reply to talk messages for a long time.
  • "The Internet is one of the filthiest places anywhere, and because it can be accessed by anyone, there has to be some place for people to go and have a good time without swearing!" -- yet through 2 wiki hosts you have Un-CP (which is banned here; just bringing it up) coming along. Coming to any server I bet you will be bound to find a swear word most of the time. Thus so, some topics that are taboo to you will eventually be brought up, bringing me to say "Basically, this site is automatically filthy too."
  • Power abuse certainly is possible, but the case should be discussed openly and without secrecy.
I have submitted my facts. Andrew<staff /> (3.14) 21:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Austin

TS, I hate to say this...

You're a wonderful editor. Absolutely wonderful.

But you SUCK AT RULING. I don't complain that much because I'm tolerant-but seriously! Your whim is law. And I don't like that. Remember when XTUX made Noezma and Phill and because YOU DIDN'T LIKE THEM you DEMOTED HIM and BANNED HIM for a while. I have other cases-but in all seriousness, stop. I think we should let the staff rule, let open discussion be allowed, and follow CPW's "commie rules".


And in all seriousness, is all this stuff too bad?

I encounter blood. EVERY SINGLE DAY. I got stabbed under the eye with a stick when I was younger-probably the reason I have glasses now and it BLED and BLED and BLED.

Was it that bad? No.

And as for swearing, I oppose it, but the d-word is not that much for brits, or even other people. I don't swear myself, but I don't mind it.

I do oppose homos+gays=idiots, and mention of sexual things, but yeah. These things can be worked out. You don't allow change-or stuff you don't approve of...and people are tired of this.


Look, people want to be like the CPW. And losing power isn't the end of the world-frankly, I've given it up twice. I'd do it again.

And you can continue editing and stuff even if you aren't the ruler. It won't be the end of the world.


But frankly, WE'RE ALL SICK OF THE CURRENT RULE. --Austin8310 Bow ties are COOL. 22:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)



Sancho

I support a more liberalized set of rules that govern us. The problem is that, you TS govern by your principles, and yours only. I The problem with you is that you are pretty much a plastic ruler. You are pretty much: "DEMOCRACY, REPUBLIC, FREE RULE!", yet that is not the true you. You govern us with a Bible in one hand and an Iron Banhammer in the other. You are not a democratic person it seems that you revolve around a more totalitarian rule. The only reason you utilize the principle of voting and democracy is simply to combat that of an opponent. I support gay rights and I do believe that they are like us, humans and should be treated with respect as well. You also cannot stand change. Do you not remember when Zone implemented his rules? After a while, it was deleted by YOU. I and many others on this wiki oppose your iron grip on our wiki. Another problem with your rules are that you just rule by your own mind and no one else. When you hate an article, and the creator opposes, you ban and demote them. You are simply placing your agenda across the wiki. I remember once, I was demoted from a Sysop position because I was accused of power abuse. Yet, you TS have abused your power more than I did. You banned those who had articles featuring profanity, and any nonsense. You even banned some of our greatest users here. Though you keep saying "Stop it, and keep moving forward", that is just your alibi to keep holding on to that power you possess. I support a rebllion against you. You have had enough, you're not just some Bureaucrat. You are a TYRANT.

-- Sanchonachos OBAMA 2012 LIBERALS! LIBERALS! 22:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Explorer

Yeah, I don't think using your opinion as our policy works out very well, TS. I appreciate your intentions, but the thought (in this case) is NOT what counts. We need something set in stone (ironically that's what you want too, isn't it?) that EVERYONE follows and ALL the admins enforce.

I'm not saying you should quit, I'm saying you should stop ruling based on YOUR opinions. Yours Truly, Explorer 767 (Smoking... is not allowed.) v • e 22:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Triskelle

What I'm saying is that we need policies. As of right now we have no official ruleset, so we can basicly do whatever we want. In otherwords, it's not even a reform. -- Triskelle3 Talk to me! 22:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


-and Explorer again

And a word to Sancho (and possibly Swiss). You two are getting too antagonistic towards TS. This is a campaign for policy reform/expansion, not a campaign to make TS quit. If it turns into that, I'll block you for antagonistic behavior. Yours Truly, Explorer 767 (Smoking... is not allowed.) v • e 22:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I really don't want TS to quit. It won't turn to that. I'm just pointing out some things.WE NEED CHANGE PEOPLE! Like I said before, I don't want this to escalate into a mass quitting. I have a campaign t o liberalize policy expansion.-- Sanchonachos OBAMA 2012 LIBERALS! LIBERALS! 23:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah right.

"YOU ARE A TYRANT"

"YOU RULE US WITH AN IRON FIST AND BANHAMMERS"

Stop sugarcoating it and stop being antagonistic. Yours Truly, Explorer 767 (Smoking... is not allowed.) v • e 23:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh heck no. TS is a great editor indeed. I have liked his work and would feel really bad if he left. TS has the right to stay here...we just dont like him having too much power. I do feel bad doing this, but it's for the best of the wiki. There you go again with your block threats.

--Swiss Ninja Signature.png User Talk SN.png 00:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So, technically, we want some Magna Carta style paper that lowers the amount of power vested in TS, and is spread across the other administrators.-- Sanchonachos OBAMA 2012 LIBERALS! LIBERALS! 00:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh crap it's TurtleShroom

This isn't only an issue of me losing power. Yeah, I don't want to, but my reason isn't so much my power, but what this site is. It's also an issue of allowing this site to become unclean or less censored than it already is.

I'll say this until my throat is sore, but I despise consensus and have, billions of times over, tried to explain its flaws and why it wouldn't work. I'd give in to some of this crap if it simply decided itself on a vote. A consensus is a flame war to happen.

Let me continue by saying that if these reforms are passed, the ultimate goal is achieved: silencing me.
Austin was the most honest about this, but why not just say it, people? This is a campaign to completely strip TurtleShroom of any means of blocking our glorious people's reform. Get if off your chests: you want me gone, and that's what this crapfest is about.

You all know that, by nature, I'm a rambler and a roadblock. I am incapable of consensus because I can not win anyone over when I have to sit around a campfire and sing "Kumbiyah" with my equal comrades. I do not have any leverage or say-so in consensus because, without some sort of means of laying down the law, I'm nothing but an ancient, powerless windbag sitting in the lawmaking halls because a small base respects me. My rants are ceremonially honored simply because I've been here so long and have done so much; they won't change anything or do anything, so people just tolerate it until I can shut up.

It's like Strom Thurmond in the link above. Sure, he held back that reform for a day straight of talking, but it's not like that really did anything. After all, change was inevitable.

Austin, I may "stink" as a ruler because I refuse to give in to the demands of others, unless there's (in my view) a pressing need for some sort of reform. There isn't anything wrong with the system we have now: it's really just a matter of killing the censor because the Internet is supposed to be a place where you're not shackled by some burdensome authority or draconian ruleset.

One of the most appealing things about the Internet, aside its anonymity, is the ability to do things one can't do in the real world. None of you are idiots, so you're not going to resist authority in reality, but on here, you can, because tsis is a different degree of reality, and online, STICKING IT TO THE MAN is a hobby and a common occurence. The powers that be are, of course, annoying.

There isn't a real need for reform. If all of you focused on content as much as you are trying to stick it to me, this wiki would be a better place.

Have you considered that just going to the mainspace and writing something, like Explorer and I have been doing, like Austin's win or Ninjinian's work, or if you emulated ol' Swissy there, that'd the governing would be left to the governors instead of the governed? If you just sat back and let those who actually obbsess with order govern, you'd find yourself with too much free time for content.

The only time the rules cause problems is when someone whines about how they are cuasing problems.

  • An occurence with vandalism (Phil, Noezma, Thing of Sorrow) is not the face of the wiki.
  • The change of one word or a few sentences doesn't plunge you into Libya.
  • The editing of a picture is not the end of the world.
  • Mandating family friendliness is not a reason to try and oust an old user.
  • I am not going to ban you for just dissenting.
  • All of the problems I cause are fixed by the angry Masses.
  • The current system works just fine.
  • The only arguments (aside from this) are on the IRC.

You are basing this entire thread on a few minor skirmishes here and there. Although ZK argues that a Crisis does not exist, by the scale, there hasn't been anything able to be called a "Crisis" in quite a while.

Look around you! This wiki has finally seen new, entertaining stories, expansions in its work, and even one or two passing users. We have created more characters, stories, items, and content than any other time in wiki history. You could say that, by content alone, this is an unofficial Golden Age.

A lot of people say that the wiki isn't about how it's run, but about content. By content, you should be pleased, because we have more and better content than EVER. Why in the world do you want these idiotic reforms in the middle of one of the most productive sessions ever?

Don't poke a sleeping bear, let sleeping dogs lie, if it's not broken don't fix it, let it be, out of sight out of mind, ignorance is bliss, hands off, it won't hurt you... -how many ways do I have to word it?

The qualms of four users- with uniform, rather liberal/more modern/open-minded mindest, and one who is okay with violence -does not match the wiki. After all, I haven't heard from the conservative aisle: what do Speeddasher, Explorer, Corai, Dan, Iceflower, Happyface, and Rocket Slug have to say on this?
Crap, I've lost most of my base...... that would explain the attack's boldness... 0_0'

I just don't get why people can't just obey the rules. My parents have the same RL problem with me.



--† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) HAIR LOOPIES † † Insert something overglorifying Scott Walker here. ――–――――― 22:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Explorer

Wait wait wait, WHAT?! This campaign was never about consensus, this is supposed to be about expanding policies! You know, ENFORCING MORE RULES? Isn't that what you like, TS?

No one said anything about consensus, and to be honest, I think our current state of winging it would qualify as "consensus". Yours Truly, Explorer 767 (Smoking... is not allowed.) v • e 23:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And Sancho and other Turtlehaters are exploiting this thread to talk about their glorious, wonderful loathing of you. Just disregard them. Yours Truly, Explorer 767 (Smoking... is not allowed.) v • e 23:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Guided democracy

  • Personally, I think that the only de jure policy we all follow uniformly is the OOC and That's Death.


This is how I work:

  • The COC is inactive at the time de jure, but everything I use in my dicta are based from the COC.
    • ...-and if not the COC, then the Hays Code.
      • ...-and if not the Hays Code, then basic morality.
        • ...-and if not all else, the Ten Commandments.

What I rule off of are all written down somewhere. :\
Also, I can cite a million times when I've been a burden or an obstacle, but when is one time that I have caused violent and irrepreable harm to this site.

Oh, and whoever said something about gays... NO. If I have to lose, at least I'm not going to have anything gay on this site. (Well, except gay users. I'm banned from discriminating against gay users. ...-but remember, telling how much I despise homosexuality is NOT discrimination. Banning someone BECAUSE they're gay is.)

Also Sancho, there's a perfect name for what you said I did:

“ Guided democracy, also called managed democracy, is a term for a democratic government with increased autocracy. Governments are legitimated by elections that, while free and fair, are used by the government to continue their same policies and goals. Or, in other words, the government has learned to control elections so that the people can exercise all their rights without truly changing public policy. While following basic democratic principles there can be minor deviations towards authoritarianism. Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the state through the continuous employment of public relations techniques. ”
 

If that turns into a total dictatorship with sham votes, it's a totalitarian democracy.

However, I don't think I'v ever outright invalidate a vote. Have I EVER cheated on a vote? Have I EVER stacked votes, performed unclean canvassing, or bribed the voters? When in the world have I ever threated people to vote for me or get banned?

Sancho, remember that I may be a dictator, but I'm not that kind of dictator. Totalitarianism seeks to control every aspect of society. I do not do that (have I ever tried to make you become a Christian or forec you to read a Bible?). I don't seek to control you, I seek to control the government. I seek to keep the government on the same course no matter what.

GUIDED DEMOCRACY: you have your rights and your votes, but they do not effect the big picture.

I have NEVER cheated a vote. EVER. If you vote, I have to comply.



--† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) HAIR LOOPIES † † Insert something overglorifying Scott Walker here. ――–――――― 23:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


Uh...

Also, you seem to be forgetting that the leftists are also asserting that they want inalieable entitlements. They want the entitlement to most all speech, assembly, yada yada yada. It's at the top.


--† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) HAIR LOOPIES † † Insert something overglorifying Scott Walker here. ――–――――― 23:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't directly against you, TS. If you were demoted, that doesn't nessecarily mean the wiki would go to hell in a handbasket. Things would still have to go through a vote. This forum isn't about removing you, but about expanding our policies, since they are incomplete. We can't wing it much longer! -- Triskelle3 Talk to me! 23:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
TS, the problem with ruling by your dicta is that it's fluid. There's no written policy to keep you from shifting it to your desires. That means you can pull policies out of nowhere. That's not right. I want a policy that's set in stone. Yours Truly, Explorer 767 (Smoking... is not allowed.) v • e 23:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


I've never seen myself as much of a fluid person! I don't think I'll use that sort of thing to my advantage. To my knowledge, I never have before, and I think that I am extremely consistent. Still, it's a re-assuring thing, I guess.
If you want it set in stone, just re-proclaim the COC as the official doctrine of our database.
I'm not the kind of man that'll reinterpret a policy to suit my needs. I'm very uniform and unchanging, but I certainly see your point.
--† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) HAIR LOOPIES † † Insert something overglorifying Scott Walker here. ――–――――― 23:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Explorer is right; but that can be applied to anyone. One of the primary reasons I'm hardly editing is because I wasn't sure of the rules. The COC is old and outdated, at least that's what most people think, so if we do reinstate it, there's going to be lots of arguments over rules. -- Triskelle3 Talk to me! 23:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, it COULD be worse. This could be a flame war and I could feel all drained. If anything, at least I'll have a song parody in my head and a new character when this comes to pass. :D


XTUX

While I was offline, alot has seemed to have happened. I totally agree with this, and I support it completely. I have nothing more to say.--XTUX345: "May the Bird of Paradise fly up your nose! May an elephant caress you with his toes!" 00:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


Sheepman

I agree with all the rights, except one. "No user can have too much power that can be abused"? News flash peeps. All power can be abused. Every single bit of it. Did you know that B-crats have the ability to take over the wiki? Oh yes. They just have to come on at a quiet moment and BAM! Of course, the staff can revert it afterwards, but on the old wiki, the staff wouldn't have cared. It's just something to consider. --THE SHEEP! |FIGHTTHEPOWER! Crazy sheep.gif (Stuff I did and stuff) 17:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

huehuehuehue

>6.Rights to be on the WOF and be an Admin - If a user is placed on the Wall of Fame, they have the right to stay there, no matter what had happened to them or what they did. That user has helped/affected the wiki in a very good way and deserves that spot because of what they did in the past. As for being an Admin, being banned can not demote you unless you abused your powers, and demotion needs to be done with Consensus.

Taking in note that this one is based on your personal benefit and not the community, that one is a no-no. What's to stop the admin from unbanning himself, why should someone be on WoF if they negatively contributed to the wiki?

Also, there actually WAS rules (see Club Penguin Fanon:Policies) but I never really got around to finishing with them because I had too much stuff to take on. It's my fault, so I'll take full responsibility for that.

See, the thing is without rules people can basically do whatever they want, and with rules someone will always complain about them. That's why I was trying to introduce consensus; it makes the policies so flexible and open for discussion that pretty much anything can be changed about it as long as the general consensus approves.

If community is fine with it, I can start rebuilding the Policies, and then once I'm finished people can suggest what to change/what to remove, and if general consensus is okay with what you suggest then it gets put in or removed. However, due to stress and daunting IRL tasks such as helping a friend live with me, I am taking some time off from this wiki. I'll keep monitoring this article and any others that pop up though :3 Zone 23:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If an admin demotes themselves, that would be considered power abuse. Then, they would be demoted. -- Triskelle3 Talk to me! 00:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Ermm, I think you might of meant if an admin unbans themselves. S'all good, typos happen. If you mean that, then yes demoting them after they unban themselves seems logical. Zone 00:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


Hmm. Perhaps I should replace #6 with "No Cruel or Unusual Punishment". That perhaps is a better right. --Swiss Ninja Signature.png User Talk SN.png 00:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Swiss as far as I'm concerned you were taken off WoF once and stripped of Adminship. So that was written to benefit you (btw I think you should be on WoF ;)). I support Consensus but sometimes direct action is required before hand and demoting an Admin may sometimes be the best thing (btw this comment might be messed up because it's nearly my bedtime and I'm tired).
@Zone -- I'll write the policies. I kinda have an idea of what you us equal users want, just make edits where needed.--Agent Johnson |  I'm Brit-ish and cause of that, I'm Liberal. 00:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't believe people forget about me; when I was pushing for reforms I was banned. Right now I'm forgotten :(.--Agent Johnson |  I'm Brit-ish and cause of that, I'm Liberal. 00:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


Eh, I don't care about adminship really. don't need it. I don't really care about the WOF right now anyways. I"m looking at the general welfare for the community. now, i'm going to ask this again. SHOULD I REPLACE NUMBER 6 WITH "NO CRUEL, UNUSUAL, OR UNFAIR PUNISHMENT"?

OH DEAR GRAVY HECK NO PLEASE NO OH GRAVY NO NO NO NO. I hate the idea of giving criminals any right except a fair trial. The only thing a villain has the right to do is not commit a crime. Keep number six as it is!
Stupid Eighth Amendment.
--† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) HAIR LOOPIES † † Insert something overglorifying Scott Walker here. ――–――――― 00:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)



  • That was why I was so strongly opposed to the Zone Kodes, and why I was so fundamentally heck-bent on doing whatever I could to halt them:
“ It makes the policies so flexible and open for discussion that pretty much anything can be changed about it as long as the general consensus approves. ”
 
— Zone, right up there ^

I personally think the Zone Kodes will have to undergo major revisions before suiting this wiki. I'm seeking to set our current "political" state in stone, not rewrite it with new rules. Yours Truly, Explorer 767 (Smoking... is not allowed.) v • e 00:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

TS: R6 loophole

  • Whatever they do on Facebook, Twitter, anywhere else and even in real life, can not have them banned on the Fanon Wiki.
That's the biggest darn loophole in this crapfest. If someone goes onto the Un-CP IRC to plot a vandal raid, and I catch it, I can't ban that plotter for what I saw elsewhere? If someone openly distributes porn on another website, then comes here and pretends to be a goodie-goodie, I can't ban them for distributing porn? If I catch a contributor proudly boasting that they just surrendered their virginity in an unholy act of sex out of wedlock, I can't ban them? If someone curses like a sterotypical sailor on every site but this one, I can't punish their hypocracy with a ban? If someone posts a bunch of posts on the Twitter proclaiming how awesome Satan is, and how they want to serve him, and then come here, I can't boot them? If someone posts how much they love Al-Qaeda and support their cause on the Facebook, and then they come here, I can't ban them? If someone thinks that the Jews deserved the Holocaust or they're dumb enough to deny it, I can't kick them?
If someone actively engages in horrible behavior elsewhere, why can't I keep them from being here? Why is that? If one of our users is a rapist in RL, and we find that out, why should he deserve the privelage of editing here? He's a rapist, and he shouldn't be allowed to congregate among us.
It's a two-way street: if I did something unthinkable somewhere else, it'd be surprising to me if I DIDN'T get banned. People need to be consistent on here. When I say I'm a seventeen year old Christian white man, I mean it and say that everywhere else. Why should people who do horrid things elsewhere be allowed to exist here?
I know this isn't a theocracy, but I feel strongly led to issue such bans because of 1 Corinthians 5:11. (I linked it.) Now, although it specifically references those who claim to be Christian, I've interpreted this passage as not to dine with such men committing things listed. Of course, if I can't even eat alongside such people, I can't edit a wiki with them. I still don't know how I put up with ZK for this long: he's admitted drunkeness and heavilly implied that he's had sex with one woman out of wedlock <head explodes>
....I guess he's that good a writer and that loved by the people. :|
The moral problem is this. The only way to "not associate at all" with a with a wiki editor is to get rid of the editor, or to rid yourself from the wiki. Since I'm not going, what else can I do to get these people away from me? If you can tell me how I can do it effectively, I'll drop my qualm with this clause.
--† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) STROM THURMOND † † Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket? ――–――――― 01:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


That's not a loophole; you're just a little upset that if that passes you won't be able to ban people you hate. Also if you really wanna bring up that IRC incident; bring it on. Hey everyone, wanna see an interesting log about TS at his finest hour? It's got power-abuse and everything :) Zone 01:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • BLACK MAIL.
Oh, so if you yourself bring up an issue and I have an argument against your view = blackmail huh? Haha, grade A+ logic you're a funny guy TS. Zone 01:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay wait, you're COMPLAINING that you can't ban someone for doing something that isn't on this site but because YOU don't like it? If someone swears on a different site, you're going to ban them on here? You've been here for about what, 3? 4 years? You think you can just ban people for doing things on different sites that have nothing to do with this? Okay, the things they do may be disguisting, but if it isn't on here, it's none of your buisness. And you're being racist, people's beliefs are their own, you can't ban them here for believeing in something you don't like or agree with. Gosh. You should know this by now. -Metalmanager
Fact: Most Satanists are Atheists.. The view of the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set is that there is no God, Satan represents freedom and the only God is you.
Yes, there are Theistical Satanists. However do you see the Order of Nine Angles website? No.--Agent Johnson |  I'm Brit-ish and cause of that, I'm Liberal. 07:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


Wow, that sure is insulting to Atheists, to say they are devil worshippers. Theologically, Satan is the opposite of God, and Satan's mantra is "if it feels good, do it". Also, "the only god is yourself" is probably one of the biggest reasons that morality is meaningless these days. (The Bible even warned about that, but I'm not dumb enough to hijack this thread.)
“ Oh, so if you yourself bring up an issue and I have an argument against your view = blackmail huh? ”
 
— Pogopunk/Zone
*tilts head*
OOOOOOOHHH. Okay, okay, I see what you mean as an argument against my view. I thought you were saying "If TS doesn't back down I'm going to show this pretty IRC log", but you were actually saying "I don't think TS is showing the whole thing, so here, have the whole thing."
You're right, it wasn't blackmail. I apologize; I was wrong.
--† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) STROM THURMOND † † Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket? ――–――――― 15:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why SN votes no

[21:32]<SnoopingGil|Away> Yes, but you're also antagonistic against TS.
[21:32]	<SnoopingGil|Away> Which is why I don't like you two.
[21:32]	<Swiss_Ninja>	We don't want to be.
[21:32]	<Swiss_Ninja>	I like TS's stuff.
[21:32]	<Swiss_Ninja>	it's his Regime.
[21:32]	<AeroNachos>	I don't like you either Explorer.
[21:32]	<Swiss_Ninja>	his dictatorship.
[21:32]	<TurtleShroom>	SN, you're voting against me because of what I did to the Ninja Archipeligo.
[21:32]	<SnoopingGil|Away>	Exactly.
[21:32]	<Swiss_Ninja>	Well well well, now you found out?
[21:32]	<AeroNachos>	I'm voting for in this.
[21:33]	<SnoopingGil|Away>	Because you dislike me?
[21:33]	<Swiss_Ninja>	Well...I am not going to vote yet.
[21:33]	<SnoopingGil|Away>	=P
[21:33]	<SnoopingGil|Away>	This is activism taken to the extreme...
[21:33]	<TurtleShroom>	SN, that's going straight to the blog.


--† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) STROM THURMOND † † Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket? ――–――――― 01:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

TS, I you mind is screwed up. No offence but you could be a great Sarah Palin. However would you did was still breaking the the OOC rules. Even you must follow them. --Agent Johnson |  I'm Brit-ish and cause of that, I'm Liberal. 07:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I take that as an insult. She's a NUT.
Also, Sancho sort of admitted that he was voting in favor of this because a certain someone lost their article, too. Entitlement Three was really a self-benefit to get back at me. Each of them lost an article.
To say my mind is screwed up is quite insulting. I dcn't treat you like that. This thread has, in some places, become a TS-bashing excuse.
--† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) STROM THURMOND † † Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket? ――–――――― 15:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Vote

I've made a couple changes to the laws, and more changes can be done later. Anyways, it's time to vote. (No TS, you can't delete this either) We the delegates of the Alliance of Wiki Freedom do think for the better of the community and want to make more social order.


NOW VOTE! Shall this become part of our law? (which, we don't really have at the moment)


For

Against

  • NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Okay. Now then, I thought your precious consensus wasn't a vote? Why are we voting?
NONE OF THESE ARE RIGHTS. None of those are fundamentally deserved. You don't have the "right" to do half that crap. You need to learn the difference between a right and a privelage.
Remember when I wrote a constitution for the site, and you all freaked and told me "this wiki ain't American", that it's not "the United States"? Why, then, are you going to give yourselves all these entitlements? This isn't America, you don't need a bill of rights!
As for seizure: The person who contributes the most ingredients to the pie should get the biggest slice. It may not be equal, but it's FAIR.
--† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) STROM THURMOND † † Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket? ――–――――― 01:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Current Standings

  • 10 For
  • 2 Against
  • 1 Neutral
Retrieved from "http://fanon.clubpenguinwiki.info/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Laws&oldid=112948"