UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/For God So Loved Amazing

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Proposal

What drama did YOU create today?

Try as you might, you are not very interesting. Maybe your thing is to report someone for making a humorous suggestion on the "serious" suggestions page. Maybe it's blanking a rival group's page. Maybe you go for broke and start an arbitration case because someone called you a name.


oh god how do i arbitrate im not good with computers

You may be wondering right now, "Well, how do I create interesting drama?" To that question, I would have to answer: "You need to be Amazing"



Amazing hard at work on a new template designating junkyards as the proper place to Drop unwanted items.

Sadly for all of us, Amazing was banned from the UD wiki for being too awesome. Even sadder is that he is stuck with the most retarded rejects of our community. Is that any way to tap into his creative potential? I think not. I'm not going to look into what he's actually done for the wiki, but I know he made a few templates that a lot of people link to.


Now I know what you're thinking -- unbanning Amazing leaves some kind of banning imbalance on the wiki: it leaves an open cellblock on death row. That's where I come in. I'm willing to be permabanned in Amazing's place! What have I ever contributed to this, our beloved wiki?

Gold? Try a pepperidge gift basket and creative use of the clone tool to get rid of any sausages.
  • coined the term "wikigate"
  • made the "gold in basket" template


Before you ask, yes, I'm serious; it's a pretty good deal if you ask me. You get to ban a two-bit PKer, and in return you get Amazing back to regale you of the deeds of his group and go into hilarious tirades about what "NPOV" really means.

If this policy passes

Rueful is permanently banned from the UD wiki. Amazing is unbanned and allowed to continue entertaining you, his captive audience.

  • Amazing is still subject to the same rules as anyone else -- this doesn't make him some sort of wiki God.
  • Amazing is still bannable via normal M/VB channels if he screws up.
  • Amazing is not a moderator.
  • Optional(unlikely): Amazing could put some sort of shrine to me on his user page.

If this policy fails to pass

  • Rueful will scorn you for your poor decision.
  • Amazing will continue to edit the wiki anyway under some thinly veiled "adjective as a username" account and tread too lightly to to be interesting.


-- Rueful 01:06, 11 October 2006 (BST)


Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

  1. You must be new here Rasher 17:24, 15 October 2006 (BST)
    Gage 17:59, 15 October 2006 (BST)
  2. This policy is filled with God, Gold and win. However change it so he's brought back 1 warning away from being re-permabanned--Admiral Ackbar U! WTF 19:39, 15 October 2006 (BST)
    There is no mention of his record being wiped. A single slip up would be enough to get him a year. So I guess you're satisfied with it, as it is currently written? Unbanning someone only to see them get banned for a year, again, even for a minor slip up? That's sadistic. People, if you are serious about bringing him back, make sure to vote Against and resubmit it with fixes. –Xoid S•T•FU! 04:13, 16 October 2006 (BST)
    We could always push a policy through that would clear his vandal record.--Gage 04:15, 16 October 2006 (BST)
    Yes, push it like your constipated! --CaptainM 07:27, 18 October 2006 (BST)
    A policy absolving someone of a ban record would probably be very unpopular. That's why we need to push this through first. Don't listen to Xoid! -- Basil 20:25, 19 October 2006 (BST)
  3. From what I read, Amazing doesn't even want to come back. However, wouldn't mind getting rid of an amazing-lover... -Certified=Insane☭ 03:13, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  4. Unh, sure why not? - Jedaz - 14:01/16/04/2024 06:42, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  5. Oh please this would be awesome!--Steele Glovier 14:28, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  6. You'll thank me later -- Rueful 14:31, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  7. Well why not? I never really knew what Amazing did around here anyway... --MarieThe Grove 16:02, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  8. Bango Skank T W! M! 18:06, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  9. --ag 19:17, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  10. You didn't think i'd vote against it did you?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 20:49, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  11. Ehh, I want at least a healthy amount of drama on the Wiki, can't help shake a feeling of dread as I vote keep, though.--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 00:57, 17 October 2006 (BST)
  12. Just because, I never knew him, and so I would like to--Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 01:03, 17 October 2006 (BST)
  13. If it ain't broke don't fix it. But UD is dead in the fact that it's a sinking ship. might as well throw things around and see what sticks. YbborT 01:05, 17 October 2006 (BST)
  14. Tie breaker! Plus, I would love to see gankbus pummel him again, on and off the wiki.--Mayor Fitting 02:40, 17 October 2006 (BST)
  15. I'm already on the Witch Supporter list so why not! --Bonefiver 20:00, 17 October 2006 (BST)
  16. TheDictator 13:36, 17 October 2006 (MST)
  17. The wiki sucks balls, I'm sorry Amazing is gone, I miss the warmth of his beard. Scinfaxi 03:08, 18 October 2006 (BST)
  18. Balls on the naysayers, BALLS I SAY!!! --CaptainM 07:25, 18 October 2006 (BST)
  19. I want to see Cyberbob have an aneurysm. Rheingold 23:19, 18 October 2006 (BST)
  20. From what I've heard, this was a travesty. Hopefully it can be reversed. Why are they trying to tell us to vote against this if we want Amazing unbanned? What is this, 1984? Just pass another policy absolving him of past bans when this passes. -- Basil 20:23, 19 October 2006 (BST)
  21. I don't know him. I don't really care. What I do think is that permabans are the most facist, imperialist, gun-to-the-head, Orwellian policy on the internet.--J Muller 00:23, 21 October 2006 (BST)
  22. I never got the chance to flame him while he was around! Please grant my dying wish!--The Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Talk | CC CPFOAS DOЯIS Judge LOE ZHU 01:08, 21 October 2006 (BST)
  23. you cant ban someone for being to awesome! Pro-tec 18:02, 22 October 2006 (BST)
  24. He has told me his plans if he gets back on the wiki and they are positive. I say its time. --Zod Rhombus 20:45, 22 October 2006 (BST)
    Seems like it would make things interesting, so I say let him back ; in any event, you can always ban him again later if you want to, but at least let the rest of us who never knew him know what we have been missing!! --ReeToric 19:45, 24 October 2006 (BST)
  25. cause i feel like you all ganged up on amazing. and (though i dont know the whole story) a very foul taste is left in my mouth regarding this matter and the current administration Um... alex 00:38, 25 October 2006 (BST)
  26. I like Amazing's userpage, and I'd like to see if he's really as bad as people say. He seems like he would be a pretty funny guy. Plus, it's not like he can't be banned again if he screws up. Humuhumuhumu...Ted 01:50, 25 October 2006 (BST)
  27. Mo the Amazing FTW! --V 08:42, 26 October 2006 (BST)
  28. Why not? If he screws up again, make it a two year ban or something. Let him know that he's on his last chance, but let him back. Blue Command Vic DvB 17:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Against

  1. While I don't want Amazing back here, I wouldn't vote against this were it not for the fact that this sets a precedent where anyone can try to trade someone else's permaban for their own. Sockpuppets would make that too easy to abuse. –Xoid S•T•FU! 17:49, 15 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Do I really need to explain why this is a bad idea? -- Alan Watson T·RPM 19:06, 15 October 2006 (BST)
  3. This policy is full of crap. Next policy..... --Axe Hack 19:13, 15 October 2006 (BST)
  4. As Xoid -- RWXSM 19:48, 15 October 2006 (BST)
  5. You're funny and I observed your past antics with amusement, but you're also a bit of an annoyance to people you decide deserve your ire...regardless how justified or unjustified you are in that opinion. As a repeat offender, I can't in fairness vote 'For'. Sorry. --MorthBabid 20:02, 15 October 2006 (BST)
  6. As Xoid and Alan Watson, besides, I really consider people who create pages like this to be trolls.-- ALACE 06:24, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  7. What a load of hoary old bollocks. --Funt Solo 09:29, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  8. As all of the above. Pillsy FT 12:07, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  9. No comment other than "against." Paul Brunner 15:28, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  10. I have nothing against Amazing comming back (So long as he actually is, you know, productive) but I don't like the idea of sacrificing another user to bring him back. I would much rather he simply signs up a new username, and plays nice. --SirensT RR 15:59, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  11. Silly --Officer Otep 16:17, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  12. Asheets 19:34, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  13. What Mia said. Bubba 23:03, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  14. "Amazing will continue to edit the wiki anyway under some thinly veiled "adjective as a username" account and tread too lightly to to be interesting." Rueful is an adjective. Coincidence? I think not. Slick, but this -is- a sockpuppet trying to unban the main account, in case nobody's noticed. --Ivan Romanov 00:53, 17 October 2006 (BST)
    HAHAHA, now THAT'S funny! If that was the case I would mercilessly beat Amazing for giving us the whole GANKBUS mess and Angie Harmon. Nice try, though. - --Zod Rhombus 01:31, 17 October 2006 (BST)
    Oh man, this is why I <3 noobs. OHNOES! Sockpuppets in my wiki?! Nevar!--Admiral Ackbar U! WTF 01:34, 17 October 2006 (BST)
    Rueful was the biggest Amazing hater ever. He created a group just to fuck with him. He could not possibly be a sockpuppet. Never.--Gage 02:22, 17 October 2006 (BST)
    I've never had more faith in someone I didn't know on the internet actually having a mental handicap than right now. Rasher 16:57, 17 October 2006 (BST)
  15. What Xoid said. nzag1971 11:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC+3)
  16. permaban means permanent. Husky 08:39, 18 October 2006 (BST)
  17. armareum 14:29, 18 October 2006 (BST)
  18. How did I miss this? Cyberbob  Talk  14:32, 18 October 2006 (BST)
  19. Against for Xoid's point Daniel Hicken 09:11, 19 October 2006 (BST)
  20. the wiki dosen't need him. Bullgod 20:39, 19 October 2006 (BST)
  21. DJSMITHCDF 21:57, 19 October 2006 (BST)
  22. Don't waste our time with your tired theatrics. If this community no longer interests you go outside and play. --ZaruthustraMod 04:41, 20 October 2006 (BST)
  23. Amazing showed his true colors in an AIM conversation with me. I hope his beard spontaneously combusts.--Gage 08:36, 22 October 2006 (BST)
    To hear him tell it on the message board you told him to fuck off right away. whose colors again? -- Basil 20:18, 23 October 2006 (BST)
  24. Keep Amazing out of our wiki. He will only cause more trouble than he already has. --Terminator 484 FedCom | DEM 22:48, 22 October 2006 (BST)
  25. No. --Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS DORIS Hunt! 23:00, 22 October 2006 (BST)
  26. No. Ha ha, no. --Lucero Talk U! 05:00, 23 October 2006 (BST)
  27. What the fucking shit is this? Trade Rueful for somebody who produces even more flamebait for far less humour in a manner that egregiously violates past policy on vandal banning? No. Fucking. Way. Note that the people voting For on this are mainly comprised of those who either didn't know Amazing, were actively complicit in Amazing's crimes, or love drama for its own sake (or a combination of the above). Why not just rename this policy "Nuke the Wiki" and be honest about it? --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 19:57, 23 October 2006 (BST)
    I hate drama, and was not complicit in any "crimes" Amazing, who I don't know, might have committed. Thus I fullfill only one criteria. Perhaps you should reconsider those words.--J Muller 01:43, 24 October 2006 (BST)
    ...Wow. I think you genuinely don't understand that you actually just backed up my generalizations for anyone who is (unlike you) capable of comprehending what I wrote. Maybe I should tack an "extremely fucking stupid" category on there, too. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 07:24, 24 October 2006 (BST)
    Actually, Jimbo, your nice drama-bomb response there makes you a candidate for all three groups you just mentioned. Cute irony. 'What the fucking shit is this?' Nice quote. No drama inducing there. Amazing's 'crimes' were perpetuated ie., brought about by individuals such as yourself making tons of remarks and bad faith edits (by the current definition based on recent mod actions and user bans.) badgering Amazing into lowering into the same tactics that were used against him, whether on the wiki or in-game. He simply did not have the backing of the mods, which other users did. Nothing could prove the point better than your response above. --Zod Rhombus 03:24, 24 October 2006 (BST)
    Really? This makes me a candidate for not knowing Amazing and for working in co-operation with him? I mean, while "loving drama for its own sake" isn't true of me either, you can at least make a case for it - but this? I especially love how you, Alanis Morrisette-style, somehow find your own idiocy to be ironic. It is, but not in the way you think. And I'm sure Amazing would be proud of you for continuing his proud legacy of hysterical ballsless whining about being cruelly forced to engage in the same tactics (read: push past them to a permabannable extent) as his oppressors while the corrupt zombie-loving Moderation team just looks on and laughs and laughs (for maximum verismilitude, imagine that whoever is making this argument is sobbing melodramatically to themselves as they do so). For the record, folks, the anti-Amazing activity was a result of his trolling, not a cause of it. Unlike many of the people voting to bring him back, I was there. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 07:24, 24 October 2006 (BST)
    And you kiss your mother with that mouth? --Zod Rhombus 00:07, 25 October 2006 (BST)
    Hurrr. There wasn't a single filthy word in that entire paragraph, unless you consider having a vocabulary to be despicable. Which could be the case, since you apparently worship a guy who has an "idiology". -- Alan Watson T·RPM 01:02, 25 October 2006 (BST)
    I am amazed your lack of anything resembling a sense of humor or humour as it may, depending on your cuntry (sic) of origin. But, then again you may derive more pleasure in front of your computer than normal humans, so your lack of a complex developed sense such as humor might be explainable, taken in the right context. Leave the snide comments to the first tier participants, please. --Zod Rhombus 02:36, 25 October 2006 (BST)
    "Leave the snide comments to the first tier participants, please." I sincerely hope that this signals your retirement from this page. If not, I'm going to have to cite you for another Irony Violation. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 06:10, 25 October 2006 (BST)
    You know, out of all the people here, you actually get it. I'm impressed. Only Hammero surpassed you. I don't call him Bob1 for nothing. --Zod Rhombus 06:20, 25 October 2006 (BST)
    Amazod, you're getting boring again. Either increase your stupidity so you're amusing again, decrease it immensely so you're not a worthless drain on society, or get out. Or just prepare to be ignored. The choice is yours! --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 08:12, 25 October 2006 (BST)
    DAMMIT! I'm trying. Following your example isn't easy. *Spontaneously breaks out into the Robot dance.* ---Zod Rhombus 21:01, 25 October 2006 (BST)
    At this point I'm pretty much convinced that this is just Amazing using Zod's account. Zod actually knew how not to be an asshole. -- Alan Watson T·RPM 06:33, 25 October 2006 (BST)
    Well, thanks I think, I hate to disappoint you, but it is me, Zod. Suddenly disagreeing and offering counterpoints = asshole. Typical, yet expected. --Zod Rhombus 06:39, 25 October 2006 (BST)
    Well, either way, make sure Amazing doesn't miss this, since he misspelled "ideology" there as well, and I know he hates that. Also, tell him to get the expensive kind. Nothing makes me more cranky than cheap leaky diapers. -- Alan Watson T·RPM 06:53, 25 October 2006 (BST)
    Wow, I check the wiki after two days, and my simple comment has sparked a battle. In an odd, unintentional way, this has started some drama. This was not, however, my intention. Here's a question for you. Does accusing people who don't agree with you of being emo work? That seems to be your strategy here, other than showing off your own expansive vocabulary. Oh, and swearing at people at the very beginning of your responses. You should keep a little tighter hand on that badmouthing there.--J Muller 23:29, 26 October 2006 (BST)
    Actually, my reading is that he wasn't swearing at people; the object was clearly an inappropriate, albeit humorous, policy proposal. But, nice trolling on your part - you spawned a book. Bubba 07:18, 27 October 2006 (BST)
    As I said, it wasn't my intention to start a huge reply war here. Not that I could do any better if I did try, though.--J Muller 01:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  28. A Rueful isn't worth an Amazing. Also see Zod's own bitchy whinging response to Jimbo's vote above. --Karlsbad 08:35, 24 October 2006 (BST)
    Heh. Didn't mean to rain on the buddy club. I guess Xoid lets you run to the end of your leash at times, but all you do is bark. For the record, I agree a ban shouldn't be traded for another, so I concede that point. --Zod Rhombus 00:07, 25 October 2006 (BST)
    So wait, you realize that commenting on Jimbo's vote is ass-hattery and pointless drama? Then I see no wrong in directing attention towards a person's own words, as it is nothing but a suitable abashment for someone acting as you have been. --Karlsbad 05:51, 25 October 2006 (BST)
    Sure, why not? Jimbo initiated drama and I called him on it. Counter commentary is always considered drama when it opposes your view, right? That sets up the mods vs. players system on this game, right? And I do mean the wiki as a game, because it is used mainly for battle. It has become the game. I never held myself to a different standard on this page. I simply followed what was perpetuated. WOOF! --Zod Rhombus 06:11, 25 October 2006 (BST)
  29. Although I have been out of the loop for some time here, and many people may not recognize my name, those of you who are In The Know will Fear and Comprehend the Power Of The Word Of Bob, Lord Bureaucrat and Moderator, May I Live Long. Jimbo gave me a heads up that some idiot wanted to bring Amazing back. Folks, if you're that stupid, why don't you just ask Kevan to delete this website outright and be done with it instead of waiting for it to slowly suffocate? It would be faster and considerably less annoying. In summary: bringing back Amazing is the worst idea since Hoover's plan to let the Great Depression fix itself. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 01:17, 25 October 2006 (BST)
    Yeah, and we all know Hoover sucked! Bubba 04:04, 25 October 2006 (BST)
    We all know this isn't real and its only a game too! --ReeToric 04:09, 25 October 2006 (BST)
  30. I can't beleive I havn't voted on this yet. Conndrakamod T CFT 06:40, 25 October 2006 (BST)
  31. How about not? - CthulhuFhtagn 22:53, 26 October 2006 (BST)
  32. Is this for real? New policy for unbanning our beloved drama queen? No thanks. --Niilomaan GRR!•M! 08:46, 27 October 2006 (BST)
  33. Amazing is a stupid idiot and should stay banned. And Xoid is right.
    EDIT: Interesting. --Absolution 21:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Abstain

#Something tells me we shouldn't be trading people. --Ron Burgundy 07:00, 20 October 2006 (BST)

  • Up there, you can read: The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 07:03, 20 October 2006 (BST)
    I thought votes had abstain sections as soon as someone had something to say which is neither "for" nor "against." Are we no longer doing that? --Ron Burgundy 08:17, 20 October 2006 (BST)
    We're no longer doing that for policy voting. I believe you can still do so for moderator promotion bids and other votes. -- Alan Watson T·RPM 09:21, 20 October 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/For_God_So_Loved_Amazing&oldid=1370907"