User blog comment:Joeyaa/My views on everything here/@comment-1383126-20090722014139

This is my repsone to Bugzy's comment.

Bugzy's Comment that I'm repsonding to. -

Karazachi speaks truth (Y)

Half of the so-called "laws" of this place ooze with hypocrisy;

"1. No Swearing"

What happened to that picture that says "Nachos suck Hitler's cock" (I can say this because I'm, as we say, following the example of my superior, which my superior would be the person who uploaded it)

"2. No bullying. (This includes threatening someone)"

str00del is bullying. Wall of Shame is bullying. Anyone that stuffs up, even over small things like 1 vandalism, are automatically targeted by the so-called hierachy of this wiki. They get mocked, degraded, and belittled just so that someone's sad form of humor gets a lol. Not to mention the Un-award system, I personally, would appreciate someone going to that much trouble making a picture for me in an attempt to put me offside. lol@u.

"3. No racist remarks."

That one's sort of fine.

"4. No unrelated articles."

Yet you make articles about Walruses constantly. Their relationship to Club Penguin is jack.

"5. No links to inappropriate sites."

You link to Walrus Wiki often.

"6. No politics."

Walruses and any events in this wiki are political. Whoever wrote that one mustn't enjoy people having free speech.

"7. No abusing your available powers."

If an admin doesn't like someone or isn't friendly with someone, they get blocked. Also, see what I said earlier about the Crises.

"8. No advertising products or websites."

With this you are actually doing the Walruses a favor; advertising their site so that they get more traffic. Good job geniuses.

"9. Don't make fun of other people's race, nationality or sexual orientation. That includes homosexuality."

That one's fine-ish.

Long story short, makes you wonder why a ton of people find CPFW better, doesn't it?

--- 1. Yes, we should have this rule. It wouldn’t make sense if we didn’t even. And some don’t listen to it. Not ripping on anyone, but even Joeyaa did swear in his blog post here. Which I have to look up after I’m done here – is there a planned block time?

2.Well, I guess. But I sort of see a difference between the two, but it doesn’t matter because it’s already in action to stop this, so there is nothing I can say. Okay.

3. Sorry, but I don't get this. This actaully ties in with 2. How can this be only sort of fine? Is it sort of fine to bully? Because it’s pretty much the same.

4. That's fine the way it is, just so we don't go and make articles about some other site or so we don't start talking about Nachos. And no, I am not talking about the Army. It just was the first thing that came to me.

5. And we also link to MicroChip's site. This is also fine the way it is - becuase really, has this caused anything besides information?

6. If I said what I wanted to say I might be breaking Rule 6. But really, this just prevents fights. Free speech, well - if we had that in complete we would allow swearing... that's just one example.

7. I don't see what you're even saying... not saying this doesn't make sense, it just doesn't to me.

8. Don't we advertise Club Penguin? When User 1 wanted to find User 2 on the Shout Box, I went to User 2's user page and saw a list of sites where you could contact User 2. I listed the sites on Shout Box for User 1. Sorry about that by the way. And I agree with advertising the Walrus Site, even though you just advertised them by stating that and I did for repsonding to that...

9. Do you mean this is only part okay? A couple posts on here could be considered bullying if we weren't almost debating in a way. Another rip on free speech, this prevents free speech. This was confusing.

No, I don't disagree with you because you insulted the Armies, I disagree because I am allowed to and I don't agree. Changing the CPW would take away from, as someone put it who I don't remember off hand, the strange structure, which works. People are seeing problems that I don’t, becuase I think they aren't here. The only thing I agree with in the slight would be that we need more new members. Okay, fine... but I have to agree only in one light. We don't need more new member all THAT much... the thing is that new members only in a rare time becuase active and go on to become Rollbacks then Sysops and everything... Poker Face now feels like they said too much, Poker Face will now shut up... nothing said was meant to be offensive. I apologize if it was - I didn't realize.

I am just trying to make a point that doesn't seem to make sense.

And I don't think that everyone would quit at once. You would not log on one day to see a quit templete on every page. And at least one person would come back.

New example.

A new member comes long. Let's call him 100 - then 100 becomes active, while 3 other new members are never seen again. 100 edits. Then 100 becomes a Rollback. Then 100 becomes Sysop. Then another Sysop quits.

If you don't get it, a new member well come along and replace the member who quit. Maybe a while ago this, as you put it but I call it not there, problem, was faced... and look what happened.

This all ties in to one thing thatI have said more that one time, that will now be repeated.

Everything is fine that way it is.