Forum:The Pub

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

nl:Forum:De kroegro:RoWikicity:Cafenea Welcome to the Pub!
 * [[Image:Arrow right.png|20px]] also check the archive

Elections: Voting
All citizens can cast their votes in the Federal Elections! Please read the regulations (on the election page) before voting. Thank you.
 * 19:42, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Make a statement
Make a statement, say no to fascism and discrimination! Join the Anti-Fascist League to show that Lovia wont stand it! 12:09, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pleas delete all references to the IGP then Pierlot McCrooke 12:11, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to get the point, the AFL opposes to the Iron Guardists because they are fascist. The fascists need to change, not the fair and democratic people. 12:14, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. But you have to stop calling the IGP a ''fascist party'. We are not. Do you want a trial? If no. THen you have to stop saying that IGP is fascist party. Pierlot McCrooke 12:17, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * The party logo states 'loyalty, strength, order', you wish to silence left movements and want to abolish elections. How would you describe such a party? Moderate democrats?! 12:20, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Only the undemocratical left movements. Russia alsforbids commies Pierlot McCrooke 12:21, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * No they don't! They have one. Besides, the CP respects democratic elections and you don't. The IGP is undemocratic, the CP isn't! 12:25, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * You see, here is the link. Take a look at the gallery were they protest on the street. That is called freedom of speech and organization. 12:27, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Communism is badder than my party Pierlot McCrooke 13:11, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Make a statement law
Would you support an outlaw of undemocratic parties? Yes, we should make a law on it right away! No, they just want to violate the constitution I like to be politically correct ( read: an asshole) Just for fun, but I am curious though 12:45, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes me think of Popper's theory on democracy. 13:53, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, protect democracy from itself, 'mob rule' and 'dictature of the majority' and all that 14:18, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Was Karl Popper not the man who wrote about open and closed societies and such? -- 14:22, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Popper sucks. He is actually a liberal conservatist, his silly 'falsifiability theorem' is like dogma all the way! 14:31, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not so familiar with Popper's writings. I do know about his theory of open/closed societies and the book in which it was published. -- 14:32, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Most people adore his falsifiability theorem; it states that for a theory to be scientific it has to be able to prove it false. Now that works very well for the classical sciences, but it is almost impossible to use this principle in sociology, psychology, etc. because those sciences are not predictive in nature. 14:40, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * But the falsifiability still is crucial, right? I always thought of it as a good theory. But maybe, you are right - I had not thought of the social and human sciences yet. -- 14:43, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * It is very correct, for it's domain; the exact sciences. Social (or human) sciences suffer by it. Only institutional and other surface theories would be 'correct' then. 14:51, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. Who is your favorite philosopher, if I may ask? -- 14:52, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like most thinkers of the progressive/left spectrum. Existentialists like Sartre. I also appreciate the work of Kierkegaard and Hegel, though I do not agree with most of their findings. I believe that my all-time favorite would be Karl Marx, he may have overestimated the effects, but his findings were genius! Like my prof of sociology said: 'He succeeded in combining all previous revolutionary insights into one big theory. Too bad most of it was proven false and the rest werd met het badwater weggegooid.' 14:59, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

There are troubles ahead
The Guardian published a list recently with the ten countries most likely to suffer from political instability. I was kind enough to share it with you all, and no, Lovia is not on it  15:53, January 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Iran - Protests against the government continue, but will they escalate into a revolution?
 * 2) Pakistan/Afghanistan - Rural areas controlled by 'terrorists' and corrupt governments
 * 3) Israel/Palestine - No news there, Palestine will soon be gone unless...
 * 4) Yemen - I dare to bet this will be the next US military invasion
 * 5) Sudan - Elections for a government that has no control and of course the pirates!
 * 6) Zimbabwe - Pressure on the Mugabe-regime keeps rising, especially from South Africa
 * 7) China - Xinjiang and Tibet are full of nationalists, but then again the CPC has an army
 * 8) The Caucasus - Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Ngorno-Karabakh, Georgia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, ...
 * 9) Belgium - President of Europe, leads the council in the latter half of 2010 and splitting BHV!
 * 10) Italy - What will it take for Il Cavaliere to step down? A civil war?

Poll
Do you want that the rights of American Eagle, DimiTalen, SPQRobin and Regaliorum will be taken off? Yes No

Every Wikination is obliged to give SPQ admin rights for simple moral reasons. The main reason being that without SPQ Libertas would have never existed and it's very logic to state that then also Lovia would not have existed. Therefore I am the biggest worshipper of SPQ and I would like to say: "SPQ er drottinninn og forgöngumaðurinn hér!" --O u WTB 18:52, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * SPQ is inactive and the others arent very neutral Temporary No Character 18:55, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Pierlot, we do not wish for anarchy. We should not wish for that. Both them, and us, should become administrators. Drabo13 09:55, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I wil ask for sannse that we get admin rights when the admin rights of Dimitri Yuri Robin and Arthur are taken off. Vote for the poll Temporary No Character 10:55, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Go fuck up your own inactive wikis Pierlot and let us work constructively here. --O u WTB 12:54, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * We let you edit constructively, but we need neutraller admins Temporary No Character 13:08, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pierlot, it's enough. It's rather simple: we need sysops, and the people who currently have these rights have been very useful to Lovia. And just as OWTB said: SPQR was given rights for honorary reasons. If you would wish to argue somebody's admin rights, then only George Matthews can be validly argued about. He is absent, and will probably be absent for a long time. Now don't be silly and don't ask to take everybody's rights away. If you have a good reasons to ask admin rights, or ask for them to be taken away, then please discuss this with me, Yuri or somebody else. Okay? Just stop wasting or energy. 13:52, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

since this is dmitris wiki he should decide on whos admin --Owen1983 16:25, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * He isnt neutral. Wikias have no ownership Temporary No Character 16:27, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

why should we per se appoint a non "Old Five" member, even if we don't have anybody who is suited? Yes No
 * Who has voted no? Temporary No Character 18:59, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your question is wrong. Perhaps you should ask "why should we per se appoint a non "Old Five" member, even if we don't have anybody who is suited?" 19:01, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Admin question
Admins are not appointed by the Congress (that would be weird). So, as a way of getting to know who of our users wants to change our administration, I'll make a more formal poll in The Pub. All users can sign, though we will evaluate the user's knowledge of the site and their merit at Wikination in counting the "votes", okay? These are the questions:
 * 19:15, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Admin off
Which admins should lose their admin rights? 19:15, January 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * User:George Matthews: absent (no abuse)
 * I don't care. --O u WTB 08:08, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * never active Pierlot McCrooke 08:21, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care either; so I suppose i'm . If he comes back, we could easily regrant him his rights, right? 08:30, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 12:22, January 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * User:SPQRobin: absent (no abuse)
 * Note: honorary admin
 * SPQ will never be no admin. --O u WTB 08:08, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Only normal admins please Pierlot McCrooke 08:21, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that saying "normal admins only" does have more meanings than one. --O u WTB 08:22, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean that there will be no honorary admins Pierlot McCrooke 08:25, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, SPQ still is 1. a neutral admin. 2. an experienced admin. 3. the admin which the biggest knowledge of wikiing and wikis. --O u WTB 08:30, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be, but he is too inactive and never really used his rights Pierlot McCrooke 08:34, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Does he have to? 08:34, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * SPQ has saved Libertas from the ruins when he had been inactive for a year. If Lovia might also be ruined, he might help us out here too. --O u WTB 08:36, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he is too busy with MetaWiki and Incubator Pierlot McCrooke 08:37, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * He isn't. He was busier with that when he saved Libertas than now. --O u WTB 08:38, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * that doesn't really matter, does it? From what I understand, he (Robin) is admin because we respect him and his project, right? Then there is no doubt we still respect him and wish to keep him an admin 08:42, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * if he's the founder of the project, then he deserves a little honor. 08:30, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 12:22, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

I would like to explain why I voted two times 'pro'. Since the two admins above are most of the time not around and have - correct me if I'm wrong - never used their admin rights. Taking away their 'rights' (what a poor word) or leaving things as they are would result in the same situation, right? Wrong! I do acknowledge that there are more admins than are really needed to make this wiki function, though masked by the fact that some of them are inactive. Making both admin-off could be a symbolic act, a gesture that signifies a change in the Lovian policy. We also have several capable people that do are around and should grant them a place in the site administration. Finally, the status of 'honorary admins' should be out of the question, several people already stated that we 'do have no nobility in Lovia' and I think we should keep it that way; admins are people with a task, a duty. 12:22, January 9, 2010 (UTC) Also see my contribution at the Speakers' Corner

Admin on
Which users should become an admin, do you think?

Note: this poll is not binding, just a guideline! 19:15, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Intothewild
 * Pierlot McCrooke 08:22, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * i would find it a great honor. But maybe only if i win the elections? 08:31, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * trusted user, neutral to some extend etc. maybe he's still a bit young (=new) here though. --O u WTB 08:33, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * under the condition that the total amount of admins does not grow! We have inactive admins, replace them! 12:23, January 9, 2010 (UTC)