User talk:Hagnat

red link, go away... shoo shoo. --Hagnat 11:58, 23 August 2006 (PDT)

Hagnat do you REALLY think that I am the same person as mo/amazing? I'm quite suprised that people still think that really. Lol Mo is getting a big kick out of this whole situation. The Devil 12:01, 23 August 2006 (PDT)


 * It doesnt matter if you are amazing or not. I already said that. And, actually, i do believe you are NOT him. My problem with The Devil in UDWiki is that it isn't fun, and you just created that account to create havoc in that wiki. Nuff said, you will be burned soon, Witch. --Hagnat 15:58, 23 August 2006 (PDT)


 * Heh heh. That I am. Not as big as Zod and I had about God though. (We'll see though, Devil - You've got time.) Welcome to SW and the wiki, hagnat. I'll get to the promotions page comments soon. ish. ;) -- &hearts; Mo M 16:00, 23 August 2006 (PDT)


 * Hey there zing. Long time i havent had a chance to talk to you. I always said you could do good for the UDWiki, just like you are doing something good here in SW. Problem is that when you were wrong you simply couldnt admit that, and that annoyed the heck out of people. I tried to help you there, but you didnt listened to me, so i joined the witch hunters. Sorry things went the way they did. --hagnat 16:06, 23 August 2006 (PDT)


 * It's no problem. Suffice to say that not backing down from what I thought was right - was more important to me deep down than keeping from getting banned. That whole thing with the obscenity on my userpage was basically a copy of obscenity about me that still exists on Scinfaxi's page to this day (or at least I think it does) so I figured if I got in trouble, someone would HAVE to say something to Sci and them finally. I was wrong and I just got banned. Heh. Still, as I say to me being banned is better than ducking my head down and accepting abuse from Sci and then, and looking past things I don't think are right. Might as well be kicked out of the community. It helped me focus more on Scroll Wars so in the end it was fine. -- &hearts; Mo M 16:10, 23 August 2006 (PDT)


 * Well, after you were banned from the wiki (when brent or ster gave you the 1 year ban) i kind of stepped down from most of my wiki duties, not only the moderational ones. It just seemed... wrong, to do it the way it was done. Since then most of my edits were made on moderational pages only, nothing new like the suburb page rework. :\ Now i only ban and hunt down witches. You sure you wasnt God ? Anyway, i am king of glad that something good came out of all this. --hagnat 16:27, 23 August 2006 (PDT)


 * Heh. Though my beard and long hair have always brought me comments of being "Fat Jesus", which lead to the Jesus info on my userpage, I'm not God. First of all, God put way too much work into his userpage. Me, I'm just one for templates and pixel art. Beyond that it gets to be too much time to spend on something like that. Good to know you had a problem with the banning. Brent was called back from retirement by a Mod who wanted the ban, but didn't want to do it himself. This is smart, really. If Brent was brought to misconduct, so what? He had already left the wiki and I think the game itself. It's kinda funny. In looking at the wiki now, it looks to me like the Mods are breaking rules left and right, but have their enforcers around them to completely destroy anyone who even mentions that there might be a problem with a ruling. I saw what happened to Kiki and Sensitive. That really sucks. Zod doesn't even want to get into it anymore because he knows they'll call him an Amazing alt and permaban him without a single warning on his record. ... Wow. UD Drama again. I guess it's kinda addictive once you get involved in all the plots and alliances. Like reality TV, a guilty pleasure. -- &hearts; Mo M 16:57, 23 August 2006 (PDT)


 * And hey! I noticed some pages in SWwiki are merely copy and paste from UDwiki... even the awfull humorous suggestion template i created. For the love of God (the almighty one, not the UDwiki user), fix that thing! And please tell me someone fixed my grammar mistakes in the Policy Guidelines guidelines. --hagnat 16:30, 23 August 2006 (PDT)


 * Yeah, one of the Mods here and I decided it was better to copy an existing system and perfect it rather than create it from the ground up during which the site would be largely lawless. (no rules to enforce, after all!) I'll take a look at the pages you mentioned. Woot. -- &hearts; Mo M 16:57, 23 August 2006 (PDT)


 * lol, you that was me. I was too lazy to write my own templates.-- 23:18, 1 September 2006 (PDT)

Ahh
Thanks for the user template. I was going to try and work Flagbox into something similar, so this is a major time saver. -- &spades; Mo mod 22:08, 19 September 2006 (PDT)

UD Policy
I had a read over your Urban Dead policy. The issue that my policy is addressing is that a user can sign hundreds of pages and then change their own signiture which can cause lots of havoc without any fesiable action being able to taken against them. A user changing someone elses signiture is much more obvious and is already against the rules, making people having to go through a moderator to get their signiture updated is a pain for both the regular users and the moderator. Your policy is more in relation to stopping people from editing others signatures in my view. Also you fail to specify what occurs if a user fails to comply to these rules of having a signiture moderated. I hope that helps you. I have a feeling though that there will be quite a few people with the same sentiment as Gage so good luck to you. - 00:53, 21 September 2006 (PDT)
 * This policy that i created is a pain in the ass, and i know it. But if we leave things going on whitout having some control over template signatures, we will end up having to face other situations like we did this night, where the wiki was unacessible for several minutes. --hagnat 11:58, 21 September 2006 (PDT)
 * Yeah, I understand. Well just as a word of advise specify what happens if someone doesn't compy after say a warning to have their signiture moderated, otherwise people will just ignore it and say that anything you do to try to make them comply isn't in the rules. - 15:37, 21 September 2006 (PDT)

Bad luck, it doesn't look like people want it. I left an empty threat on there =P (empty being the key word) - 22:54, 24 September 2006 (PDT)
 * It's not that people don't want signature limitations, it's simply the implimentation. It's too much hassle to have to go through a mod every time you want to change your sig.-- 08:09, 25 September 2006 (PDT)
 * Yeah, I know, I brought that up in my first comment. But now no one can say that I didn't try to get it past. - 17:03, 25 September 2006 (PDT)
 * Weee! Seems likes the policy is not going to pass! Yay, hurray! Yiipie Ai Ho! If atleast it had the support from those well known and respected users who use the feature, i think it could haved had a chance. But, Hey! To do nothing and watch as the wiki digs its own grave is a lot more fun, huh ? --hagnat 15:02, 3 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Better to rule amid Chaos than serve amid peace, eh? -- &spades; Mo mod 16:01, 3 October 2006 (PDT)
 * I *AM* a very chaotic person, i admit that and like things this way. But there needs to be some order in chaos for things to grow, and what i am noticing now is that we only have chaos, chaos and chaos. Xoid already said it, the wiki is a sincking ship. Now I only ask myself how much users will have to leave for they to start changing things. --hagnat 18:29, 3 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Look Hagnat, I almost guerentee that people will rethink their position on that policy when Devil's night comes. If not then I expect Kevan will interveen and put it in after the wiki crashes.  Sinking ship indeed.  The Devil 18:36, 3 October 2006 (PDT)
 * About that... is there any way to convince you NOT to do it ? Its not like i care that much about the wiki anymore, but the whole thing is just ridicullous. You are wasting your time making other people waste time... its a lose-lose situation. --hagnat 18:44, 3 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Oh man. Does anyone else see a really crazy list of demands coming, now? lol. Maybe I'll be on it! That'd sink any compromise right away. :D -- &spades; Mo mod 18:56, 3 October 2006 (PDT)
 * He can make any demands he wish, its not like i will be able to attend them. Some kids decided to stop listening to me, so its not like i could do a thing for him, or you. --hagnat 19:01, 3 October 2006 (PDT)
 * You know if Kevan was actually willing to compromise then I would say that I(speaking for myself) would probably be satisfied if every single user (including ip addresses) that has been warned/banned was unwarned/banned. That is probably what I would expect a compromise to come out to be.  (I repete I am speaking for myself alone but I think most others would be satisfied with this).  But I would have to speak to my "people" to get something set in stone.  The Devil 19:05, 3 October 2006 (PDT)
 * There you have it. I knew it'd be good. As in interesting. I can already smell the "SAY NO TO GIVING IN TO WIKI TERRORISTS!" templates a mile away. (This is where the eye roll occurs.) -- &spades; Mo mod 19:28, 3 October 2006 (PDT)
 * I could make this, but i just too tired for t... ok, i am on it. --hagnat 19:34, 3 October 2006 (PDT)
 * And.... done. --hagnat 19:40, 3 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Looks about right to me. Now it needs to go up on jjames or Scinfaxi's page with "Why do vandals hate America??" under it. lol -- &spades; Mo mod 19:44, 3 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Will work on that. ;) --hagnat 19:51, 3 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Will work on that. ;) --hagnat 19:51, 3 October 2006 (PDT)

Stolen
I've stolen your Pillbox. I am now enjoying the tasty medication contained within. Try to stop me and the figurines get it. -- A Thief 11:04, 25 September 2006 (PDT)


 * Thief! I see that the Pillbox is not the only thing you have stolen from my user page. You stole if, ifdef and ifndef too! You bastard! He. Nice to see them being put to a better use over here. In UDwiki they are barely used :P --hagnat 20:20, 25 September 2006 (PDT)


 * Eh, they don't know what's good over there! ;) Heh. -- &spades; Mo mod 20:26, 25 September 2006 (PDT)


 * Hey, zing, while we are talking about stolen things and stuff... mind if i change some things in the SW main page ? >:D --hagnat 20:32, 25 September 2006 (PDT)


 * Let's trade. Muahaha. -- &spades; Mo mod 21:13, 25 September 2006 (PDT)


 * User:Hagnat/Sandbox Done. A nice navigation box waiting for your approval. --hagnat 15:40, 9 October 2006 (PDT)

Quick favor
Hey, can you do me a quick favor. I need the Comannounce tempalte on the UD wiki changed so that the link is at the end for the poll. I didn't think about it when I put it up there, but it'll be better if it's on the "all users are asked to voice their opinions." section of it instead of the "poll" section. Thanks. - 19:44, 5 October 2006 (PDT)
 * If you wouldn't mind, could you please re-add my comments back. This is the diff link, Cyberbob is obviously trying to stop me from coming back. (And finally they got my IP banned...) Thanks in advanced. - 03:35, 9 October 2006 (PDT)
 * I was looking at that a few moments ago, but decided not to add it back... for now. Instead, i decided to request Jeda to be kept unbanned so you can reply in the poll. Unbanned only to reply in the poll! Understand it? This means no editing outside that page, not even other people talk pages. --hagnat 09:33, 9 October 2006 (PDT)

Hagnat, you are a mod there. Where did this rule come from? Besides, its completely wrong. And can you put that stuff on the beginning of the talk page pack in the poll? -- 10:38, 9 October 2006 (PDT)


 * I'm going by in your own wiki-article the American Congress definition of Abstain, in which your vote still exists (as you are making one) but while you do not vote AGAINST the measure, you are still not voting FOR the measure, which is what Jedaz's poll was about: he has to have 50% of the voters FOR him for him to be unbanned as per his own movement, not 50% of the voters that chose to pick a side. If I really wanted to sneak this past everyone, I would have done it on Thursday night.  Again, the measure AS WRITTEN is that you have to have a majority FOR the unban of Jedaz.  If you truly wanted to Abstain all you have to do is NOT VOTE, as in remove your vote, not putting it in some side-bar.  --Karlsbad 16:55, 9 October 2006 (PDT)


 * No Karlsbad, Abstain votes mean: you acknowledge the situation, but you neither agree or disagree. You cannot say that it means the same as against. They are counted in the total votes, but the decision is made based on yes or no votes. Now, if it was a majority of unban votes out of ban and unban, then by your own way of writing it means that the majority of it means yes. You cannot pull a "No Decision" into a "No" vote. besides, do you realize how much doing that damaged your rep? -- 18:08, 9 October 2006 (PDT)


 * I put that a bit wordy and off topic, so let me rephrase it: To ban someone, it has to be in the majority of the community's interest to ban him in the first place even if you have 90% abstain votes, 4% ban votes and 6% unban votes, then he would be unbanned, because the percent of the community to unban him is greater than the percent of them to keep banned. Thus, it is the majority of the users to unban. besides, who says abstain means no? It means undecided so you could just as easily have abstain mean yes. -- 18:16, 9 October 2006 (PDT)


 * Actually, this is completly right. There is no gray vote, this is a black and white voting, so if you are not in favor of unabanning him, you are in favor of keeping things as they are. --hagnat 10:54, 9 October 2006 (PDT)


 * Abstaining, by definition, is casting no vote in either direction. This is kind of a backdoor thing. I mean, I understand what you're saying and what Karlsbad is trying to sneak past, but you have to admit that people voting to abstain are not voting to keep the ban in place at all. Heck, the header was just created so Mia could have her own section and be at the top, anyway. >_> Heh. -- ♫♪ They say thatMo is one bad mother- shut your mouth! ♫♪ 10:57, 9 October 2006 (PDT)


 * Look at what I said on Gage's page. Anyway,here is the definition for abstain. Just need to read the top bit. It directly contests with what Karlsbad says. -- 11:04, 9 October 2006 (PDT)


 * No matter which definition is right, i agree with what karl is saying, because it will force people to vote 'yes' or 'no' or simple not vote et all. I am sick of all these people who sit on top of the wall. --hagnat 11:19, 9 October 2006 (PDT)

Times, they are a'changin'
Your more recent conduct on the UD Wiki has caused me to re-evaluate my opinion of you. I'm not saying we should get a condo in Malibu together, but just that if I could edit my UD userpage, I'd probably take out the section about you. Probably. -- &spades; Mo mod 20:39, 5 October 2006 (PDT)


 * There is a need of change. Always. A person wont grow to become a better person if it just sits on its own arse and stays the same ad infinitum. I am changing in the real world, and some of this changes reflects on my internet persona, and it also reflects on how i work in all communitys i am present. --hagnat 09:12, 6 October 2006 (PDT)

hagnav
Hagnat Navigation box is go. Looks great, appreciated. -- ♫♪ They say thatMo is one bad mother- shut your mouth! ♫♪ 16:12, 9 October 2006 (PDT)