Forum:That's Death Vote

This is the official forum to vote for the That's Death! code to be changed and modified. Now DZGuymed had made a sub-userpage on the forum of the code, which can be found here. Now we need to vote on certain things, which will be listed. Anybody can vote and post their opinion if they wish, but keep this page very organized. Now many do not understand the policy, and do not follow it - so now we need to change stuff. Now the things we need to do to the That's Death! code are:


 * Things to modify
 * Things to remove
 * Things to add

So now you can vote on what to modify, what to remove, and what to add. Talking on the subject cannot be here, but on Forum talk:That's Death Vote to keep the main page of this forum topic clean and organized. Now the sections have been lay out, and you can vote on whatever you want to vote on. Just make sure it's sensible. Add stuff if you wish too. Voting ending date will be confirmed soon.

--   ¤   (  User page! ) (  The Cookie Master, bow! ) 12:07, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

= Modification = There are four categorizations on the That's Death! code, and have been listed in sections. Below each section, you can vote on what needs to be modified. So the current categories are "Death", "Attempted/Intentional Death", "Reappearence of "Dead" Characters" and "Death Concepts and the "Afterlife". So under each of those, vote on what you think needs to be modified. See the That's Death! page to see what is under each category.

Death
Ninjinian: Below in Removing, I wished for deletion to become extinct - because it was a weird way of Death. Considering the For side is losing, I thought... why don't we just modify how somebody gets deleted? First of all... new name. It relates to the Fourth Wall too much. We don't want that. We already got users claiming that their characters can see through the Fourth Wall... which is bad. New name. And the concept of deletion can be changed. I was thinking of Harry Potter lines. Heard of Dementors? Well, they basically give you a "kiss" (yeah, I know we can think of another name) and they suck the life out of you. How's that?

Vote: Deletion Modification

 * 1) Against modification. (continuity, several alterations, plus it is fine) --Zapwire (talk/blog/edits) 23:01, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Against modification. Wont work, MAJOR REWRITES AND OOC! --I miss pufflezzz....(cry) 23:13, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Against modification. -- Perhaps Explorer should lay down some guidelines on what characters can break the Fourth Wall, how they can learn to do so, and remove that trait from characters who have never used it or plan to use it (looking at you, SN (character)). Or, better yet, why not have Explorer authenticate all Fourth Wall breaking characters, since he invented the idea? -- † This is Serious Business! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) TurtleShroom Productions: Patent Pending. † 01:14, January 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Against modification -- per ZW, there is no problem with Deletion and altering it would cause a big rip in continuity. And you're confusing Death Eaters (followers of Voldemort) with Dementors. @TS: I think of Fourth-Wall breaking as genetic. If you have the genes, you can naturally break the Fourth Wall. If you don't, you can learn how to do so, but it won't be as potent as having the genes.  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( The Internet is Tubes!  )    View this template   02:43, January 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoopsies! Didn't check before I posted. Fixed that. Didn't you just read about the Removing of the Deletion below? We just won't do deletion in the future. It can be changed. This is not reality, Explorer. Things can be changed if we want it to. TurtleShroom's got the picture. Well, Explorer brought the Fourth Wall to the wiki, didn't actually create it, so the Fourth Wall thing can go on him. But I still think this modification is a nice idea. It makes sense! Deletions got no aspect! -- [[Image:N-Sig.PNG]]  ¤   (  User page! ) (  The Cookie Master, bow! ) 10:39, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it makes no sense whatsoever. Deletion isn't even rooted in the Fourth Wall. I don't see any good reason to get rid of it. And what do you mean, "no aspect"? There are MANY aspects you could play around with using deletion! Attempts for restoration, new, more efficient ways of deletion, semi-deletion... Ninj, I think you should be a little more imaginative.  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( The Internet is Tubes!  )    View this template   02:44, January 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Against modification. It is fine for me. --Idoreconise (My Talk here!/Moja dyskusja tutaj!) 12:57, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Against, but the Dementor-vacuum could be used elsewhere.--NAE's IP

Death Concepts and the "Afterlife"
= Removing = This is where you can vote on things in the That's Death! code that need to be removed. Again, like in the Modification section, there are currently four categories which stand in the That's Death! code, and under those categories are the things listed inside them. So you can go to the That's Death! code page and read what it says under each of those like you did with Modification, and see if you wish to remove anything that is in the That's Death! code.

Death
Ninjinian: There is a rule that characters can die laughing - I think that is literally stupid, and would surely hurt a lot. It would be very unusual for a character to die laughing, so this should be removed. And I have something else to so aswell : Death is supposed to be sensible, and is basically making a mockery of Death by making somebody dying while laughing. Vote below using the dash, and write Against removal (against in bold) and your signature if you wish for die laughing to stay, but then write For removal (for in bold) then your signature for removing.

Vote: Die Laughing

 * 1) For removal. -- Anniem ۝۝  se  13:56, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Against removal. Just another way to die. We aren't serious. --Zapwire (talk/blog/edits) 15:47, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) For removal. -- Sanchonachos RULZ!! -- The Maple Leaf Forevah!! 18:29, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Against removal. What Zapwire said. Citcxirtcem   BAAAAAWW to me!  see my edits! 18:48, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) For removal. Stupid.--Idoreconise (My Talk here!/Moja dyskusja tutaj!) 21:46, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral. Stupid, yes. It was introduced as an alternative form of dying. -- † This is Serious Business! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) TurtleShroom Productions: Patent Pending. † 21:52, January 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Death is serious, Mectrixtic and Zapwire. Die laughing is a weird way to die.. and you said that we aren't taking dying laughing seriously. Well, Death is serious, and if your not taking it seriously, that's bad. -- [[Image:N-Sig.PNG]]  ¤   (  User page! ) (  The Cookie Master, bow! ) 19:34, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) It's fan-fiction... Besides, dying by laughing has been used before in other works, like Marry Poppins. Citcxirtcem   BAAAAAWW to me!  see my edits! 19:47, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Didn't TurtleShroom read what I said? Death is serious. We'll have other ways of dying. -- [[Image:N-Sig.PNG]]  ¤   (  User page! ) (  The Cookie Master, bow! ) 22:40, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Death can be silly if we, the writers, make it that way. Citcxirtcem   BAAAAAWW to me!  see my edits! 22:46, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) AGAINST --I miss pufflezzz....(cry) 00:27, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral -- always passed off to me as a really weird/dumb way of dying, but I don't see any real reason to condemn it.  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 (  The Internet is Tubes!  )    View this template   02:44, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Key words here... Death, Needs, To, Be, Taken.... Seriously here. If you want to go and make a mockery out of Death, be my guest. I sound like a pushover, obviously. Forget it. -- [[Image:N-Sig.PNG]]  ¤   (  User page! ) (  The Cookie Master, bow! ) 12:56, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) This is a wiki about a children' game - plus - if you want to use seriously, you can use it seriously in your own stories - if you want to use it silly, go ahead. --Zapwire (talk/blog/edits) 15:25, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Attempted/Intentional Death
Ninjinian: I think that deletion is a really weird way to die. Because for one, it refer to the Fourth Wall too much, and too many users are breaking the rules! There are characters that users make and say that they can break the fourth wall. That's bad! So deletion should be removed to avoid too many knowing of the Fourth Wall. You make the dash under Vote: Deletion and write For removal, but the "for" in bold, then signature - and then if your against the idea, you can write Against removal, again "against" in bold, then your signature.

Vote: Deletion

 * 1) Against removal --Sheepman (Talk page OF DOOM ) 12:27, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) For removal. -- Anniem ۝۝  se  13:55, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) For removal Type in my character Flywish on bing Click here for a suprise
 * 4) Against removal. We'll have to change way too many things. --  ☺ Happyface ☺   Iron Walrus is Watching You. Always.  15:31, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Against removal. --Zapwire (talk/blog/edits) 15:47, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Against removal. How many stories do you plan on changing if this passes --E-114 I am not the robot you are looking for 17:14, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Against removal. Rewrites and OOC will be all over! --I miss pufflezzz....(cry) 17:25, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Against removal. Like it said, re-writes, and there have been attempted and successful deaths in kid shows. Citcxirtcem   BAAAAAWW to me!  see my edits! 18:49, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had to rewrite this message twice because of edit conflicts. Sheesh, why is everybody worried in changing stories and articles. We won't need to! Just won't let deletion happen in the future, depending on the vote. Change your vote if you wish. Anniemoose and Flywish got some sense before making their vote... -- [[Image:N-Sig.PNG]]  ¤   (  User page! ) (  The Cookie Master, bow! ) 19:34, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion PWNZ Citcxirtcem   BAAAAAWW to me!  see my edits! 19:47, January 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Against removal. This is a non harmful way to "die". --Idoreconise (My Talk here!/Moja dyskusja tutaj!) 21:47, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly against removal. Deletion was and is a good idea, and we have used it and linked to it enough to generate a nasty aftershock in continuity. I say full steam ahead for the item. -- † This is Serious Business! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) TurtleShroom Productions: Patent Pending. † 21:50, January 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * I got an idea! -- [[Image:N-Sig.PNG]]  ¤   (  User page! ) (  The Cookie Master, bow! ) 22:40, January 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Against. Deletion shouldn't be gotten rid of, we just need to make more legal ways to die. It would result in to much rewriting. |||DZGuymed||| 02:09, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) STRONGLY Against -- would cause a substantial rip in continuity, there is no real reason to get rid of it.  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( The Internet is Tubes!  )    View this template   02:46, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Death Concepts and the "Afterlife"
= Adding = The final category of the three is Adding - and like the others you can vote this time in what you wish to be added to the That's Death! code. Now there are lots of things that can be added, so you can list them all, depending in which of the four categories they go in. But the Adding section is even more expanded than Modifying and Removing - because you can also vote on more categories other than the four that are on the That's Death! code already! So you can add another two-equals section under the last one and vote for more.

Death
Ninjinian: The part I think that should be added is ways of dying. Penguins should be able to die freely, as there are many ways of Death can go. Currently, there are auto mobile accidents, drowning (only if penguins can't swim), squashed by something large, getting eaten, struck by lightning and dying of pain. I have a way of dying... basically, I am working on a shadow (a ghost, but very evil and disastrous) called Death. I hope nobody minds that, because we got the Grim Reapuff aswell. I think we should make some chemicals, mainly ones that were made in prison secretly, which can be disguised as snowballs, then launched into a gun - a snowbullet would be a cool name. It would shoot somebody, just as somebody gets shot with a gun, but less... sad and won't be used for really bad stuff (like a killing spree). How about those two?

Vote: Snowbullets

 * 1) We have this - Snow mixed with Ditto is used, but it stuns - a slightly more lethal mix will do. --Zapwire (talk/blog/edits) 23:02, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) For addition. We have soda guns, swords made of candy, why not a lethal snowball? --I miss pufflezzz....(cry) 23:06, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Against addition. We have many ways to stun, and Candy Swords can only wound, albeit major wounds. Have you seen my taser theories? If this passes, you'll have to rectify it by making it extremely rare. We're talking Beta Hat rare, XXX rare. -- † This is Serious Business! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) TurtleShroom Productions: Patent Pending. † 23:09, January 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) For addition. This is not as bad as metal bullets. Citcxirtcem   BAAAAAWW to me!  see my edits! 00:33, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) For addition! If it has a high-enough velocity. |||DZGuymed||| 02:11, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Not too bad, just try to make it rare.  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( The Internet is Tubes!  )    View this template   02:48, January 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, yes, it will surely be rare. It will be very lethal. Almost as much as Ditto, but Ditto was never meant for Death - or was it? -- [[Image:N-Sig.PNG]]  ¤   (  User page! ) (  The Cookie Master, bow! ) 10:51, January 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it is not lethal. Ditto was and never will be lethal.  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( The Internet is Tubes!  )    <span title="Click if you dare!">View this template   02:44, January 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) For addition! This may be ridiculous! --Idoreconise (My Talk here!/Moja dyskusja tutaj!) 12:59, January 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the snow bullet ideas, though I stil go with hot sauce bullets (not lethal just makes them burn a bit and pass out) Tails  6000  03:22, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Vote: Death Shadow

 * 1) Neutral -- I'm not sure how it kills, until I know I'm neutral. --I miss pufflezzz....(cry) 23:06, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Against adding. -- I don't know how it kills, and we already have Ban to teleport banned penguins to prison (he doesn't kill). -- † This is Serious Business! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) TurtleShroom Productions: Patent Pending. † 23:08, January 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Against adding. Lolwut? What is this? If we don't know what it is, why vote for it?  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 (  <span title="Don't clog the tubes!">The Internet is Tubes!  )    <span title="Click if you dare!">View this template   02:48, January 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, okay. So it's a shadow. It goes around picking out unworthy penguins that don't deserve to live. But it only does that for fun. Basically, when the victim gets killed (naturally), the Death Shadow claims it's spirit, and keeps it in the confinements of a place which I need to make. How is that? Anybody going to change their vote? -- [[Image:N-Sig.PNG]]  ¤   (  User page! ) (  The Cookie Master, bow! ) 10:51, January 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) For adding. This quite interesting. But without the "spirit" term, as it is a sacred term in many religions. --Idoreconise (My Talk here!/Moja dyskusja tutaj!) 13:01, January 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Against-- Sanchonachos RULZ!! -- The Maple Leaf Forevah!! 23:42, January 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Still Against -- The way the Fanon world works -- you're a baddie, the universe will work against you. Who needs freaky spirits and possible over-religious references when you have the BoF?  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( <span title="Don't clog the tubes!">The Internet is Tubes!  )    <span title="Click if you dare!">View this template   02:44, January 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral Dittoed with Corai...  DZGuymed is Teh CRUSHER  Feel the flames!  00:23, January 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * This doesn't even have to be in the COC anyway. It could be made as a character, anyway - no COC. But still, I want to explain some stuff - freaky spirits? For your information, any spirit can't be freaky. You are coming to religious stuff here, Explorer. Don't push it. Next, you don't freaking need the BoF. Fourth Wall... what a bunch of baloney/mustard/pudding/custard/Danish/radish... this is not even near religious-references. What about the Grim Reapuff, eh? Exactly. -- [[Image:N-Sig.PNG]]  ¤   (  User page! ) (  The Cookie Master, bow! ) 19:42, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone got up on the wrong side of bed today.... anyway, I was calling your Death Shadow thing freaky. You should know how to interpret that. And yes, it's freaky in my opinion -- accept it. That, and Grim Reapuff works with puffles ONLY. The CPFW and basically any kind of literature runs on a diluted version of karma -- if you're a good guy, you'll (usually) eventually turn out happy or satisfied, and if you're a bad guy, you won't. We don't need a weird death shadow.  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( <span title="Don't clog the tubes!">The Internet is Tubes!  )    <span title="Click if you dare!">View this template   16:51, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Death Concepts and the "Afterlife"
Happyface414: I think in the deletion void, it shouldn't be in suspended animation. Instead, their trapped in a loop o how they were deleted, and once they finally fix their mistake, they would move on to the Judging Void, where they would judge if you were a criminal, or a good guy. You would be sent to either the War Void, or the Community Void. The War Void is basically a gladiator ring, whoever died/deleted there would go into suspended animation, and whoever wins continues to fight. In Community Void, its where your penguin floats around, saying "hi" to whoever passes him.

Vote: Non-Suspended Animation Deletion Void

 * Against. Too much like religious afterlife dimensions. Explorer has tossed around ideas on bringing them back. -- † This is Serious Business! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) TurtleShroom Productions: Patent Pending. † 01:16, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

<BR />
 * For We already have the Demon Penguins, so this isn't that far. Citcxirtcem   BAAAAAWW to me!  see my edits! 01:37, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Against for the same reasons as TurtleShroom. Suspended animation, that is it. Restoration is possible, but unless your're a Master of the Universe, it's not feasible in any way. As of yet...  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( <span title="Don't clog the tubes!">The Internet is Tubes!  )    <span title="Click if you dare!">View this template   02:50, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) AGAINST REWRITES FTW! --I miss pufflezzz....(cry) 03:26, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) For Hey Explorer, I'm making a story about that EXACT point. also, I think that there should be a little sphere-type room that a deleted person goes into  EDFan12345 likes Yams  I Like Yams
 * 2) For Whats wrong with it? -- Firmato per Il Dirigente  Conversazione verso Il Dirigente  18:55, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

TurtleShroom: Someone proposed some sort of paranormal Harry Potter-ish characters above. I've only read the first HP book (hated it), but I went on to read a Wikipedia article on an interesting item. According to the Internet, the item is called -- a Horcrux (corrected spelling by Ninj). The main villain of the book series, Voldemort (I think), was stated to have ejected portions of his being into items (e.g. books, keys, tools). The Internet said that Voldemort did this six times, into six items. So long as any Horcrux existed, the ejector could live on as a ghost in any of said items. It makes them immortal until all six items are decimated. Their being, locked in the item, functions sort of like a server online. The being is stored collectively in all six items, which are networked together. These items are seperate but linked, if more than one exists. The Internet stated that it becomes far more difficult to put the ghost back into an item if it's split farther (e.g. six Horcruxes instead of two). Essentially, though the ghost can't leave the Horcruxes he or she is bound to, they can reassemble into another item, possessing it, if the Horcruxes are aligned correctly. They can also passively view what's around the item they're bound in (if they're bound to a book, they can see off the shelf, for instance). Viewing is sort like TSP AI. They can only view from one Horcrux at a time, but they can wonder to any one they wish. If all Horcruxes are destroyed, the being of the ejector, and thus the ejector himself, ceases to exist, unless the ejector is mortally alive when all items are destroyed.

It's like a PC backup. The Internet said that ejecting one's being into items required the character wanting his being ejected to kill a man first, eject immediately after. Once ejected, the character's being is locked into the item (the Horcrux). When the character dies, his body is gone, but his ghost is locked in the item(s) he ejected into. He lives on as a ghost locked in the item(s).

SO, here's my proposal. First off, ejecting one's being in the parody won't require the killing of a man. I theorize it will require a machine or some sort of special High Penguin or Demon Penguin magic. The parody works the same as the parodee, except that the parody item can move about (limited range) and that the parody can be ejected into electronic equipment (like TSP AI, but by magic instead of technology). I would use it on Professor Shroomsky. Nothing like having a mushroom bound in several items! You could say that it's a supernatural variation of what happened to TSP AI.

Vote: Horcruxes Parody

 * 1) For addition. Can't believe that you could not like the series, but anyway - I've read the series again (currently on the Half-Blood Prince), and this book is the key-book that references to Horcruxes. I currently have it, and can help a lot. And it's Horcrux, yes, not Hortacrux. I think this is a parody of Horcruxes, so let's go for it! -- [[Image:N-Sig.PNG]]  ¤   (  User page! ) (  The Cookie Master, bow! ) 12:23, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Against addition. HP is cool but I think Horcruxes aren't suitable for this wikia. --Idoreconise (My Talk here!/Moja dyskusja tutaj!) 13:08, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. --Zapwire (talk/blog/edits) 16:38, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) For. -- Ok. -- Firmato per Il Dirigente  Conversazione verso Il Dirigente  18:55, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) For Citcxirtcem   BAAAAAWW to me!  see my edits! 19:21, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) For -- as long as there's no mention of souls. Change it to ghosts.  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( <span title="Don't clog the tubes!">The Internet is Tubes!  )    <span title="Click if you dare!">View this template   02:44, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Worry not, it's like TSP AI but with magic/spirits. No souls, obviously. :) -- † This is Serious Business! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) TurtleShroom Productions: Patent Pending. † 19:46, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

<BR />
 * I got an official transcript from Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince... Professor Slughorn, Potions master in the book, says : "The word used for an object in which a person has concealed part of their soul." Then a short summary on the concept : "You split your soul, hide part of it in an object outside the body. Then even if one's body is attacked or destroyed... one cannot die. Part of the soul remains earthbound and undamaged." Then Tom Riddle had gave an example in book 2 : "I was ripped from my body. I was less than a spirit, less than the meanest ghost. But still I was alive.." The next question is, how do you split one's soul? Well, "by act of evil - by committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advance. He would enhance the torn portion by using a spell." Don't gimme....that this is all "COC-violation" and all that....because this is just a quote. -- [[Image:N-Sig.PNG]]  ¤   (  User page! ) (  The Cookie Master, bow! ) 19:52, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Remember Tom Riddle from Harry Potter? In the second book he was a "memory" eventhough people could see him physically. His memory was kept alive because of his diary. When Harry Potter destroyed the diary Tom Riddle died. I was thinking that some characters can be kept alive with a similar idea. For instance say that Kwiksilver wasn't killed but was kept as a "memory" via his PDA. Then say that Professor Zlo Shroomsky (sorry TS) dropped the PDA into the sea. The PDA will not work and Kwiksilver would die. What ya say? -- Firmato per Il Dirigente  Conversazione verso Il Dirigente  18:42, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Vote: Tom Riddle

 * 1) For addition. Citcxirtcem   BAAAAAWW to me!  see my edits! 19:21, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) For addition! Brilliant idea! -- [[Image:N-Sig.PNG]]  ¤   (  User page! ) (  The Cookie Master, bow! ) 22:32, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) For Addition: in fact, Tom lied about being a 'memory'. He was actually a horcrux (see TS' above.) But you're free to make this 'memory' thing if you like.--NAE's IP
 * 4) For addition. Great idea. -- † This is Serious Business! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) TurtleShroom Productions: Patent Pending. † 19:41, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Vote: Reincarnation

 * 1) For addition. As long as it doesn't influence religion, I think it's passable.
 * 2) AGAINST STRONGLY addition, NO MATTER HOW YOU PUT IT IN, IT WILL EB RELIGOUS.
 * 3) Strongly against addition. This is a religious theme and it is not suitable for this wikia about fan creations of Club Penguin. --Idoreconise (My Talk here!/Moja dyskusja tutaj!) 15:08, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Against addition with all my being. Reincarnation isn't suitable for CP, and it's a sacred practice for Hindus. I'm not Hindu, nor will I ever be, but we promised to protect all religions, so no, just no. As others said, it will become religious no matter how much you try, because it IS religious. -- † This is Serious Business! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) TurtleShroom Productions: Patent Pending. † 19:44, January 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Against for same reason as TS. That, and there are better, more creative ways of bringing people back.  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( <span title="Don't clog the tubes!">The Internet is Tubes!  )    <span title="Click if you dare!">View this template   02:51, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * super strongly FOR nomater wat i need it for coool s death well it is more of a Spirit transference (in to a clone of coool 1 of 4 )still a non religious form of Resurrection or Reincarnation -- ᄃӨӨӨᄂ31  ҂ Talk to me   talk to the superhero 16:01, January 25, 2010 (UTC)Oh! and maby puting the body parts(or remains)in a cyborg body like


 * Very Against, since it may upset many religious users at this wiki.-- Sanchonachos RULZ!! -- The Maple Leaf Forevah!! 23:05, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Against, because it is part of a sacred religion. If it is used here incorrectly, it could offend people.  DZGuymed is Teh CRUSHER   Feel the flames!  Check This! 01:32, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Vote: Galvanization

 * 1) For addition. Duh, I need it. Citcxirtcem   BAAAAAWW to me!  see my edits! 19:21, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) For -- purely scientific, not actual ressurection/bringing back of life, fine with it.  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( <span title="Don't clog the tubes!">The Internet is Tubes!  )    <span title="Click if you dare!">View this template   02:44, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) For, on one condition. The galvanized creature must be a zombie post-galvanization. -- † This is Serious Business! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) TurtleShroom Productions: Patent Pending. † 19:45, January 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not how galvanization works. It stimulates the cells so the body becomes 100% alivegagin. They are a zombie in the sense that they were dead, but they don't have rotting off parts and they age. Citcxirtcem   BAAAAAWW to me!  see my edits! 22:06, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case -- For, ON ONE CONDITION -- that the galvanization should be used temporarily.  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( <span title="Don't clog the tubes!">The Internet is Tubes!  )    <span title="Click if you dare!">View this template   02:51, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral Wat is galvanisation? I won't vote for it, if I don't know what it is. --Idoreconise (My Talk here!/Moja dyskusja tutaj!) 19:46, January 30, 2010 (UTC)