Forum:A not-very-well-thought-out solution to the featured-template CRISIS

Forums: Index > Village Dump > A not-very-well-thought-out solution to the featured-template CRISIS

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5960 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Numerous Ljlego's have complained of the derivative shit that currently appear to be swamping VFH. Some might say the solution is to unblock the drains, however, I have an even more radical solution.

The solution: don't allow people to vote against an article. The current system encourages people to write bland inoffensive stuff that won't be voted against. The corollary of this is that it disincentives writing more idiosyncratic articles, the kind that some will find hilarious, while others will hate it. Ricky Gervais once said that he would rather be 1000 people's favorite comedian than be liked by everyone. That is why he is a credible artist, rather than a hack. The same is true of articles: the funniest stuff will not be liked by everyone, so why let people vote against stuff because they don't find it funny, even if others patently do? -- furry Ape (shave) (Riot Porn) 21:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The rumors of VFH having a crisis are greatly exaggerated. Also, no againsts? Ha! Great idea! I can see all of our favorite stubs and one-liners getting featured without a problem. And if you start making exceptions (i.e. we're not going to feature Gay People) then you've ruined the simplicity of the system. Uh... better luck next time. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:43 Aug 06, 2008

If people find them funny then what's the problem? -- furry Ape (shave) (Riot Porn) 21:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people don't. And you're going to make them very upset and angry, to the point where they might just leave the site. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:46 Aug 06, 2008

No one is so petty that they would leave just because they don't get their own way all the time.-- furry Ape (shave) (Riot Porn) 21:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? People work damn hard to get an FA. Giving little stubs the same award is only going to decrease motivation to put effort into articles. So fuck that. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:56 Aug 06, 2008

Some people are idiots. (FU Skull) -RAHB 21:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

So what? -- furry Ape (shave) (Riot Porn) 21:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, if numerous Ljlego's don't like the articles on VFH, they can write some more. Creativity is a gift, we all have it in different levels, you can't expect an entire userbase to be different. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:49 Aug 06, 2008

HOLY SMOKIN' FISHES!! Did I just see what I think I saw? Did I? Did you lot use an apostrophe to pluralise Ljlego? That's disgusting. - [12:42 7 August] Sir FSt Don Yettie

I know I'll be edit conflicted on this, but here's why we shouldn't disallow against votes. Have you ever heard the quote, "there is opposition in all things"? Without opposition, there is no stability, no equilibrium. You eventually end up having everything operate as though it were bacterial organisms with no purpose of existence but to allow whatever flows to happen as long as it doesn't immediately blow things up. While that might work for the prokaryotes, it's not the way to run a community. In a community like Uncyclopedia, everything is based on mutual decision. Only allowing for votes means that you have effectively negated the opinion of anyone who didn't like the article, as being irrelevant. There is than an imbalance in "the force," as it were. Eventually people just start voting for to get their voices heard. They aren't allowed to vote against, and if they didn't like it, that means we don't care about their input, but we selectively do care about only the users who like articles. In every case. I'm sorry, if that makes sense to you as a conceivable way to run this thing, I have nothing more to say. (and there's the edit conflict) -RAHB 21:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that prokaryotes eventually evolved into eukaryotes, and then humans. Anyway, contrary opinions will not be excluded. There can still be a comment box where people can post their objection, and thus influence other people's decisions. -- furry Ape (shave) (Riot Porn) 22:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd just like to point out that this is how reality works. People who like country music can buy country without others "voting" against it. This encourages diversity and pluralism, rather than stifling it. It means we have shitty pop that is liked by lots of people coexisting with awesome prog-metal legends Tool, for example. -- furry Ape (shave) (Riot Porn) 22:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll find there's a large difference between individual taste and products, and something that's supposed to represent the quality of an entire site. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 22:08 Aug 06, 2008

Then the question is: do we want to appear diverse, or like a hive mind? -- furry Ape (shave) (Riot Porn) 22:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Popular writing is not always good writing. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 22:16 Aug 06, 2008

1) Allowing a comment box is not the same thing as allowing the votes to numerically carry a weight. Me posting "IMHO it's not too great" is not the same thing, no matter how hard you try, as putting another digit in the against box. It's not. Comments are not directly influencing the score, and are not given the same weight in your situation as for votes. Also, I'm talking about the prokaryotes that are as such now. Not the evolvy kind. The kind that come out of my mouth when I sneeze.

2)I completely agree with your country music analogy. People are free to like and purchase and read and listen to whatever it is they so desire. However, Uncyclopedia is about community decision, as I've said. We only have one featured article every day. We don't have 50,000 featured articles a day. Not everybody can get their way. So we have to compromise by pulling the community together as a whole and voting what we collectively decide on to be featured. In the real world, we have the presidential elections. If you voted for Kerry, and Bush got elected, are you going to cry "every president should be elected"? The American community had to decide as a whole, and a lot of people weren't happy, but the majority won in the end. The most people that could be made happy were (for the time being, anyways), and that is how we have to look at a wiki. Everything can't just always be in the affirmative or nothing at all. We have to allow for blunt, frank criticism. The only way to get things done is to look at the reality, not skirt around it and just allow for votes. -RAHB 22:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with RAHB, I dislike the idea of soley positive output on votes cast, or put another way, you need some strong winds to build strong roots--Sycamore (Talk) 22:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd vote against Country Music. Fucking Tammy Wynette. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

 For voting against country music. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:39, 07 Aug 2008

I think we should go back to first principles here - why have a featured article at all? Well regular users (myself included) tend to use it as an ego boost/status symbol. But is that really what it's for? No. It's an advertisement. It's there so that someone who has come across the main page sees something that is likely to be funny, and thereby encourage further exploration. From that outlook, does it matter if people who have been here for years see similarities between them? Probably not.

As for voting against articles, well, sometimes it means that "love-it-or-hate-it" articles die, but it also means that a lot of straight-out "hate it" articles. Have a look at Uncyclopedia:VFH/Failed. Yeah, there are a few articles that lost in spite of having a bunch of votes, but most go down in flames! In the last month, 23 articles died with fewer than 10 votes cast for and against; and the majority of them ended up with negative scores.

So no, in spite of the fact that occasionally a much loved (but much hated) article goes down, against voting is essential to the ongoing management of VFH, and does not have a great impact on the primary purpose of featured articles. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 04:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ricky Gervais?

Against. Also, disallowing against votes is a terrible idea. Though a little stricter enforcement of the "Don't be a dick" rule (and I'm as guilty as anybody) may not be a bad thing. -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:42, 6 Aug

Quite...--Sycamore (Talk) 22:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a "terrible" idea, as there are a lot of articles that a lot of people like that deserve recognition, even if the consensus isn't there. But the crux (I don't know what that word means but I'm using it anyway) is that when we feature an article, we're selecting it to be representative of the site and the community, and it doesn't make sense to do that if there are a lot of people here who don't even like the article. Also, Against bringing in the nice police to VFH. As long as the comments aren't overtly abusive, I don't want anyone's opinion silenced. (Although I'm not one to talk, as I've never had an article on VFH...) --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 05:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You can give criticism without being a dick... "Against - Ok right up 'til the ending, which I didn't like at all" =/= "Against - I can't believe I just read that piece of trash. I hope the writer is blended. Yeah, that's right. Blended. In a blender." - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 05:48, Aug 7

Thanks Led, that's exactly what I was getting at. -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:07, 7 Aug

I'm okay, you're okay, but a world without against's is a world without yin. Or yang. One of those. I hate voting against, but sometimes it needs to be done. If I don't think that a page is good enough for the mainpage, that's an against. It's the opposite of that if I think that it's good enough for the mainpage. True story. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm Against Againsts

Now, I think I brought this up sometime before, but I really do NOT see the value of against votes. If an article is crap, it'll die eventually anyway. Another thing to think about is that, according to all the psychology stuff I'VE read, criticism (even constructive kinds) kills creativity. I don't want to sound too hippy-ish about this, but ape has a really good idea. Let's try it for just one week, maybe?   Le Cejak • <5:52, 07 Aug 2008>

Also, Cap'n Ben brought up the thing about rm -3 articles: those will die anyway, because no one'll vote for 'em or if they do, they'll die of "old age" on the VFH page anyway. Bah, I'm confused and tired and working on a new article.   Le Cejak • <5:58, 07 Aug 2008>

Honestly, I really like constructive criticism. Now, I don't like it as much as writing a perfect, hilarious article on my first try every time, but constructive criticism is the next best thing. If I get a legitimate complaint in an against vote, I fix it. For me, it's all about making the best page I can, and whoever helps me to do that has my gratitude--through criticism or encouragement. It's all good, yo. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 05:57, Aug 7

Most against votes that I've seen (whether on my articles or not) are  Against. not funny ~~~~ Very rarely do I see useful against votes... I think they're a way to take out agression on innocent targets, really.   Le Cejak • <5:58, 07 Aug 2008>

The For votes are often shorter. Maybe we should get rid of Fors? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 06:00 Aug 07, 2008

We give reason above. If you don't like an article, you can't just pretend it's Ok for it to be featured. We make the decision as one entity. Balancing out positives and negatives. I know that apparently criticism kills creativity, but it also kills the critiqued's views of reality. Without against votes, everybody would just think they're wonderful. They would never get any constructive criticism, and therefore no way to improve, and the community's opinions would be weighed unfairly. Saying that your opinion only matters if you like something is terribly skewed. It just seems ethically entirely wrong. The only way to continue good writing and to innovate writing though, is to allow for all kinds of feedback, even the negative kind. Negative feedback prepares you for the real world. Nobody's going to baby you because they're afraid of hurting your feelings. People say what they really think. And that's how VFH should function. Not allowing those who have the sense to say "I hate this" to vote against something is like not allowing somebody with superpowers to use them. I know that's a HORRIBLE analogy, but I just had this humorous image of a mugger beating an old lady to death while Superman stands by and watches helplessly. Then he started to break down and cry. Oh man. That's hilarious. (FU FIFTY EDIT CONFLICTS!) -RAHB 05:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Most against votes that I've seen (whether on my articles or not) are  Against. not funny ~~~~ Very rarely do I see useful against votes... I think they're a way to take out agression on innocent targets, really. Just make your vote Abstain. this part could do with some work ~~~~ Yeah, so change your "I haet this artickle" comments to abstaining ones, and watch the same amount of articles die of old age as they did before of against votes!   Le Cejak • <5:58, 07 Aug 2008>

It's not the same. An abstain has no weight in a vote. A for vote has one digit weight. An against vote has one digit weight. Not allowing against votes is invalidating the opinion of anyone who has ever said "this does not deserve to be featured, and I can use my opinion to make a difference in that aspect." -RAHB 06:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

/me smashes through skylight Uh, wouldn't VFH get clogged up with shite articles that couldn't be removed for 3 days so people are less likely to vote on other articles? --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 06:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically that bit could be solved by changing the math with the health stuff, custom-tailoring it and what not. Not that I support it either way, but that issue could easily be fixed. -RAHB 06:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do against votes have to be useful? It's not a critical review of your article, it's a "should this be on the main page?" vote. I think "I don't find it funny" is a legitimate reason for not wanting something on the front page. And it shouldn't be the voter's responsibility to suggest improvements that would make it funny. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:31, 07 Aug 2008

d00d

When you write, you're gonna have your fans, and you're gonna have people that don't like it. It's the way it works. Some people are useful critics. Others are not. Don't take away the ability for people to disagree with one's writing. Abstains don't carry any weight; they're more undecided than anything. Face facts: Sometimes you rock, sometimes you bomb. That's the way writing goes. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 06:16 Aug 07, 2008

I think the point is for new writers. I, for one, think we are WAY too hard on our new writers: banning them for being not funny and so forth, and then the big red minus sign on their articles? Jesus.   Le Cejak • <6:22, 07 Aug 2008>

Nah. See, I loved it when I first came here because I figured I had to learn to write, or I was fucked. Now look at me. Besides - you can't feature articles out of pity. Bad writing is bad. Let the noobs fail a few times. Either they'll leave the site, or they'll learn from their failures like mature people. Also, we don't ban people for being bad writers. We ban people for being dicks. That's it. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 06:24 Aug 07, 2008

(FU EDIT CONFLICT) I don't think anyone's ever been banned for not being funny. Pages have been huffed and whiners have been yelled at, but bans for something as subjective as 'not being funny?' I don't think that happens... - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 06:25, Aug 7

Well, I get banned for not being funny. In fact, I think it's a kind of sport, now.   Le Cejak • <6:27, 07 Aug 2008>

Yeah, but you get banned for everything. You're probably getting banned for this right now. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 06:28, Aug 7

Oh crap I hope they don't-   ~   Ca- <06:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)>

Short-term solution

Nominate and feature the enclosed articles. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 06:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh...Ok. Looks like we got it fixed guys, you can all calm down now. -RAHB 06:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

nominate 'em for what? The thing we were just talking about, or for deletion? 'Cuz I'll nominate anything for deletion.   Le Cejak • <6:40, 07 Aug 2008>

Nominate and feature. Gee, you didn't even have a loophole there and you went for the floor gag anyway. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 06:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm all rimshot and no content   Le Cejak • <6:43, 07 Aug 2008>

I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a little turned on right now. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ape's Response

1. We're not talking about taking away people's right to have or express negative opinions of an article on VFH. We are talking about taking away the ability of those opinions to negate the fact someone else does find the article funny, if you like.
2. It's interesting that the presidential elections were mentioned. There are no against votes, only for votes, but Nader still never gets elected.
3. If, as RAHB and others said, we are supposed to vote as a single entity then don't be surprised if features appear like they are all written by a single entity.
4. I have an amendment to my proposal that might make it more palatable. In fact, I have two possibilities:
   1. Allow against votes, but they only carry weight if they outnumber for votes.
   2. Allow against votes, but they only carry weight if they exceed some arbitrary number. -- furry Ape (shave) (Riot Porn) 18:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Since Mooses isn't here...I you want better articles on VFH, then nominate X on VFH (where "X" is a page that Mooses made). *sniff* Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Or... if it ain't broke... don't fix it. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 18:46 Aug 07, 2008

Because if things aren't broken there is no way to improve them. This is why humans never evolved. -- furry Ape (shave) (Riot Porn) 18:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Taking away peoples' rights hardly seems like an improvement. Only counting peoples' votes when their number reaches "some arbitrary" number, too, hardly seem like an improvement. If two people have an opinion, but only one person's carries any weight, then the other person doesn't even exist. That's not democracy, that's something bad. Something bad is not the bedrock on which Chron founded Uncyclopedia. Less is not more. Worse is not better. We are not at war with Eastasia. We have not always been at war with Eastasia. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not an issue of rights. It's about choosing between different voting systems. Don't blow things out of proportion. -- furry Ape (shave) (Riot Porn) 19:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the second amendment to your proposal, but only because I personal seem to create articles that produce polarised voting, so from personal experience can see where there have been articles with 15+ plus votes shot down by narrowminded individuals who think that Uncyclopedia isn't a place were dark or twisted humour should be highlighted. We also should have some sort of right to bear arms. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Have you considered that it's because you're an artiste? It's like that series Extras, which I haven't seen because it's foreign and people from other countries frighten me, where you can be a artist (broke but respected) or popular (rich and a sell-out). There there. You'll make it to the Hall of Shame, someday. There there. Someday, you'll even be in the top three. Wait, you're Mhaille! Jackass. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take the moral highground and the life of an artiste. Oh wait, I'm Mhaille! Jackass. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I always liked your artisic-ness. Oh wait, you're Mhaille! Jackass. Yay, bandwagons are fun. -- furry Ape (shave) (Riot Porn) 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You can afford to earn respect now, just like Adam Sandler did or Alfred Nobel. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"It's interesting that the presidential elections were mentioned. There are no against votes, only for votes, but Nader still never gets elected." - well all I have to say that, is: look at who did get elected. George Bush, by the way. George Bush got elected. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 20:58, 07 Aug 2008

Also, Nader never gets elected because he's got less charisma than a clam. I like the guy, what with his Defender of the Public Good status and raw, animal magnetism, but hearing him speak makes me sleepy. The closest he will ever get to power was during the Carter administration, and that was just close enough to do a few things that quickly got rolled back by Reagan and his "Trickle-down" economics. But seriously, folks, Reagan was a patriot and a hero and I have nothing but the highest respect for the well-meaning but functionally retarded tool. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

America, what a country!

The reason Bush got elected is because of the two-party system, not because of the voting system. -- furry Ape (shave) (Riot Porn) 22:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No. The reason Bush got elected is because the two parties are so similar that an election can result in essentially a tie. When abortion and gay rights are the defining focal points of which party someone votes for, something has gone terribly wrong. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to America! - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:26, Aug 8

Loooost in America! Loooost in America! Loooost in America! LOST! -Alice Cooper

I'm so bo-o-ored with the USA! -The Clash

An idea

This is going to sound like I'm being sarcastic, but I mean this. How about we lose VFH. I mean just kill it. No more voting. Instead, every day an admin hits random page, and highlights the page that comes up. We could add a rule that stubs, redirects and articles currently on VFD don't count, but aside from that, bam! front page. Not that long ago, this wouldn't have been a practical possibility - if you hit random page ten times you'd get nine pieces of crap - but I just hit random page five times in a row and got four full length, illustrated articles and a redirect page. Good odds, I think.

This would have two effects: firstly, it would ensure that Features articles are representative of the diverse range of subject and style seen on Uncyc. Secondly, it would mean an end to to all the pointless, tiresome bickering about "the current state of VFH" that happens every other month. Sorry Ape, I don't think there is a CRISIS, or even a crisis. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 08:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets kill Cap'n Ben before anyone notices.... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Cap'n, but then people would have to find something else to bitch about. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

They can just start bitching about having nothing to bitch about. -RAHB 08:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's the worst! I was telling the wife just the other night about how bad it was that I didn't have anything to bitch about. She replied that she's leaving me. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

How about we bitch about... uh... meringue? Hm, this is harder than I thought. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 08:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Meringue? 'Round these parts, we don't cotton to them foreign dances. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 09:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Two points - 1) Would there still be the drive to write funny articles if we removed VFH 2) - Surely there ought to be some process which does reward the best here (maybe just writer awards though) --Knucmo2 19:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Now you're going to hear my thoughts.

I've found VFH extremely discouraging. Extremely discouraging. VFH is where I go (or even where I'm taken against my will) so that people can tell me I'm a fucking idiot. I mean, look at this shit.

• Against. Read this through more than once, hoping to find a laugh I'd missed. Wilfully odd, but just furrowed my brow rather than making me laugh.
• Sorry Couldn't get much more of a meh from me.
• Nah Stupid more than funny...
• Nah Quite stupid but not funny stupid.
• Against. - kills Braincells
• Against Rather boring and stale in its delivery, it could be a lot better.
• Ugh We get it. Your dog is gay and black. People don't like him because he's gay and black. Riveting.

And half of these are comments on articles that did get featured! So, it's like: wow, guys, if you think I'm an idiot crashing around on this site fucking everything up and being boring, stale, stupid, quite stupid, killing brain cells, and being the opposite of riveting, then, fuck, maybe you're implying I should go fuck up ED for a while.

And from what I've read, I have a lower against-to-for ratio than most, around here. You've got to have really thick skin if you want anything you write featured. I'm not sure that the funniest people in the world are always those with the thickest skin. We may be chasing off some damn good writers.

In conclusion, I don't support getting rid of against votes. What I'd like to get rid of is the comments on against votes. I'd like all against votes to look like this:

•  Against. pillow talk 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it would be even better still if we commented out the Against votes so they were only visible in the edit page, and all you saw otherwise was a number.

I'd also like editors to be encouraged to remove any snipes that might appear in the Comments box. Polite explanations, maybe. Encouragement, sure. Suggestions, definitely. Unsolicited compliments, absolutely. Snipes, no. If you want to make an hilarious sarcastic comment about a crappy article, try VFD instead.

Now you have heard my thoughts. pillow talk 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nasty against votes are uncalled for, but against votes should have a reason if the person wants to explain. It's through constructive criticism that one learns to write better. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 22:29 Aug 12, 2008

I've seen constructive criticism attached to an against vote maybe... twice, in the months I've been here. And that can certainly go in the comments box. pillow talk 22:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Against. Lacks pictures. It's just a wall of text. Unfortunately, except for a couple of giggles, little in that wall stands out as something worthy of the mainpage. (VFH isn't meant to be vicious. Nor, it must be said, is it meant to be supportive. It's meant to select pages for feature. (Un)Natural selection is cruel, sometimes. Six of the seven "poor" reasons on your rather listey list, by the way, are perfectly valid. I'll leave it up to you to choose which six). Try to fill out the page more, with paragraphs rather than points, add pics, links and categories, and I'd be willing to reconsider my vote. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that any of those against votes were invalid. All seven look valid to me. All I'm saying is that they were demoralizing and made me disinclined to choose Uncyclopedia over TES4:Oblivion for a week or so. And there are editors with even thinner skin than me. pillow talk 23:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't blame you for choosing Oblivion over anything. I'm glad my CD mysteriously stopped working, or I wouldn't be here right now. -RAHB 23:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So...you went neurotic and took it personally. Congratulations, son, today you are a writer. I've been here since Nineteen Ought Seven, and I'm still that way. If this pattern is common among users, in a year you will be completely bald. All over. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So yeah, I gave that first comment you mention. I certainly didn't intend it to discourage, and I'm sorry if it did. I actually like getting against comments - unless they're really offensive, I prefer them to ones with no comment, because then I just wonder why the hell they voted that way. If I know why people voted against, I can either try to rectify that in the article in question, or avoid the problem in a subsequent article. Or just ignore their comment because I completely disagree with it, whatever. That said, I haven't had many against votes, so I suppose that might change if I started getting a lot (and I don't mention that to be smug, or anything). For me, wilfully odd is a good thing, by the way. I really wanted to find something to laugh at in that article, and was disappointed in myself when I didn't... No matter what you produce, someone's gonna dislike it. In conclusion, I really could go for a waffle right about now. --UU - natter 08:10, Aug 13

No, no worries, UU. Several of those votes were left by some of my favorite editors, actually. I'm not holding any grudges about them - I'm just saying it might be better for the project as a whole if people didn't leave comments - any comments - in the against box. pillow talk 15:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, in writing, sometimes the truth hurts. But you have to hear the truth, no matter how blunt, to get better. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 08:22 Aug 13, 2008

The typical against comment is something like Bleah - didn't laugh at all. How on earth is that going to make anybody's writing better? And, like I said, on the rare occasions that someone does have constructive criticism, there's a whole comments box worth of real estate. pillow talk 15:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather hear that than just "Against." At least that way you know where the vote's coming from. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 16:19, Aug 13

"Dude, in writing, sometimes the truth hurts. But you have to hear the truth, no matter how blunt, to get better." My. Ass. Somebody above said that nowadays we're only going to get the thick-skinned funny people writing articles in the future, and I really believe that to be true; either that, or only the people who already have awards will write. Take Gert5 for instance: his nomination of his article seemed kinda desperate and low-self-esteemish, and uh, we kinda treated him like assholes. How is being "blunt" going to help him? I hate against votes: they rarely ever help!   Le Cejak • <16:27, 13 Aug 2008>

Helping with writing and helping with the way the site runs are two different things. You're right about Gert, I mean I thought nomming the VFH nom was funny, but things like "useless user" definitely go too far (though I'm pretty confident Gert himself will get right back up next week and keep trying, that's just how he is). But for against votes "helping", they help to make sure that the article that goes up on the main page every day can be seen as the community as a whole as what we think should have been put up. If you were at an office meeting, and the boss said "Ok, here's the proposal for the new product, but please, only speak if you think it's the greatest thing ever, otherwise get out," that is not productive behavior, and therefore it does not help. -RAHB 16:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have all the time in the world for people who put the effort in. People like Gert, and the many other unsung heroes of this site keep coming back and keep contributing, often despite some very ill-mannered comments from some sources. One of the events that still brings a tear to my eye was my small involvement in helping Kakun to get his first featured article here, after putting up with years of abuse over his "art work". I'm only surprised that other people took that long to recognise some of the quality of his contributions. Maybe we should have a "takes a kickin' but keeps on tickin'" award to celebrate some of these contributors. Either that or we can just stop getting so personal and actually help people and their projects. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

RAHB, I agree with everything you said, but you're talking about against votes, not against comments. The votes help keep the site high-quality. The comments just seem like an opportunity to kick another editor in the teeth. pillow talk 17:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh I understand your point, and perhaps you're right that we should keep to less personalized vote comments for against votes (perhaps votes in general). My whole paragraph there was against the idea that against votes should be completely removed. They serve a purpose, indeed. The issues at hand are two separate ones though, and you bring up valid points about against comments. I'd still like to see a comment here and there in the against box, but perhaps have a rule along the lines of the "if you can't say anything nice" style of things. Votes are stricken if the criticism they offer is not constructive, or some such like that. The first argument was that against votes serve no purpose and should best be gotten rid of, and I have to stand by my assertion that that is not the way to go with it. -RAHB 19:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of removing offensive comments, but I guess the trouble is how would that be judged? MrN 19:27, Aug 13

"Blatant sarcasm, insult, attacks, and non-constructive criticism in against votes (or anywhere for that matter) will be duly dealt with, and may be stricken if seen fit." Something like that at the top of the VFH page, I suppose. -RAHB 19:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm the only one not afraid of getting my writing beaten on? I prefer that, myself. It helps me know what to improve, even if it is just an idiotic comment. And if I think the comment is totally uncalled for and untrue, then how's it going to bother me? I love you all, guys, but suck it up. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 19:37 Aug 13, 2008

"Voters: don't be dicks and do be constructive with criticism. Writers: Don't be prima donnas. Be open to criticism." -- it's already up there... - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:40, Aug 13

People should have the option of voting against without needing to justify their reasons. If you just want to vote against, and leave your sig with no comment, that's OK... If you want to offer constructive criticism that's obviously OK also, but I think we are on dodgy ground with removing comments. How many actual "Blatant sarcasm, insult, attacks" do we actually see? MrN 19:42, Aug 13

Well, I'm all for making as many people happy as possible. My personal opinion is that it shouldn't matter what some guy on the internet thinks about my work, he's just some normal guy, sitting at his computer, critiquing stuff, posting what he feels he should post, etc. There seems to be ample complaint about it though, why is beyond me, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say "if you're not going to add to the discussion, post your against vote and move on." After all, we're talking about what works best and what functions best. If there's going to be any modification to voting policy, that would be the only one I could see as useful in any way. However, I'm just fine with it how it is too, as like I said, the guy posting "Meh This sucks" is just some normal guy like me, sitting at his computer halfway across the world, critiquing based on his own code of humor. His opinion really has no affect on my day-to-day confidence, as I am my own person and am free to make that decision on my own. That's something a lot of people probably need to learn and understand before they start writing for an openly editable wiki, but as stands, we seem to have a lot of complaint with it. So I propose dealing with it in the most compromisable way possible. -RAHB 19:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooh? Do I get a header to put my thoughts under so everyone can ignore/flame them too? Awesome!!

Writing is fun. Writing is not easy. In fact, if it was, it wouldn't be fun.

I find it ironic that we sit around complaining about the quality of the site going down, and yet we also want to get rid of or "soften"  against votes. Somehow, it seems a bit contradictory to me.

If you want writing to improve, patting ourselves on the back all the time isn't going to do shit. It doesn't give you anywhere to go. When is someone less likely to try a new idea - when they know they might get voted against for it, or if they know their old idea was praised so highly they ought to just do the same thing again?

A community of people that say "Oh! You're a great writer!" to one another all the time is every bit as bad, if not worse, than a community that says "You suck!" At least when you get told "You suck!", you get the motivation to change and try new things. When you get told "Wow! You're amazing!", you're just going to reach a point where you get into a groove that works and that's the end of it.

The only reason why I keep writing (off-site, mostly) is because I have people that tell me it sucks. I have people that tell me it's good and all that too - and sure, I probably wouldn't keep writing if it wasn't for them, I'll admit - but the people that tell me it's shit, well, they just give me motivation to try a different angle, or to improve upon something. I wouldn't be writing anymore if it wasn't for the people that disliked my writing.

By being overly kind, we take away the challenge. And that's why I don't write here much anymore. Seriously. It's not challenging. It was when I was a n00b and I felt I had to prove myself - that was challenging, it was fun, it was interesting. Now? I'm half-tempted to make a sock account and start again, really. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 19:48 Aug 13, 2008

All your articles are shit, and you suck at writing. Now go write another feature, and make it snappy. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:51, Aug 13

I would, if I wasn't off challenging myself with another form of writing... ;) – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 19:55 Aug 13, 2008

But... but... you suck... you... you really suck? Please come write for us! You suck! We hate you! Please! - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:23, Aug 13

Oh, I'll be back all right, but I won't be alone... – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 20:24 Aug 13, 2008

He forgot to mention the bridal march playing when he enters, arm-in-arm with a half-undead chick. -RAHB 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, young love. Is there anything more repulsive? -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:04, 13 Aug

Why, to whom are you referring, RAHB? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:43, Aug 13

Elvira, of course. -RAHB 20:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd. No one here looks like an Oak Ridge Boy. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Somebody make this section the new welcome message, put it on VFH and VFP, and put it in the sitenotice. That is all. -RAHB 19:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Yes to all of this. The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 19:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)