Forum:Against!

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Against!

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5930 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I've been throwing this idea around for a while. What if we could not vote against in VFH, we could only vote for or abstain? If you don't like an article, either don't vote or abstain and be forced to say why. Think about it: articles would still fail at the rate of one a day, duh, and there would be less ill-will going around. Maybe it would make VFH look more inviting to noobs as a result, but that's not a bad thing... What'dya think?   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 30) 14:56

Than, what do we with terrbile articles that should be removed immediately with a score of -3?--Æ 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We raise the standards for putting something in VFH. If a noob doesn't know them, their terrible article is gone.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 30) 15:03

 bloody Cajek. But seriously, I think there is nothing wrong with voting against as long as you state your reason and refrain from saying -  this article suxxess and is the worstest. I hope Cajek will get pwnd by the French. Or something. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it's against. Of course, I'll make sure this law applies for my articles. ~ Mordillo where is my TAMPONS? 15:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I think one would vote against by not voting at all for, Mordillo!   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 30) 15:04

There is a big difference between passive against and active against. According to this approach, an article might be featured when you have 16 people voting for and 3453 passively voting against. ~ Mordillo where is my TAMPONS? 15:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

True... but that's not how it works in regular vfh, anyway. In December, for example, you get an average of 19 voters overall in any case. "passively against" sounds kinda like they wouldn't vote either way anyway.   Le Cejak • <-> (Dec 30) 15:09

Cajek: "We raise the standards for putting something in VFH..." Yes, but but but...Who evaluates articles and enforces those standards? For that matter, how do we define workable standards in the face of the subjectivity that accompanies humor writing? (Not that I'm a negative, pessimistic, flatulent old bastard...) On the other hand, you have a very good point: it's simple to sabotage an article's chance for success without any particularly good reason. Against. Sux. is all you need. Maybe a compromise would be, You can vote AGAINST but unless you write two specific, coherent sentences explaining what's wrong with the article then your vote will be deleted. Then again, we could just feature a different SaveTheMooses article every day and forget about any VFH voting at all. ----OEJ 17:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So, mooses got to you, did he? Oh, and I'm voting against Cajek's idea. His parents were hippies. Cajek's real name is lemon sunbeam moondrop (no caps). True story. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It was dark. He grabbed me by my predicate and shoved a sharp adjective into my verb. It hurt so much...I caved in. Now I feel all sullied, like someone put a dead carp down my trousers and made me hop on one foot to Milwaukee. These writers, they're worse than Tony Soprano. ----OEJ 01:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they are still better than Tony! Toni! Tone!. *shudder* Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Against. Sorry Cajek, ol' buddy, I think the need is there to be able to distinguish between articles you're merely not bothered about and those you actively feel should not be featured. I do think that in an ideal world it would be nice to have coherent against reasons from everyone who votes that way, but I can't see it happening as it would be a pain in the arse to police and possibly lead to more drama. If someone againsts your article without a valid reason, ask them for one - what's the worst that can happen? You may end up getting a useful suggestion for improving the thing (or you may get called "gay gay gay"). --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 20:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I very rarely vote against stuff on VFH. If I don't think something is particularly funny, I normally don't vote at all, mainly because it's hard to explain my feelings constructively. I still, however, need the against option for when something is actively bad, or has a practical/constructive reason for not being featured. So, in conclusion: what Under User said. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  23:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

 If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's hell enough to get people to vote on VFH as is. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:43 Dec 30, 2007

Ibidem

Itslym – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 03:21 Dec 31, 2007