Forum:I am back and also SoS
(Let me) Tremble, you fuckers.
User:Multiliteralist/SoS If my explanations there don't seem enough, ask away. My aim there is simply to try and organise articles in dramatic serials so that the reading experience is funnier to the reader. Based on my first impression of Uncyc back in --- what the fuck, was it 2007? I mean, the linking was a great idea but generally too boring because no continuity was involved. Some people apparently had tried to, early on, but what the hell. Let's retry. Serves as inspiration for writing as well. See my Platypus-thingies for sample of how it can work. It's only a start of a campaign because I was on my way out at the time.
-- Style 
Guide 22:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Do you mean article series like Bloodbath, Disney Empire, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. or something entirely new? MadMax (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Whatever works - and anything can be made to. My point is to establish links that are not just links but carry some signifigance to the implied author(s), i.e. "I think Flying Spaghetti Monsters are a risk to national security" ; "Anyone who thinks F. S. M:s are a risk to national security is a risk to national security himself" ; "We really should stop talking about the relation of F. S. M:s to national security - the whole planet is at risk!" ; "The whole idea is a plot conceived by hippies, gays and other environmentalists" ; "Who will save us from F. S. M:s?" et cetera et cetera. All of the above - of course - written as newspieces/articles/whatevers to look like it was done for real reasons. This can parody the whole media system rather than seek for a single joke, and can be milked indefinitely or until it ceases to be funny (Sceptic Eternal says: "Yeah 5 minutes"). -- Style
Guide 06:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I had a quick look at Flying Spaghetti Monster and it's partway to what I have in mind. I think controversy between interest groups is one key to amusing serials. Articles themselves would be the deep study of what happens quickly in UnNewses and UnNews columns (which must stand for TV shows since we don't own the airwaves - yet). If Uncyclopedia is a cornucopia of misinformation, let's insert people who use the misinformation, in other words. They can be implied - or when it seems funny we can create personae (publish articles over their lives, use them as UnNews columnists, other ideas?). Also, real people can be made to participate the way we did with the above-mentioned Platypus article whenever that works. Also, there is an UnNews "Readers' letters" isn't there? It can be used too. One more thing: I think this will also make shorter articles work better. If they work with a series, it doesn't matter much how long they are. More clicking, more fun. We want to appear busy when we surf. Also and in any case, this requires nothing special on anyone's part - but if you want your article to appear inside a larger entity, built on, shot down by another article, appear as base for an UnNews etc., just leave a link on USER:Multiliteralist/SoS. Additional constructional ideas are also welcome there. And if you really want to be helpful, discuss on there what you're doing for/against someone's article and/or its implied author, and others can more easily take sides if they like the particular idea. But that's not necessary. -- Style Guide 06:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Tell me when it's a sale - otherwise I'll ramble on indefinitely or until it ceases to be useful (Yeah 5 minutes). But yet another thing came to mind: my personal experience is I write better when I try to support or shoot down something. It makes me look harder for reasons that might appeal to the reader. Also, the style probably tends to become more persuasive (in this context that can be funny) if one can conjure up a feeling that this is what he must fight for/against. Isn't it true? Am I not right? Please say it is so! -- Style Guide 06:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that I properly appreciated this idea when it was first proposed years ago, as my knowledge of satire was only still developing at the time. Looking on it now years later I understand exactly what you're meaning and it sounds bloody brilliant to me. I'd like to see what somebody can do with my recent Whale bones article, which I'll explain in further detail on the SoS page. Taking the satire of the entire media structure a step further, that article uses surrealism and non-sequitor to make various scientific claims that to the reader paying attention are obviously not true but are presented in the manner that a periodical of any normal kind might report them (although at times perhaps in a surrealistic alternate universe of some sort). Using instances of ideas such as this can add an extra layer of satire, parodying the very process of their conception itself, if that makes any sense. I can't promise I'll be burning up the midnight oil on this project, as I'm currently involved in several exciting musical projects IRL that are stimulating similar regions of my brain, but I fully support this and intend to contribute as often as possible. -RAHB 10:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Tell me when it's a sale - otherwise I'll ramble on indefinitely or until it ceases to be useful (Yeah 5 minutes). But yet another thing came to mind: my personal experience is I write better when I try to support or shoot down something. It makes me look harder for reasons that might appeal to the reader. Also, the style probably tends to become more persuasive (in this context that can be funny) if one can conjure up a feeling that this is what he must fight for/against. Isn't it true? Am I not right? Please say it is so! -- Style
- I had a quick look at Flying Spaghetti Monster and it's partway to what I have in mind. I think controversy between interest groups is one key to amusing serials. Articles themselves would be the deep study of what happens quickly in UnNewses and UnNews columns (which must stand for TV shows since we don't own the airwaves - yet). If Uncyclopedia is a cornucopia of misinformation, let's insert people who use the misinformation, in other words. They can be implied - or when it seems funny we can create personae (publish articles over their lives, use them as UnNews columnists, other ideas?). Also, real people can be made to participate the way we did with the above-mentioned Platypus article whenever that works. Also, there is an UnNews "Readers' letters" isn't there? It can be used too. One more thing: I think this will also make shorter articles work better. If they work with a series, it doesn't matter much how long they are. More clicking, more fun. We want to appear busy when we surf. Also and in any case, this requires nothing special on anyone's part - but if you want your article to appear inside a larger entity, built on, shot down by another article, appear as base for an UnNews etc., just leave a link on USER:Multiliteralist/SoS. Additional constructional ideas are also welcome there. And if you really want to be helpful, discuss on there what you're doing for/against someone's article and/or its implied author, and others can more easily take sides if they like the particular idea. But that's not necessary. -- Style
- Whatever works - and anything can be made to. My point is to establish links that are not just links but carry some signifigance to the implied author(s), i.e. "I think Flying Spaghetti Monsters are a risk to national security" ; "Anyone who thinks F. S. M:s are a risk to national security is a risk to national security himself" ; "We really should stop talking about the relation of F. S. M:s to national security - the whole planet is at risk!" ; "The whole idea is a plot conceived by hippies, gays and other environmentalists" ; "Who will save us from F. S. M:s?" et cetera et cetera. All of the above - of course - written as newspieces/articles/whatevers to look like it was done for real reasons. This can parody the whole media system rather than seek for a single joke, and can be milked indefinitely or until it ceases to be funny (Sceptic Eternal says: "Yeah 5 minutes"). -- Style
I think a lot of older editors (myself included) can relate to that. It's a tad outdated but there's a list of incomplete articles series at UN:REQ if it helps at all. Maybe {{Sunalphabet}} and a few others have some potential? MadMax (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Concisetyviness
The requested articles -thingy is not exactly what I have in mind. I'm more after something like hysterical campaigns for and against something, anything - because I think the drama involved in an issue is often far more fun than the issue itself. -- Style Guide 07:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)