Forum:My good bye rant ahead of time.

Forums: Index > Village Dump > My good bye rant ahead of time.

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5398 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Someone, I think Hyperbole, expressed a wish that I write a semi-literate rant on my way out. Here it is now! Note that if you are a dogmatic person - or something we not-so-dogmatic writers refer to as a tight-arsed motherfucking nitpicker - you might want to read this only after the article UnBooks:The da Vinci Fuckup is in mainspace. That will be my cue to fuck off. I'm only writing this now so I won't have to log on to reply to your snide comments later. I really want to reply to your snide comments.

So, if you are not dogmatic, let's go down.

My reason for leaving this excellent shite

Those who have absolutely no idea why I'm leaving, here is a summary

"VOTE LIKE YOU WERE FRIENDS WITH THE OTHER WRITERS, YOU COCKSUCKING TWITS!!" 

"VOTE LIKE YOU WERE FRIENDS WITH THE OTHER WRITERS, YOU COCKSUCKING TWITS!!" --    14:13, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

If that did not make it clear, an explanation is here

• I'm a man who likes to co-operate with others
• I don't like unnecessary abrasion
• This shite should be about humour
• Humour should be about fun
• Humour should not be about who gets the last word

If that did not make it clear either, a further explanation can be found here. You don't have to read it to leave a snide comment!

I came, I saw and I reacted. The reaction was to write a forum thread about how you should not go near VFH when you haven't had an orgasm for days, you have a hangover, and/or your own self-importance is just about to suffocate you and all the others around you. I'm amazed I really needed to explain it to some people who obviously think they are intelligent.

I went on to explain I don't mean you should vote FOR an obviously bad article. For instance, I just now voted AGAINST on Bad Nigger Attitude myself on these grounds: If it had anything to prevent the Ku Klux Klan from wanking over it, I would vote FOR.

What I fucking mean is:

If you see an article that doesn't make you laugh, or you don't understand for some reason, AND see a bunch of obviously intelligent people voting FOR, do you really think you should act all important and vote against? Well, of course you do. I have seen it a kazillion times. At least a hundred. In such a case -if you really can't bring yourself to vote FOR - abstain WITHOUT VOTING is the non-abrasive - and correct - thing to do. This is my firm opinion on the matter since I'm not a self-important dick. At least, I don't want to look like one.

I further point out this:

This is not about my own fucking articles. If you take a look, I have nominated only two of my own articles, and one indirectly. All three of those were nominated to get nitpickers to come out and start picking. I never imagined any of the articles would get featured, and I wouldn't even like them to. In fact, if you're a nitpicker, go vote them down now. It sores my eyes to see such utter rubbish on VFH. This Forum thread is about articles I, and many others, have happened to like - and even about those I haven't particularly liked, but which I felt were unnecessarily voted down. The most ridiculous examples are articles with 10 for, 10 against, and 10 comments explaining the what and the why. Forget that shit, let others have their fun, and write another article. And vote again tomorrow.

An interlude

Yeah y'all: It isn't about fucking his articles! MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 18:00, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

I totally laughed at this one! So - did you read any further than this point? -- Style  Guide 18:36, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Yeah, of course. It's just that this seemed like the best place for a funny one-line affirmation that wouldn't piss anyone off. I gotta say, I agree with your stance. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 18:40, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Didn't piss me off, and I seem to remember you did before. Nice to know. -- Style  Guide 18:52, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

I pissed you off before? How dare you! You have disgraced my honour, Jose! MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 18:58, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Now it looks like "hose" since you left out the accént from the e. So you disgralified my humour, too. How do you plead? -- Style  Guide 19:11, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

I plead Quasimoto cause I like hunchbacks. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 14:46, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

That would be Quasimodo. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:13, 26 Dec 2009

I had a Quasimoto back in high school. Nice motorbike. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:02, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

What happened with the forum then

Nobody Cared--    14:17, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

So then, I got a couple of replies, the general reaction was a resounding "We don't care", and since TheLedBalloon had just told people to vote against on VFH for the slightest of reasons, he closed the thread down. I just about told him in chat I was sorry I had gone preaching, and forgot about it. Then I came up with the Portals idea to get some of my feeling back but it didn't last too long.

Foitermore

I went a bit too far to drag Romartus to argue against me on the Classical Satire talk page. It was all for the ride, I was not in the least bit interested in the result of the argument. Romartus, sorry that it had to be you. You don't have to reply to the last question, the article has no subject at all. The same goes for ChiefJustice, but he proved a one-line guy. Thanks for the help, both of you. Also, this is not (only) about Romartus. It's about some other people - here and there, too many to be named - who all of a sudden, out of the blue, stand up and act important. You may recognise yourself and if you do, well, great. Do you have a life too?

If you have problems concentrating, read only this

Do everyone a favour and think, when you go to vote, if the article in question really is about your sense of humour against someone else's. If it really is only that - or some other minor point like a comma in your arse - (and/or if you're uncertain about it) and/or you see obviously smart people voting FOR, do this: either vote FOR or piss off without comment. Also, I'm not talking about typos here. If the article has those or some such, tell the author to correct the article and re-nominate. Is that hard? You will improve the main thing of the site: the process of getting articles featured. The one thing that gives the most satisfaction to most of us. Positive feedback is what makes things go forward, negative feedback drives people like me out of places. That is all. And if you're an incurable nitpicker, don't accidentally hang yourself on the christmas tree wires while trying to show your relatives how it should be decorated.

Why oh why is VFH so important to me, if I'm smart - like I think I am?

1. I don't know if I'm smart or not. I might be a blithering idiot.
2. Everything is relative. The main page is relatively important to the site, everything else is a consolation prize.
3. If the nitpickers and smart-arses see it as important, why shouldn't I? Am I dumber or smarter than them, on the average? I don't think so.
4. I like to think it's not about the main page but the attitude. Bitching ruins the spirit of the place.

As a conclusion

I'll be checking back if this piece of writing has any effect on the site. If it doesn't, I don't want any part of it. I'm not even sure I will be leaving snide comments on the Forum although I promised to.

-- Style  Guide 10:45, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah note that you can now whine about the organisation of this page! -- Style  Guide 10:47, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

I almost forgot - leave snide comments below this line, please.

Here's the place! -- Style  Guide 12:54, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Normally I'd say, "What he said," but I generally don't care about the voting process on articles so instead I'll say, "What are 'Christmas tree wires?'  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  14:26, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

The wires that lead electricity to the little lights on the Christmas tree, by my definition as of now. Hey! The comment was supposed to be snide! Add a snide one to remedy the situation, please. -- Style  Guide 15:07, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I'm disappointed that "Christmas tree wires" turned out to be "the cord for Christmas tree lights" as I've begun the process of suspending my Christmas tree from the ceiling with pulleys and bailing wire because I thought it was a cool idea. But I like you so I suggest the following edit: "And if you're an incurable nitpicker, don't go ahead and accidentally hang yourself with your Christmas tree lights while smugly trying to show your stupider incompetent relatives how you 'think' the tree should be decorated properly done!" ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  22:27, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Nobody expects the anti-against vote inquisition! --Mn-z 17:38, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get the impression this is an anti-against rant? You really should learn to pay closer attention. -- Style  Guide 11:58, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Wait...is this for real? —Paizuri MUN (Talk • Contribs • Poll!) 18:49, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

That's not snide either! What's with you people? Yes it's for real. I seriously mean what I say. I wouldn't waste an hour to write an angry unfunny rant otherwise. Not my idea of a joke. -- Style  Guide 18:54, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

I laughed out loud reading that. You're really funny, Multi. (Which is why I'd want you to stay.) —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 19:38, 20 December 2009

Socky - if that was snide, it was murder. If you mean it, thanks. But like I said it's not about me or my articles. I know I'm generally accepted, I haven't felt the least bit bad here. But if I think something is wrong and I cannot correct it, I will not stay and watch it remain wrong for the rest of my life. -- Style  Guide 19:50, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Snide alert: Should we just occasionally E-mail you a report then? ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  22:27, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Close but no turnip! While the comment indeed is snide, you're apparently shooting in the wrong direction. I didn't feel a proper sting! -- Style  Guide 06:17, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Unfurnished 2-Bed, One Bath. No Dogs.--    14:27, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

• Against. Too long (too much filler, mostly), formatting issues, needs links and pics. It seems more angry than funny, more chafing than satirical. Simply put, it's unfinished, and what's there is more appropriate to your facebook page, you pathetic emo you. The subject is good, but the text supporting it fails to rise above the mediocre talent of its author. Look, I'm not trying to be insulting. All I'm saying is that your reach exceeds your grasp for a reason. That reason being: you've got stubby little arms. Spend some more time on it, get the basics down solid, get a Pee Review, then bring it back. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:07, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Now here we have a proper snide comment in the third degree. What should I respond? OMFG IMA ALL BLANK. Got it! NO U!!!

Wait you also aim at the walls. What the fuck is keeping the actual snideties? -- Style  Guide 06:17, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

That's about as mean as I get. I could try to be more insulting, but to be honest your intellect is so shallow and your personality is so bland that there's nothing there to grab on to. It's like trying to snub beige. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:41, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

WOO-HOO! Wait - I have no retorts. This left me totally out in the fuck. I have been preparing to reply to snide comments with scathing wit for more than a whole day now, and when I finally get one, I go all flat. Great. -- Style  Guide 06:54, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Story of my life, bro... —Paizuri MUN (Talk • Contribs • Poll!) 07:53, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on here. But, since I see my name up there, I'm going to assume this thread is about how awesome I am. Therefore, thank you, multiliteralist, for admitting to my awesomeness. It means a lot to have my world-view reaffirmed, probably. Also, I don't remember closing any threads down, but I do remember some thread I made about abstaining--namely, one asking people not to do it, because if an article is worth reading all the way through, it's probably at least worth a vote one way or the other, and as an author I hate seeing people on VFH waving at me to let me know that yes, they read my page, but no, they don't have anything to say about it. In conclusion, EVERYBODY GO HERE VOTE NOW! - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 01:16, Dec 22

You did close it down - and actually offered to reopen it, but I declined since I thought: if one of the admins feel that way, what use would be to continue the discussion? Also I didn't want possible drama, and someone else was forcefully against as well. Now I've decided that if I don't want to start feeling nauseous every time I see the names of this voter or that - who vote against on some "principle" - I'll do best to leave the site. -- Style  Guide 07:53, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

User:The Woodburninator/RulesVsFunny? Sounds like you have the classic case of, "You dislike many of the same things that I, Woody, do as well." Welcome brother. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 15:38, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! We should all start a club or something, oh; wait... I forgot.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  06:42, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

This part doesn't have anything to do with my leaves

Page whoring? Oh, Mooses... Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:56, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

AND IT'S... YOU! UH... THAT ONE... GUY! -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 03:25, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Lies! You're not Mooses! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:28, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it! -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 07:47, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's obvious. My moose call works. Eventually. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:06, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

SNIDE. --Reverse Genocide Cockatrices 02:53, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

You think that is a snide? THIS IS A SNIDE! (Sorry I dropped it but there it was.) -- Style  Guide 07:54, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

A Header, Because I Felt Like It

An inappropriate photo that has nothing to do with this conversation.......mostly.--    14:05, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

What, you mean we should remove our against votes on, say, Uncyclopedia:VFH/User:Mhaille (for want of a better example as I'm far too lazy to find one), because some smart types have voted for? Cobblers. While I'm right alongside giving decent against reasons, and not being insulting about it, an against vote is a valid vote, including against articles that other, decent/"smart" contributors have voted for. This is called democracy, or something similarly liberal and dangerous. It's also important. Withholding an against vote because someone else has voted for is one of the worst reasons I have ever heard - if you have a different opinion to someone else, however smart they might be, express that opinion: you have a right to it. Maybe just do so in an amiable fashion - overly nasty against votes piss me off. --UU - natter 11:49, Dec 22

<BREAK>

I'm not sure where to start with this, might as well agree with UU because he's obviously intelligent and very attractive (after having read what UU said, I do agree, except liberalism isn't dangerous). But seriously, it isn't self important to say "I don't find this funny", what is self important is creating a forum topic that you expect people to take as seriously as, say, a VFH vote, which I at least take some time to think about. In my obviously intelligent opinion the point of VFH is to select articles to represent the site, if you don't find the article funny then vote against. If the majority of our regular users don't like it, then it shouldn't be featured. And a note to anyone else that cares, I don't have time for my christmas event. It's officially abandoned. Back properly in the new year, hopefully.    Orian57    Talk   09:40 23 December 2009

Exactly what I said. ☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃ 09:44 December 23

Thanks for opinions - I took it elsewhere since this was too ranty already for starters. -- Style  Guide 09:47, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes almost forgot: this is what I wrote on UU:s talk page last night: Almost forgot - none of those joke nominations (Essay..., the Pee thereof, and Classical Satire - yes that too) had nothing to do with my decision to leave. Too bad they coincided, it gives a false impression of my intentions. On the other hand, they go nicely hand in hand to shed light on the stiffness of the site. Well Classical Satire was only half a joke-nom: I half thought it had feature potential since it wasn't intentionally bad. It was just intentionally sardonic, which I thought people would notice. Not many did, it seems. -- Style  Guide 10:07, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

<BREAK>

Yes I know you think like that - have known for some time - and you also know I disagree. So, against. Justifying dickery is easy. You just come up with a reason like: "I'm being democratic LOL" or "I don't think this is good for the site", or "THIS IS NOT HUMOUR! HUMOUR IS LIKE THIS ARTICLE HERE!!!", or "...while the intent of the article was clearly humorous the delivery was lacking in the third paragraph, first sentence". Note that you don't even need to give a sample of what would have been better there, since you're just being democratic. All I'm trying to tell those who really aren't certain is: if you see someone find a smart-looking reason to dick about - it's not necessarily smart. It might just be dickery all the same. AND: if you're smart enough to make up your own mind, you should also be smart enough to spot if it really is just about your own sense of humour. Not voting against in such cases requires character. -- Style  Guide 11:57, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Again, dickery is different - there may be, can be, are valid reasons to vote against, even if some "smart" users vote For. And while there is the occasional dickish against vote, most of the time, if the article deserves feature, the For votes will overcome them. If an article gets a bunch of for and against votes, there is usually a pretty decent reason for it. What you are saying is akin to saying "smart people are voting for this political party, so don't vote for a different party, because smart people are voting a different way. Which makes no sense. If you think someone is consistently voting against with dickish reasons (and I'd say most of the "reasons" you just listed are dickish), have a word with an admin - if they're being a twat, we can do things about that. But if they are just expressing their honest opinion, then they are entitled to do so. Otherwise, why don't we just feature every article that gets nominated? Someone found it funny... The point is, however strongly you and other "smart" people may feel an article should be featured, other people may feel just as strongly the other way, and that view is also valid. Look at Filial Piety for the ultimate example - smart people have voted for that before, so it should be featured, right? Finally, not voting against requires no character at all, it requires nothing. Voting against based on your own opinion, when not everyone shares it, now that requires character. --UU - natter 12:19, Dec 22

That didn't move me a bit. I still claim that not voting against when it's just about your sense of humour against someone else's really requires character. Try it some time. Furthermore, you accuse me, as a subtext of trying to turn this into some idiotic benevolent tyranny. That just sucks. Read closer. -- Style  Guide 12:22, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

No, because comedy is subjective, and my opinion, while not more valid than anyone else's, is as valid, and therefore I can express it. And I'm not accusing you of anything of the sort, I'm merely saying what the logical extent of people not expressing their opinion is. --UU - natter 12:27, Dec 22

Multiliteralist is a humorous relativist . --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 12:34, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Or a relative humourist ...--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 12:38, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

I replied to UU:s comment on his talk page since this was not going anywhere. Thanks all for participating, I'm done. -- Style  Guide 13:12, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't done yet. I don't mean myself as "smart people" there. I wouldn't be writing this rant if I had any brains. Now I'm done. Thanks. -- Style  Guide 13:50, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with UU here, otherwise we'd be featuring everything. Actually, I don't see how a only-for vote driven system would even work. If take out the against votes of the current system, and assuming the voting patterns don't change, we'd be featuring controversial (or even joke) noms and quasi-featuring many weak and flat out joke-nommed articles. Plus, the benefits of whoring will skyrocket. And, it would be confusing to noobs that decent article like Ussher (2 for, 2 abstain) would do worse than a joke nom like Uterus or GTFO! (7 for, 8 against) --Mn-z 16:58, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

All you'd have to tell them is a wizard did it, and they'd understand it all. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 17:17, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

VFH

I think we need someone to rephrase anything or everything that's been said into a straw man argument that the writer finds offensive because I think we're getting warmer here.--    14:36, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the images, doc - nominate the page now, will you? -- Style  Guide 15:20, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Mmmmmmmmmm, it's just missing that little bit of oomph at the moment. Mr Springer suggests having two overweight women charge at each other and rip each others hair and clothing over some adulterous, redneck boyfriend.--    15:33, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Hey! I ain't not never no adultrerer! I lerves them both, I does! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:58, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Another header, because UnderUser felt like it

I think what UU is saying is that any against vote that is well defended is a very important part of what I think is the main goal of VFH: to maximize the attractiveness of the front page. Even when the against is a matter of taste only, an against vote (an opinion) offered constructively and thoughtfully, contributes to the important pruning process. While I personally normally don't vote against when I can tell that it's a matter of taste (one will see that I rarely vote against because I know humor is subjective) I also understand that a large group of intelligent humorists can combine their tastes together to maximize the public experience of their collective work. I share your stance, Mulitliteralist, and this is how I behave. But if we demand that everyone take our stance on this concern, then we are being as self-important as the people offering their important opinions on VFH, but less helpfully, and less effectively. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 18:33, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

I'm not demanding anything. -- Style  Guide 19:33, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

An against vote-less system won't work. --Mn-z 19:39, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

And who was saying anything about taking away the against -vote? I told you already: you need to pay closer attention. -- Style  Guide 20:26, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my sin is reading too closely. A passive-aggressive "I'm leaving because of this" can be considered a veiled demand. If that sounds snide or accusatory, I apologize. I say it without vitriol. I would implore you to reconsider leaving, based on the perspective I offered. I realize it would take you allowing others to take part in the effort in a way you and I both disagree with, but you are a great contributor here, and I feel that preserving that benefit to the site is worth asking you to change your perspective a little. I don't like votes against based on taste either, but for the sake of the site, I can accept that others support the idea, and I don't limit my participation in sites to those where even my base requirements are satisfied. I also think I might be wrong - there are arguments for the idea that humor overall benefits from the aggregate sum of every participant's taste. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 20:50, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you were. That seemed like the gist to me, anyway. Like when you said people who vote against are acting "all important," or when you told against voters to "forget that shit," or when UU said sometimes against votes are valid, to which you said "I disagree." And speaking of acting like a dick, I can deal with against vote-like criticism(it's the only way to see a problem and fix it, in my opinion) and healthy discussion, but being condescending just because someone disagrees with you is not cool. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 20:59, Dec 22

First up, I didn't mean Globaltourniquet but Mn-z. I really told him once, and it was only half a joke since his comment was such a single-minded one. Second, I took this up in a more peaceful sort of way months ago and you closed the thread yourself (yeah you asked me if I wanted it reopened but come on). So if I'm condescending and uncool, tough deal. Nobody paid any attention then - and now that I'm all in-your-face I get a reaction. I'm not setting any demands by threatening to fuck off - I decided to fuck off and let you all know what I think before I go. As I told UU on his talk page: dickery is easy to veil. I'm also not talking to you as a community but to each of you separately, whatever it is I say in the original fuck-off text. If you choose to see my trying to make the place more tolerant to divergent ideas somehow wrong, same as my trying to get people to see a bit above their own selves when in doubt - how can I prevent it? You can keep doing it. You can keep telling people to vote against whenever they please, for whatever reason, as if they didn't already do it. But I give you my opinion about that. It stinks up the spirit for many people, even if they never admit or even think about it. That's how the mind works. If you choose not to understand this it's your own business - whomever this bit may concern. Also, don't go calling me passive-aggressive. I am that. Now I really am done. -- Style  Guide 23:10, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm looking at the thread that I was referring to, and I never protected or deleted it and you never edited it, so now I really don't know what you're on about. I'm still not really sure where all this hostility is coming from. This whole debate seems to have come out of nowhere. Is everything ok at your end of the tubes? - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 00:30, Dec 23

I think you protected [this one] - and sorry for being too lazy to check and give the facts earlier. At least I think it was you because of your comment on it, and since I don't remember where to check who did it. OK, the thread wasn't in an over-friendly tone, but at least I didn't start it out by insulting anyone like I did with this one. -- Style  Guide 07:11, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Just stepping back a little here

What is the importance of featured articles? Really? I mean I came on here to flex my writing muscles and get my comedic voice working. I figured I'd write half a dozen articles and then bugger off. And then Vitiligo got nominated. I felt a vague feeling of excitement, as it seemed to me that I was getting some positive affirmation, and people were voting for my article - including people who I respected as some of the better writers here. And then people starting voting against. And like a n00b I argued, pleaded, whined and basically acted like a complete fucking moron as these against votes were ruining my moment to shine. And then Orian pointed something out to me that I thought was really wise. (Yes, I am referring to Orian as a font of wisdom. It won't happen often so don't get used to it.) He said that it would be better for me that it not become a feature as it has faults in it, and would I really want a half-baked article to be my first feature. Or something along those lines. He said it better than I'm paraphrasing. So my next step was to polish my writing a little more. And then work on it some more. Now one of my favourite articles that I wrote is Love, as it hits so many comedic milestones along the way and I can read it back to myself and giggle.

And that was the whole point, wasn't it? I never intended to write to become a featured writer - although it is a nice recognition along the way. I write because I want to write comedy. The voting down of my weaker articles is simply a way to make my writing stronger. I look at carebears and vitiligo and even pawn shop now as baby steps. If one of those had become a feature there is every likelihood that I would have said to myself "I've found the right level, so now let's stop." Of course, I still have people giving me lame arsed against reasons when voting against one of my articles, and it annoys me as there's nothing for me to be gained from it, but the truth is that I have also voted against articles for what could be considered lame arsed from the perspective of the writer, but to me it is significant.

So vote according to how something tickles your funny bone. If you have a reason to vote against, then give the author a little respect by letting them know why. But the idea of not voting something down that you don't believe is going to make the site stronger is self-defeatist. And for those one or two individuals who consistently give lame arsed reasons why they are voting against - 1 vote against 13 is not significant enough to make me change my mind if you can't back it up with what would improve the article. Pup

The idea that we write out of love for writing and desire to improve is exactly right on a personal level. For each of us individually, I believe that should be the goal, and not getting featured. But the significance of VFH is not personal - it has to do with the public quality of the web site. This discussion is about that. And I feel that the effectiveness of the voting process to the quality of the site is not strained by people who make thoughtful use of it in a way that I don't think they ought to, specifically (and germane to Multiliteralist's complaint here) voting against when the voter's issue with the humor is a matter of taste. I described why above.

As stated here, and I did read it carefully, Multi's reason for leaving the community is because people vote against articles for this reason. He does not want to be a part of a community that tolerates this. This is his right, of course, but I find this to be a weak reason to quit, especially given the benefit that we enjoy from his contributions.

I hope I can convince you, Multi, that it's OK that these against voters are doing what you and I consider wrong. At least OK enough not to let it drive you away. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 22:43, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm talking about writing well on a personal level, as that leads to improvement in the public quality on a site level. Multi is a fantastic writer, and I don't want to see him go - especially over something that should be of a secondary importance to him as an individual. I nearly left the site not long ago over another drama, and then realised that I was shooting myself in the foot. This is my medium, and I'm not about to give it up over the ranting of a few individuals. I agree with Churchill that democracy is a terrible system, but it also happens to be the best one we have. (Excepting of course a PuppyOnTheRadio led theocracy. Worship me, and I will give you bread.) Pup

(M,m,m,m,m,m,m bread.) Guys this section is so good it almost made me cry (but not really 'cause I'm all manly-like, wear big-girl pants and am not pussified AT ALL). After reading that it took the thunder out of what I was going to write next... but I'm a gonna do it anyway 'cause I thot it up and stuff. (Plus it's another side of the same looking glass on the exterior portion of the pyramid of clarity. Or something.)  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  10:15, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

A header. Because I felt like it.

^{And not because I've seen them used in other parts of Uncyclopedia or anything.}

This subject has been overly complicated and I think I can simplify it. Let me illustrate the focus of the topic with a joke:

A blind man walks into a bar and says, "Ouch!"
The bartender looks up from his want ads
  in the back of his Uncyclopedia Quarterly and asks, 
  "Why did you say 'ouch' when you walked in here?"
The Blind man simply replies, "For the joke."

.... Crap! I was totally going somewhere with that. (Probably gonna mention something about puns, points of view, types of humour humor, jokes, and drinking.)

Anyway, fuck that noise and the joke analysis too. Let's start again:
Each of us has a different type of humor. Say for instance you are the kind of moron that likes type A humor and I am the type of enlightened person who likes type B hum...m, er...

OK Let's not simplify that part.

There are as many different types of humor as there are registered users on Uncyclopedia.^{(Plus at least 7/8ths to 420 more.)}

(For those of you playing at home imagine this by taking the first letter of your username and divide your phone number by your social security number. In my example this will result in a humor type symbol of HΠ^{(Which some of you mother-fucking going-straight-to-hell types don't seem to care for.)} Be sure to update your signature to reflect this A.S.A.P.)

Anyway, let's say you love type A, like type Q, W & E, are indifferent to type X, S & M, and dislike type R, T & Y and hate type Z. The point (that I believe) Multiliteralist is trying to make about the VFH process here is that:

• You shouldn't vote against articles which contain type R, T & Y or type Z just because you don't like that type of humor!
• You shouldn't vote for articles which contain type A, or type Q, W & E just because you like that type of humor!

You also shouldn't vote for or against something simply because it contains or lacks in-joke material; material of which a new or casual user may not be aware of. Furthermore you shouldn't vote for or against types of humor that you don't understand; definitely abstain on those subjects.

Voting for or against something should be based on quality; on whether or not the actual material is good enough or not. A for vote with no comments means it's golden & good to go, bam! front page. Conversely an against vote with no comments doesn't exactly mean "let's put this up for adoption on the deletion page." It most likely means add a {{rewrite}} or {{Proofread}} tag to the article with a suggestion that the author use the PEE REVIEW process after they've updated their article. (Comments generally mean the author should take suggestions to make minor or major changes to bring it up to standards.)

Ok, a portion of the joke analysis: Say the joke above conveys an entire article with a large section represented by, "The Blind man simply replies, 'For the joke.'" If the sole 'funny' portion of the paragraph(s) in question was the juxtaposition of "blind" and "simply" in reference to handicaps, the commented criticism may be that 'simply' refers to simple- meaning stupid, which in no way directly relates to 'blind'- meaning without sight. The author would have to rework the article to improve that section to make sense in regards to handicaps, and then may further have to improve it to fit within the entire article. The VFH process looks to obtain a "Vote for an article you find excellent," clearly until this article is corrected it fails to be excellent.

Oh snap! I just remembered....

So in conclusion, VFH is not PEE REVIEW and everyone's vote counts even if they are wrong, the wrongness needs to stop, stop the wrongness of wrong users. Thank you to those that agree with me, and to those that don't please go, 'simply' for me.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  10:15, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its possible to separate "humor type" from the overall humor of the article. What was funny in 1940 or 1970 isn't necessarily funny anymore. Also there are issues other mere quality the affect vfd. For example, racist, in-jokey, or nudity-filled articles generally suffer of vfd, as do articles which are copies of already featured articles.

Getting an article featured requires more than it simply be a decent or even good article. The article highlighting is designed to show off our best articles, not every article ever written that doesn't need work. The articles aren't fighting against the electorate, but rather against other articles, and changing how people vote isn't going to effect how many articles get featured. "Good Article A" might have gotten featured under such a system, but only at the expense of "Featured Article B " not being featured. --Mn-z 14:36, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article B is pretty awesome. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:27, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

No, it only seems that way to you because you like type C humor. --Mn-z 15:35, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Really, this is stupid. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 15:44, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. It's objectively pretty awesome. I did the double-blind studies 'n' everything. It's scientifical! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:51, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

But were your findings published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of literay awesomeness? --Mn-z 16:07, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

"Literay", no. Litebrite, yes. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:32, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Hm,m,m,m,m... I don't think you need to separate types, just recognize them; what was funny in 1940 or 1970 may or may not still be funny now, especially if it does or doesn't make fun of Hitler or wear an afro and say, "Ahhhh Yeahhhh."

I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said if this is what you meant: A feature worthy article is like a pizza wherein all the toppings compliment each other for deliciousness. Not everyone likes the same kind of pizza, but it's good pizza nonetheless.

You're right, Featured Article B is totally awesome!

No you're wrong, it's 'cause I fucking LOVE type C humor. (Plus it was smartly written and had a nice pun about how "most rules of thumb suck.")

Abstain.

Double-blind studies are pretty awesome when they get to the naked truth. They often scientifically lead to new theoretical offspring.

Peer-reviewing drama is so last week. Let's move on to the Forum:UNCYCLOPEDIA SURVIVOR! Season 3 Winter Bash Edition now.

Don't you even try to put your little brightly colored round pegs into my dark square hole. Wait, what?!? That didn't even make sense to ME! I am SO done with this topic.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  05:53, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Don't take it so personally

Look at me, I must hold the record for articles that got deleted since 2005 when I joined up here. At first I felt bad about it, almost suicidal, what is wrong with me? People called me stupid and not funny, insulted me, reverted my edits, and finally deleted my articles. But I never gave up because I had worse happen to me, I used to work for lawyers and managers of law firms and other really mean people, so the stuff that happened to me here was tame. But then I learned an important lesson, Socrates taught it to me, true wisdom is the knowledge in knowing that you know nothing. So I decided to follow the wisest man I could think of based on Socrates' quote, Sgt. Schultz of "Hogan's Heroes" who always said "I know nothing, nothing!" and in that I gained wisdom. I wasn't funny because I tried too hard, and rambled on, and wrote about stuff only I knew about and nobody else in the universe understood. I took the negative feedback and learned where I made mistakes and tried to correct those mistakes and make corrections until I got funnier. Then my articles started to get deleted less frequently, and my edits got reverted less frequently and I slowly started to become funnier. Only because I didn't take the negative feedback personally, but used it to learn where I made mistakes and did what I could to learn from them and correct them. Human beings learn via their mistakes and the mistakes of other human beings, which is why we read books written by other people who made mistakes and learned about them to write books. If you studied education, high school and college you will know that teachers and professors mark wrong answers with a red pen, so that you know they are wrong and you made a mistake and then you learn from them, if you are lucky your teacher or professor will tell you why you got it wrong and how to correct it so you won't get it wrong on a quiz or test. We have that here at Uncyclopedia called the Pee Review, but not every user takes advantage of it, we also have it via the adopt a noob program that other writers can mentor the noobs to write funnier articles. I know this because I am mentally ill and thus I don't know when to quit. Most of you who quit are the Yossarians of Catch-22 and I am Orr who has the plan and always gets shot down, but I keep flying bombing missions and always try to hit the target instead of dumping my bombs in the ocean instead. My plan is to get shot down enough until I end up in Sweden via a life-raft, which means I got good enough to get a book or two published. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:29, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah one day I might be lucky enough to get one of my articles voted on for VFH, and then I'll have known that I made good enough progress to be funny enough for VFH. But even then I should take votes against my VFH nominated article personally and learn from the feedback as well. Until then I got a lot more to learn about being funny. But I really don't care that I don't get my articles VFH nominated, because I am trying to be funny, and not popular or famous or an attention whore or whatever, I just want to write funny stuff, and if it gets VFH nominated then that was an "accident" on my part in which I got funnier than I actually am, and I need to learn what people liked about it to VFH nominate it and start writing more of that stuff. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:53, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Just write what amuses you. Everything after that is gravy. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:21, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

This I totally agree with.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  05:10, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Now there is dedication for you ! Orion has been here for four years and admits he is still learning. That is an excellent attitude to take and compared to the amateur dramatics of say someone like User:Clemens177 , a reminder why I am here too. I regard this site as a community or perhaps a bit like a feuding family sometimes but still a welcome break away from Real Life. All power to your elbows Orion ! --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:00, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Note:

This Forum Topic is part of a slightly? excessive sexy Threesome.