Forum:New Uncyclopedia policy

Forums: Index > Village Dump > New Uncyclopedia policy

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5055 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Proposed new policy:

NO FUCKING NSFW PICS ON THE FRONT PAGE. pillow talk 23:37, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Only stupid pointless threads which were made by a guy who got caught on Uncyclopedia while he was at work. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 11:14, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Wait, now I believe I have misread. No "fucking NSFW" pics? We haven't had a picture of anyone fucking on the front page since we leaked Modus' family scrapbook. Also, this policy is socialist Obamanomnomnomics. --EMC ^[TALK] 11:19 May 18 2010

For

Score: +10

• For. While there should certainly be breasts, penises, vaginae, guys eating poop, guys pooping into their own mouths, guys throwing poop at each other, men fucking each other, men fucking animals, bears fucking sharks, Jesus fucking a bear who's fucking a dead shark caught in a shark trap, and men fucking RAHB, all over Uncyclopedia, such pictures should not appear on the fucking front page. pillow talk 23:37, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional for. That picture was a bit much, because my dad was behind me when I came on. =/ I'm not offended or anything, but yeah. However, I think that we could have occasions where it's actually funny(Like EugeneKay's penis, etc.) and not be too stuffy about it. Also, I'd like to point out that images that are NSFW shouldn't be there (except in special cases, again) unless they're actually featured, because no picture that's not featured should be there.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Tuesday, 04:42, May 18 2010 UTC
•  For. per Hype. --Mn-z 04:58, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
•  Very For - It's a nightmare if someone else is around or I'm in public , plus it gives off a bad impression for new people coming here.--Sycamore (Talk) 07:30, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
• Epic for. What Hype has said, pretty much all the way through this forum so far. --UU - natter 10:04, May 18

But maybe I'm missing something, what picture are we talking about that upset some people? And I do agree that no fucking NSFW picture should be shown, I would draw the line at that, as long as it's real fucking by real people. Does that dog fucking a balloon or whatever count? Aleister in Chains 10:43 18 5 MMX

•  I agree with these people. --ChiefjusticeWii 10:58, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
•  For.. Only to be used IF otherwise the story featured will not make any sense otherwise. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 12:59, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
•  For. This isn't about free speech, it's about putting our best face forward to people at the moment they are likely about to form their first impressions of us. Christ, I sound like my mother. Spıke ¬ 00:07 19-May-10
•  For. As much as I love dicks, I don't think it is right to display them on the front page of a site that isn't about porn or anatomy. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 03:46, May. 20, 2010
• For. I assumed we already had that as a policy, mainly because it seems so blatantly obvious. It's been used as a reason not to feature some articles before. If I had gone on Uncyclopedia at work the other day - which I sometimes do at lunchtime - I could have got in serious trouble. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  18:16, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

  Lies! You don't have a job. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:22, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

• For, but if any of you are surprised by this, I've been doing something wrong. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Friday, 07:16, May 28 2010

Against

Score: +8.5

• Against. The front page is relatively clean in my opinion, but I understand your dilemma and empathize with it. But if this front page censorship were the case, we would never have had EugeneKay's dick all over the front page, and you'd have to stop featuring certain featured images on the front page such as this, which is discriminant. Drawing this line on what is and what is not SFW is a subjective one, hence why we shouldn't attempt to draw it at all except in the obvious cases of pr0n and e-legal sheeit. I'm sorry Hyperbole, but where and how you view Uncyclopedia is your issue, not Uncyclopedia's. I was on Uncyclopedia quite a bit at my last job, and you really just have to be sneaky about it. Which again is your problem. --EMC ^[TALK] 01:28 May 18 2010
• Against Perhaps you shouldn't be on Uncyclopedia at work if it could cause trouble. Sorry Hype, but that's all I can think of. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 03:31, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

• There's a million sites I shouldn't be on at work - Cracked, Fark, Quantz, Facebook... but this is the only one that'll actually stick a pair of tits up right on the main page. And this isn't just about me. The reason Cracked doesn't put tits on the main page is... they like it when people browse in from work to read. Boosts their readership. Any new user who browsed in from work today... probably ain't never coming back. pillow talk 03:38, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

• Well, if people are surfing the internets at work and stumble across Uncyclopedia, that's their fault for surfing the internets at work, where one could expect to come across something NSFW eventually. I have a better idea. Let's put a NSFW tag on the main page. --EMC ^[TALK] 03:44 May 18 2010
• YouPorn has tits on the main page all the time and nobody at my school has any issues. It must just be your dumbass co-workers. Perhaps you should just get a new job? MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 03:47, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

• He can't change jobs. The pay is too good in the dildo mines to just give it up. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:56, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
• Actually, it shows a warning screen at first. --Mn-z 05:05, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

• Not if you have cookies enabled. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 05:09, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

•  Against If this "passes" here does this get to be a policy??? That if Comedy Central won't show it then Uncy won't??? Muhammad in any form whatsoever, gone. Real people standing around with no shirt on, gone (and we have to include men in this if we are to be fair, no nipples of any kind). This will be a Victorian concept, agreed to by high school kids whose dad walks in on them (substitute "boss" or "co-worker" for Dad, and, God forbid, what if a female boss, mom, sees you looking at another woman like that). We draw the line at full sex and mutilation and wounds, unlike other sites, which do make us special and not Ed.. To pass thie policy against nipples of people, male or female, standing around or talking to someone, makes us Special Ed. Censorship is foreign to good satire, especially when the reasons given for it are "someone might know what I'm doing" or "Daddy may think bad of me". That point is exactly what my page People Who Like to Fuck Naked is about--people who have scared other people into thinking that something normal is wrong. And now, nipples, and as I said, males have to be included, of people standing around? Islam fundamentalists would be happy today if they saw this new forum, and Allah would smile his fully dressed smile. Aleister seeing Uncy about to add more Chains 10:37 18 5 MMX
• Against. If it's appropriate for the page, it's appropriate for the frontpage. If the page has a NSFW tag, it should also have it on the frontpage...right beside the vagina or beaver or muff or bearded clam or beef curtains or cock holster or cooter or furburger or honey pot or hooch or mud flaps or panty hamster or poonany or velcro triangle or vertical smile that it's warning about (an idea, by the way, that amuses me terribly). Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 11:14, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
• I'll be going with mister chains here. As long as we draw a semi blurry line at intercourse pictures, dead/mutilated/shock pictures - I don't see a reason to censor the front page. If you're a regular user you can always bypass the main page if it disturbs you so much. Other than that, I don't really see what's the big fuss about, we don't get hard core NSFW pics on the main page other then the occasional breasts/dildos. ~ 11:19, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

  Well, amongst other things, my powers, while extensive, don't currently include precognition, so I don't know what's going to be on the main page before I go to it, making avoiding it if it bothers me a little tricky - I like to load up the Main Page each morning rather than go straight to my userpage or whatever. Now, on other pages, fair enough. But when I load up Uncyc for the morning, and just manage to avoid my boss seeing a picture of tits on my computer - which might have landed me in a world of shit had he seen it - I'm not a happy bunny for the rest of the morning. It doesn't have to be hardcore, tits will cause enough trouble, thanks! I'm not advocating censorship, I'm not saying that we shouldn't have pics like on the wiki at all. But the pic that I think sparked this was a picture of tits on the UnNews box - hardly vital to the subtle artistic nuances of the news feed. OK, as someone points out, maybe I should not edit from work. Except I only ever edit from work, so I'll not edit again, shall I? Pfft. The for voters above aren't asking for this to become PG-13pedia, or Victorianpedia or whatever, but for a certain amount of security in the knowledge that loading up the site won't get you in a world of shit if a wandering boss catches a glimpse of it - not a bad thing, surely? Remember: if you click on a link to People Who Like to Fuck Naked, you have a fair idea that you might have to encounter a NSFW image, and can prepare accordingly. --UU - natter 15:00, May 18

• Against. I understand the NSFW thing. I was at home with my in-laws when I pulled up the page and I would of been in a very awkward situation had they seen it. That all said, Uncyclopedia is a like my art class in grade school. Why take away our crayons over this? Uncyclopedia never made the claim that it was safe for work, or that it wouldn't offend people. That's the beauty of a free wiki-parody-pedia. No amount of power or social pressure can change that truth of the humor that comes from here, because uncyclopedia cannot be bought or coerced. It is a playground for the soul. Even if we're talking about something as practical as work, We're still talking about social pressure here. Society doesn't want you to view the naughty images of girls with dicks for eyes or some shit. Are you going to sacrifice the beauty of this place purely because of what society wants? Society tells you what to do all the time virtually every day. Isn't nice to have just something that's immune to that? Yeah, you might scare away the NSFW guy, but then when he's all alone and his controlling boss and controlling mother or wife or whoever isn't there anymore, he'll come back and silently snicker to himself, because he's getting away with something. He's secretly saying "fuck what society wants me to see, this is what I want to see", and he'll enjoy it all the more because of the NSWF images. Because he doesn't care what they want, he cares about what he wants.

At the end of the day, changing this place because of what other people want makes this place more sanitized and less free, even if it seems to be a PR move in your eyes. User:Mrthejazz/sig 11:49, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

• Against. We never put anything obscenely graphic on the front page anyway (with the exception of that time ColinAYB goatse'd us. Oh how we all laughed, then we banned him, and we laughed again. Anyway.) A boob here, a revealing dress there - it's not like we're Pornopedia all of a sudden. Censorship is bad, although tastefulness is good. It's a fine line. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to nominate an image of Mohammed with his tits out for VFP. -- |c|o|d|e|i|n|e|

• Half-Against As much as I dislike having NSFW pictures popping up when I don't expect it, I expect it here all the time. Recent UnNews is unprotected, and as such it is the work of a moment for someone to go in there and add a NSFW image there - but it's also the work of a moment to remove it. By the by - I read this entire forum on my work PC. Nominally Humane! some time Friday, 02:55, May 28 2010 UTC
• Against. Limiting humour in any way is a bad thing especially on something as nebulous as what is and isn't "safe for work". In reality what we are talking about here is "what offends my middle class white sensibilities", some of the articles and images that have been deemed NSFW should in no way be specified as such. This is a humour website, that has to come first. Obviously I am not talking about shock or porn images on the front or anywhere else within this site, but some images which are funny and relevant to the article should not be restricted because of the girlish nature of some people. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Comment

• Lines should be drawn, but we all draw different lines. I don't think breasts in context should be NSFW in the first place. Depends on the pose maybe. If we can show men naked from the waist up, and I don't ever hear anyone arguing against that, then to have a double-standard in a supposedly civilized society in the year MMX (hee hee), let alone on this website which should set trends and not follow them, seems very wrong to me. You lump in so much as NSFW, so this isn't a yes or no question as it's put in the premise. And I had just written a comment that my page People Who Like to Fuck Naked should be on the feature que again at some point (I changed the most argued-about pic), an article I personally think would be fine for the front page of Uncy. Aleister sans chains 23:46 17 5 MMX

• The only standard I care about is that of co-workers who wander into my office. And they are not all so enlightened as to think that if it's okay to see man-nipples, it's okay to see girl-nipples. All I'm saying is, I'd like to be able to browse over here on my lunch break and look at stuff. And I don't want any tits on the front page. As for People Who Like to Fuck Naked, sure, by all means put it on the feature queue, but don't illustrate it on the front page with, like, a picture of a giant throbbing cock. Find something SWF for the front page. Oh, and also: it would be nice if the front page said "Today's featured article: People Who Like to Fuck Naked (NSFW). Seriously, guys, if Fark of all places can have the dignity to put up NSFW notices, surely we can, too. pillow talk 23:53, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

The NSFW notice makes sense, but again, what line to draw. And co-workers or office policies shouldn't imnho, create societal policy or Uncy policy if that policy belongs in the mid-20th century. I've thought of putting up a forum to discuss de-NSFW pics of breasts, a line which I woould see as enlightened and enlightening to others, in offices for example. Al sans chains 23:58 17 5 MMX

What Hype said. --Mn-z 05:08, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

• This is because I was on the frontpage, isn't it? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:08, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

I think you might want to clearly define what is NSFW for the purposes of this vote. I think there's a big difference between a pair of wobbling breasts and a throbbing cock. But hey, I tend to like women. ~ 06:28, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, for the purposes of this vote, I'd define NSFW as anything that couldn't be shown in a movie rated PG-13 or on basic American cable channels like Comedy Central. So, that includes, you know, womens' nipples or almost completely exposed breasts, penises, simulated sex, images of people getting killed, perhaps even people in ridiculously skimpy outfits. Like I said, I don't think Unc should be censored, and I don't object to that stuff in general - just not on the main page. Please. It's easy enough to avoid an article like Boobs when I'm at work - or, for that matter, at my parents' house for Memorial Day or something. It's much, much harder to avoid the main page. Plus, I don't want to say to various people in my life, "Check it out, I got featured! ...ooooh, please ignore the gaping vagina spitting ping-ping balls over there on the news column." pillow talk 07:27, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

What about Jack Nippel, credited as "Gang Member" (alongside Tango & Cash's bechin'd Robert Z'Dar) in the memorable 1988 film, Dead End City? Can we put him on the frontpage, or is that too close? I'd link to a picture of him, but I don't want to run astray of the Prude Police. Well, that and Google has no pictures of him. The closest I could find was this picture of maintenance involving a MGF's grease nipple fitting. Sexy maintenance. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 09:07, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Look at the definition now, we've moved to "skimpy outfits", or "almost completely exposed breasts" (only women's of course). So does the defintion count for the yes voters who voted before that was posted, "skimpy outfits"??? This is getting more Islamic fundamentalist by the post. Or is this just a big joke itself, to get reactions? Skimpy outfits??? Al sans chains 10:51 18 5 MMX

Aleister, what I'm thinking about is something like the pic on the right. Are her breasts completely exposed? No. Is the pic obviously part of some kind of soft-core porn set? Yes. Would I be embarrassed if my boss, or my mom, saw me looking at it? Sure would. I'm not saying delete it, I'm not saying keep it off Uncyclopedia, I'm just saying - please not on the main page. Anywhere else is fine. Just want to make sure we understand each other on what I'm actually saying. pillow talk 15:56, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbole, it's okay to come out of the closet to your mom. Does she have breasts that? Yes. Should you be embarrassed if your boss, or your mom, found out you like breasts? Sure should. I'm not saying that being straight shouldn't be allowed, just not on Uncyclopedia. I'm also just going to note that the aforementioned picture is not a part of a softcore porn set. I'm just saying - it fucking isn't. Anything else probably is. Just want to make sure we understand each other on what Hype is saying. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 21:52, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Dude, that picture is *clearly* Japanese gravure, which is, you know, basically porn without nipples. It's a little analogus to Maxim (which, let's face it, is a spank magazine masquerading as something else), but it's way more risque than Maxim. Gravure exists for one reason - to facilitate the ability of Japanese men to transform themselves into Japanese men who are covered in their own semen. Don't challenge me on porn. Believe me, I wrote the book on porn. I just don't like people looking over my shoulder at my porn. pillow talk 22:03, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: "Rotogravure (roto or gravure for short) is a type of intaglio printing process, that is, it involves engraving the image onto an image carrier." You were thinking of the word, "gurabai." Learn Nihongo before you try using it to pwn me. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 22:09, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have been reading the article Gravure idol instead of the irrelevant article Rotogravure. I'm no So So, but I strongly suspect my 日本語 pwns yours. pillow talk 22:17, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

否定. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 22:23, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

What about Tantra which Funnybony and I have been working on? We had discussed putting it up for VFH when it's "ready", but is that just my pipe dream now? (ummmmmm, pipe dreams)? Tantra, we hardy knew ye. Al des chains 11:20 18 5 mmx

I think the policy we have had so far seems to have worked well. I don't like censorship but the front page is the door into this wiki and filling the front page full of 'Jenny Taylor' etc will suggest to noobs that this is a pretentious version of Encyclopedia Dramatica. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 12:54, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe use this one

instead of this one

But this one, I really, really don't want my boss seeing over my shoulder.

Aleister: Of course, by all means put Tantra up on the main page if it's featured. I'm just saying, if it does get featured, maybe the pic that goes right up on the main page could be the Indian god instead of the statues fucking. That's all. Same article when you click through and everything. I'd never suggest that we don't feature a funny article. And honestly, I probably wouldn't even mind about the statues too much, since someone just glancing over my shoulder would probably just see statues and not fucking. The third pic on the right is what I'm really worried about - and it sat on the front page for a couple days. pillow talk 15:49, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

All of my comments come from my own knee-jerk reaction to not censor, sort of like the old US Supreme Court Judge Hugo Black. But I see what you mean, that the pic which appears with the feature on the main page should be a bit tamer than the some of the ones pictured here. I thought you meant the entire article should be NSFW. I think the voters who look at the pages on VFH usually judge the extent of the situation well, and I now realize that that People WHo Like page of mine should have included a new pic over the entire article when it was up on VFH. So I misunderstood a bit, but I still think that your policy should include male chest nudity as well if female chest nudity is removed from the main page, just an issue of fairness there. """HELPME's Dad looking over his shoulder 21:33 18 5 MMX

• I just really don't want an image like that one down there at the bottom. Frankly, I don't care about breasts, but that's just something that is really awful when your dad's behind you.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Tuesday, 09:19, May 18 2010 UTC

On a related note

I and other users have voted against NSFW articles and images for the reasons described above. I.e. we don't want people to think this is a pretentious version of ED, get peoplez in trouble at work, et cetera. However, allowing this on the front page defeats the purpose of such voting. And such votes are a sign that there is significant support for keeping the main page safe for work. --Mn-z 18:45, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna post a bunch of dicks and assholes on here. Maybe even a pussy or two. In other words, this isn't safe for work. You shouldn't scroll down any.

It's not like you weren't given warning.

Now I demand you feature this forum and have all of those pictures on the main page because none of them are necessarily safe for work. Also, this just proves that the name of something doesn't have anything to do with what is actually on there. Therefore, quit "Bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!"-ing. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 21:42, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

==Oh noes==

Hyperbole has seen the light. He is a changed man. How inconsiderate of him, considering I was browsing Uncyclopedia at work in July of 2009 and I could have easily had a coworker come by. --EMC ^[TALK] 23:16 May 18 2010

Actually... that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. I very deliberately chose a "first picture" that I felt was tame enough for the main page - but I certainly wouldn't have objected if the picture on the main page had just been, say, a ceiling fan. And then the link that says (more...) could have said (more... (NSFW)). See, if anyone thinks I'm on a crusade against articles with sexual content, they're crazy - I write them. pillow talk 23:35, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

My mother says that you're a "wanker", Hype. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 23:45, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

You're really having one of those days, aren't you, Dennis? pillow talk 23:47, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

It's all about the he said she said bullshit. I think you better quit talkin that shit, punk, so come and get it. --EMC ^[TALK] 11:25 May 19 2010

LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK

Or something. --EMC ^[TALK] 11:31 May 19 2010

NSFW?

Steve Guttenberg, with his shirt off. Safe or not safe? If unsafe, huh??? And if safe, biased towards sexism. I'd say a woman just standing around with her shirt off should be labeled SFW on Uncy, the same as Steve here. Do we lead or follow? Aleister sans chains 00:18 19 5 MMX

Or this? It seems to me that this new policy would even make this woman NSFW, even mostly dressed and just sitting there. Al des chains 00:24 19 5 MMX

Well, Jenna Jameson is a porn-star. She must have some STD. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 00:47, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

She probably caught it from Steve Guttenberg. My idiot brother-in-law once sat next to her at a fancy swimming pool and didn't talk to her once. But he reported that she likes expensive champagne and keeps her face and neck out of the sun by wearing huge hats. That's all I know. Al sans chains 1:07 19 5 MMX

Just throwing in my own two cents: I feel no need to look at Steve Guttenberg's chest, ever. pillow talk 05:10, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Spaghetti sauce for no reason

On a related note, why is it acceptable for people to spam pictures of half naked girls in forum posts, but when I post images of half-naked girls who happen to be in a certain state, I'm a "deviant"? --Mn-z 05:41, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Don't try to apply logic to your sexual fetish, Mn-z. That way lies madness. pillow talk 05:50, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Madness???

—Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:06, 19 May 2010

• Any picture of a half-naked (or fully naked) man on the front page is fine with me, heh heh.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Wednesday, 10:31, May 19 2010 UTC

I have nothing new to add

But I wanted to contribute.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  20 May 2010 ~ 02:17 (UTC)

Goa Tse Clan expresses disgust over Hyperbole

Hyperbole, you are an advocate of censorship. This is a cannibal democracy, not a cabal dictatorship. Get over it if there's NSFW photos. We can make censored versions instead. Let's go for the Streisand approach. User:Sir Larry/The Incredibly Secret Page! |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 11:41, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Joe, I am an advocate of censorship. If I'm, say, watching Lost with my parents, I don't want there to be a scene where Jack and Sawyer whip out their cocks and start swordfighting, and then start mutually masturbating and spooge all over the camera. That would be a highly uncomfortable situation. Which is why we censor that shit.

Similarly, I don't want to say to my sister "Hey, check it out, my article got featured on this website Uncyclopedia..." and BAM, in the recent news template there's an animated gif of a woman taking a shit in another woman's mouth. And there's her two-year-old watching the whole thing.

I think the only people who believe in zero censorship are lonely bastards who live alone. And I'm a little saddened that almost half of Uncyclopedians think this site should be totally off-limits to all but seventeen year olds who only access the Internet from behind locked bedroom doors because they're grasping their naked cock in their hands half the time so it's just easier to always keep that shit locked.

Once again, I'm NOT ADVOCATING MAKING THE WHOLE SITE SWF. Just the front page. So I can, you know, say to a buddy "Hey, check out my article, go to "uncyclopedia" and search for "..." - and not have to wonder if I'm directing this buddy to what is, by all appearances, some weird porn site.

But instead the site is stubbornly "Not safe for anyone I know" - and we wonder why membership is in such a slump. I guess some people think this should be a little private club for a small group of /b/tards. That's not my vision of what it should be. pillow talk 18:55, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Why not go for the ED approach? Have a NSFW version of Uncyclopedia (called Uncyclopedia Dramatica). We must increase membership of members! We must go ahead and make a million articles! Wikipedia will tremble at Uncyclopedia. Uncyclopedians of all nations, unite! And that means you Hyperbole. Join in to our cannibal democracy. |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 11:55, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Make the whole place SFW for all I care

A green penis on front page is a complicated in-joke that doesn't help or destroy the site - but I doubt it makes anyone actually laugh or want to see any more. What would be the harm in leaving it out, then? If you want to masturbate, there already are plenty of sites for that purpose. I know, I have browsed the web solely for that purpose for years. -- Style  Guide 05:53, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Because of my natural ambivalence about everything, I also suspect the no-NSFW people here are only worried they will be exposed as wankers (well, Hyperbole practically admits as much). The rest of you don't mind because you are also exhibitionists. -- Style  Guide 06:04, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Been on Chatroulette much? Nominally Humane! some time Friday, 06:07, May 28 2010 UTC

No - believe me or not, but once you get older, the dimished flow of testosterone makes masturbating less appealing, and the tendency then is to have actual sex with a real partner. Pheromones rule us, no matter how twisted we are otherwise. -- Style  Guide 06:15, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Hey - I am an old man. I've also spent a bit of time on Chatroulette as part of writing that article - it actually bores me to tears - and trust me, lots of middle aged men. Made me look young in my mid 30s. Also lots of bored and horny teenagers, true, but lots of old men still. Nominally Humane! some time Friday, 06:26, May 28 2010 UTC

OK, you caught me - I've spent all of my money on porn and now I can't buy a webcam. -- Style  Guide 07:04, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

I only had ten bucks, so I got a web Instamatic. When it takes a snap you have to hold the monitor in your armpit for a minute while it develops. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 13:59, May 28, 2010 (UTC)