Forum:Retiring UGotM?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Retiring UGotM?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6250 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

The VFD discussion resulted in a Keep. The consensus is pretty clear. If you disagree and/or wish to kill me for doing this, please do so kindly.

Since the award is back, shouldn't it be back on the Award template again? P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:22, Sep 26

It should be, but Spang locked the page so normal users can't restore it, i.e. me. He locked it because I kept adding it back after he removed it from the template before, even when its right to exist wasn't questioned, so hooray for irony? -- 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 00:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Insert obligatory "FU Spang" here. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:32, Sep 26

It's over. Settled. stfu Please.

Here I came to save the day. Then I went. Its a long story. -- The Zombiebaron 00:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

WARNING! This page contains profuse whining. Proceed with caution.

As you may or may not know, UGotM is up for deletion/retiring at VFD. I'm bringing it to wider attention in order to ensure a full community decision on this. Also, this topic is to avoid large discussion on the VFD page. I'm also going to take this opportunity to voice my opinion.

In the beginning of the award, people would nominate/vote for people they actually liked, in the same way you might make fun of your friends in good spirit; the intention is/was not to express dislike, just make a good-natured joke at their expense. That's not a bad thing, most people do that with their friends all the time. However, the only thing it is used for now, is for people to find someone they actually don't like, and proclaim that fact in award format, and possibly try and get others who would otherwise have no opinion to dislike them too. There is no good nature to it any more, and it's verging on cyber-bullying en masse.

"It's always been there" and "it's part of the history" is a non-starter as far as excuses for it go - slavery was always there, doesn't make it a good thing. NRV is part of uncyc history, but it was reworked because it didn't fit with where uncyclopedia was going. The UGotM of today is very different from the UGotM of a year ago - it's not about what it was, it's about what it's become. UGotM has become consistently less and less of a joke each month, as nominations are rarely made in the spirit with which the award was created. How many recent nominations can you point out which said "this user's ok really, but looks at this thing he's done, what a fool! LOL" as it's supposed be, and not "this user is an idiot, he can't do anything right. He hardly deserves to edit here. Let's officially let him know that before he gets banned." The difference might be incredibly subtle, but the first one is a joke, and in good nature. The second is not a joke, it's just listing people you don't like. If somebody could point out how that is funny, I'd be grateful.

In response to the various arguments for it, I already mentioned always been there/uncyc history above. As for "it's a joke", well... jokes have humour. What humour value does UGotM have now? All it does is generate drama and ill will, any humour value is only to be got from the irony that a supposedly joke award causes so much grief. Or perhaps both nominators and potential recipients telling the other the stop taking it so seriously. It's painfully un-funny to see a group of users on a humour website rally around another (usually new) user and force an "award" onto them that they don't want... that to me is cyber-bullying, and I was sure uncyclopedia wasn't about that. Maybe even against it.

Perhaps there are compromises - nominees could be required to accept the nomination before any voting goes on. That would ensure only people who "get the joke" would be involved. Those who wished to stay out of it could. Just an example. But currently, I see nothing about this award that anywhere near makes up in humour what it loses in serious, and feel that neither uncyclopedia nor any users would lose out from it being removed completely. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 07:51, 21 Sep 2007

If people really need a jokey award to give to their friends, they should probably just make one and stick it on their page. And as for joking around, we have FFS, which seems to be at least a little less bullified at the moment. If we do keep UGotM, I agree with Spang that we should try to combat the bullying. Perhaps at the top say something like: "This page is a joke. If you have a genuine grievance with a user, either take it to Ban Patrol or shut up about it." Allowing candidates to remove themselves might be good, but I don't know whether the n00bs would do it - it's a bit like telling on a bully: you feel strangely weak if you have to do it. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 08:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Spang. Go through the history and look at it at the end of each month. It's like a car accident; a car accident of words. Messy and unpleasant, which are two things that Uncyc shouldn't be. Except for messy. Uncyc should be messy. UGotM is a bad place now. I'm scared to walk through it alone at night. It should be closed, ended, kaputed. It's a source of drama. Drama is bad. Especially Shakespeare. "Oo, look at me! I've got a silly collar! I think I'll write some plays! Maybe I'll have the weather mirror the characters' emotional state!". Damn Shakespeare. Some of you may say that I ramble. I, meanwhile, say that I rarely stay on topic. Six of one, you know. Lastly, UGotM is a bad page. It should go away. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 11:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. I wasnt aware of the shift thats occured at it, but after checking it out, what its used for now has moved far away from its original purpose, and it can be downright mean. In the very least it should be required that consent be given from the nominee. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the number of people voting to reinstate the award perhaps we should restrict the nominating to Admins only, and add the disclaimer that SBU suggested. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I agree with Mhaille.

I agree with the Commie-guy. - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 17:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I abstained on VFD for the simple fact that while I have never liked UGotM, that's due to my personal opinion. It has become little more than a monthly bitching session that can quickly become really quite unpleasant and is rarely funny - though once again, that's just my own feeling on it, it seems plenty of people would diagree. Mhaille's suggestion seems a sensible one. RabbiTechno 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

First you delete Fisher Price, now you're trying to get rid of UGOTM? Uncyclopedians are testing my patience. -- Thankful Kippy Share blessings Bountiful harvest 18:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this award is in clear violation of one of our only two rules, "Don't be a dick." Doesn't that make us all hypocrites for keeping it around? -- Phlegm Leoispotter * (garble! jank!) 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You make a very persuasive argument. The problem is it's becoming less of a joke, and more of "YOU SUCK" to various users. -- Thankful Kippy Share blessings Bountiful harvest 21:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess if UGotM sticks around, the admins will need to keep a close eye on it, banstick ready. That would help to move the asshattery from the UGotM page...to the admins' talkpages ("Why did you ban me for drama? Was it because of the drama?"). Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a job for the Uncyclopedia Fire Department.

Why? It's not like we follow the rules and policies half the time. Plus, we have other potentially hurtful awards like Sockpuppeteer of the Month and FFS. So if someone complains because they can't be bothered to read a little text or background information, we should delete it? By that logic we'd have solved the fate of two articles and whatever issues they've caused in two days. ~

Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.

21/09/2007 @ 21:29

FFS isn't anywhere near hurtful, it is one of the funniest jokes on Uncyclopedia and is played out that way

I strongly disagree with Mhaille's alternative, per TKF. And Dr. Skullthumper said on VFD but make it mandatory that the nominees accept. But who would accept the nomination, the only person who would do this is Zerotrousers--Sir Manforman 22:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would. And I'd vote for myself, too. I'm both useless and a gobshite, and need to be told off. Plus, I need more award templates for my userpage. Once you get one....you just want more, and more, until you are CONSUMED by them.... P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:32, Sep 21

But it can easily be taken the wrong way as well. Why risk it? Someone is bound to get hurt. We need to plastic bubble wrap the playground, people! Heck, put the playground in a glass box so people can just look at it rather than touch it because someone's feelings could get hurt if someone plays on them and doesn't include another person. ~

Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.

22/09/2007 @ 00:18

People who get the fecking joke would accept the nomination. Poopy-heads can not accept and go whine elsewhere. Seriously, is it just me, or has there been way too much drama around here lately? People complaining about article quality and all sorts of things. Maybe it's just the stress of school starting up again, or something, I'm not sure. But geez, every time I log onto here, there's another debate about something going on. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 00:21 Sep 22, 2007

I've said it before, and I'll say it again to be mildly irritating: Drama seems to be a seasonal thing. I distinctly remember loads of it occurring right around this time last year, and it got so bad that we actually voted to make Drama the Useless Gobshite of December 2006. Is that ironic or what? --The Acceptable  Cainad  (Fnord) 05:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh! My turn to make a point! I disagree whith Mhaille. It wouldn't be cool to make noms Admins only. POWER TO THE PEOPLE! (Users may find this user hated, and despite the BLARING OBVIOUS THING HE DID WRONG, sysops like him). I don't agree with the "Make the nominees accept the nom", as only Zerotrousers would. I do say, that there should be a rule staitng:You must state why this user is a gobshite, but must list good things about the gobshite as well." This makes the gobshite feel wanted, AND he can have his "award" too! --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 15:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with Mhaille. Saying "this is an admin issue only" completely undermines the point of Uncyclopedia, the parody encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If the people want the award, we're entitled to the award. If we don't, we don't. This isn't an admin issue, and by saying it is, you might as well made all awards and VFD for admin-only voting. -- 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 18:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And furthermore, have you ever considered that it might be the users who are killing UGotM and causing the drama? Everything with UGotM was pretty smooth sailing for the last 6 months when I was here, save for this month only (and maybe April, but that wasn't because it was dragged down by drama, it was just because there was no one to nominate). If we hate drama, we shouldn't be getting rid of the award, we should be getting rid of the people who bully. This may seem like a chicken and egg situation, given that one can argue that the bully's tool is UGotM, and without it he would be powerless, but in the end it's the award that kills people, it's the people that kill people. Know what I'm sayin'? -- 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 19:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, all this drama sucks. I'm gonna take some Dramamine. --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 15:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, I just said that I would accept the award. I can take a joke. Can YOU??? Dunh Dunh DUUUUUUNNNNHHH!!! P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 15:36, Sep 22

Look at its eligibility requirements. Pay particular attention to the last one. Does it look like a joke now? <me grabs Led's shoulders, shakes violently> Does it, really? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, probably because I can't take anything seriously. It's an ability that I consider both a gift and a curse. Well, more of a curse really. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 16:02, Sep 22

In fact, that gives rise to a good point. Why not make one of the rules: This award is a joke. If you attempt to create drama by underhanded nominations or other flaming, you will be dealt with accordingly. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 16:08, Sep 22

Add'd. -- 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 16:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

HGG, when you said above "Users may find this user hated" - that's exactly what I'm going on about. It shouldn't be for people who are hated - those people should just be ignored. Remember denying recognition? Anyway... (cyber-)bullying is always a funny, funny joke to the (cyber-)bully, but I'm sure a lot of people know what it's like to be the subject of the joke. Not good, especially when the people nominated are usually people who have at least tried to contribute to the site and become part of it.

As it looks like most people want to keep the funny, funny joke award, at the very least measures should be put in place to ensure drama-free UGotM. Requiring nominees to accept or allowing nominees to remove themselves, admin only/approved nominations, and bans for people using it to just to say "I hate this guy" are all good ideas. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:10, 22 Sep 2007

Let's try not to make it too restricted, or else major hypocrisy will ensue. What's the joke in the award if we're told that "only this and that" are jokes. I think the new addition to the rules should suffice, and if anything bad happens in the future relating to UGotM, we can always just modify it again. For now, though, we have the one new rule and Manforman in Flammable's office, so I predict everything should be fine. -- 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 22:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I say we give UGotM to Drama again, that stupid motherfucker. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:05, Sep 22

SERIOUS MOTHERFUCKING BUSINESS

Cri moar pls--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 15:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Die more, please. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:10, 22 Sep 2007

OMG LOLOLOL UR FUNNY.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 17:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

NO, I r teh funnyest! I r teh pwnz0rz, u nooob! P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 17:20, Sep 22

UGotMs for all!! -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 00:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I now copy-paste what I've written in VFD so more can see:

“ I'm going to go ahead and jump right in here, regardless of how dangerous it might be to my "unbanned" status. Look, I don't particularly love UGotM. It's basically become a place where we borderline cyber-bully people, whether intentionally or otherwise. Part of the problem there is that people have lost track of what it's supposed to be. I don't think the "IT'S A DAMN JOKE!" is a sufficient reason to make people stop complaining that they got nommed. Another problem with it is that it seems to be pervaded with new people, which means people who don't know the concept behind it. It's not like it's very clear on the vote page. For all intents and purposes, reading it completely neutrally, it seems to be a legitimate page where users decide to mess around with people. I've been trying to cut down on my swearing lately, but this has become an absolute fucking nightmare. There has been a fair amount of controversy on the page as of late (at least two per month). Now, Zombiebaron (by the way, it was Anyone who declined NotM), don't make me go and link you to all the "debacles" that we've had so far. But they're there. I'm tired of watching this site, which I am very fond of, steeped in arbitrary controversy such as this. There is absolutely no reason why we should have to deal with all of this. As was the situation with Template:Featuredarticle the other night, sometimes the only way to fix a problem is to blank the source. And, as I've noted multiple times in this month alone, there has been a taut and somewhat unwelcoming atmosphere about the place recently. I don't know about any of you guys, but I think this could one of the major sources of the problem. I don't really like ranting the way I have, but I'm absolutely tired of this garbage. Bottom line, this is getting ridiculous. Currently, we have admins and users alike feuding rather heatedly over a page that is supposed to be a joke. All of them are users I consider to be useful. Therefore, we are tearing apart a tight-knit group of users that should be doing stuff that counts, not fighting over the fate of a vote page conceived in jest. I'm not expecting the adversity to go away, but I honestly don't think that this is helping matters at all. And that is simply unacceptable. ”

I fully stand by this statement. Guys, please stop getting all pissy. I understand it's the end of summer, and the year proper starting is always hectic, but for the love of God, stop acting like teenage girls. Even if you are a teenage girl, don't act like one. I'm sure we're all capable of a moderate amount of maturity, and I don't think that's too much to ask.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 00:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously, uncyc is not the place for PMS. If you've got it, just dump it on MySpace like everyone else. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:09, Sep 23

A small tip: not every site that you can edit works like MySpace. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 01:12, September 23, 2007

Protip: Most of them do, though! Like Wookieepedia! -- 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 01:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be mating season. All I know is that the felt is coming off my horns, and I have an irresistable urge to rut. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My personal urge is to drive a stake through my CSS which is still not working to block out the Wikia Spotlight. I currently am staring at the JourneyMan wiki and yelling out "IT'S A CHEAP RIP-OFF OF THE DEAD ZONE!" To sum up, we are currently having a jestful, boisterous conversation. This is how Uncyc is supposed to be. Don't let petty things get in the way. Yes, everything has a moral, like an after-school special.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

HEY HEY THAT'S UNCALLED FOR I HAPPEN TO LIKE AFTER-SCHOOL SPECIALS YOUR A DOODY AND I HATE U FOREVER :( Im tottally gona stare at u in the hallways awkfardly now and vote against everything u do, k? DRAMQADRAMMA DRAMMA -- 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 02:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Disregard that, I suck drugs. -- 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 02:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

OHRLY? WELL HOW ABOUT YOU EXPLAIN WHAT AWKFARDLY IS! BECAUSE I'VE NEVER HAD AN AWKFARD MOMENT! Seriously, is it like when an awkward moment leads to unplanned flatulence? Because that would be hilarious.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, flatulence. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:35, Sep 23

You CAN'T be serious

1. Any user that gets upset over anything he or she sees on the website is a whiny little emo that like, omg needs to grab a dictionary and look up satire instead of cutting themselves over it.
2. Any user that caters to the minority that can't handle a joke needs to be crucified. Come on people, this is Uncyclopedia. people that cause drama get BLOCKED, not defended.
3. What the hell is next? Are articles that are funny going to get deleted because they might be deemed as "offensive" by some users? If people can't take a joke, they are in the wrong place.
4. This already got voted "keep" on VFD. Bringing it up again seems like a thinly disguised Referendum that is going to get passed only by public fatigue.

-- Village Idiot♠KUN Free Speech 03:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This was in tandem to the VFD vote, and was a perfectly valid thing to discuss whatever the outcome, thank you. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 09:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We very much CAN be serious, Didn't you read the headline? SERIOUS MOTHERFUCKING BUSINESS! P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 10:34, Sep 25

This is a NEW headline, bucko. We can't be serious 'round these parts. --The Acceptable  Cainad  (Fnord) 16:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Shhhhhh! This is a humour free zone.