Forum:The Conformity

Forums: Index > Village Dump > The Conformity

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6332 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Shhhhhh! This is a humour free zone.

Okay, before I get started, let me just say that conformity gets a bad rap these days. Conformity keeps groups of people together, and keeps them happy. However, sometimes conformity can be counter productive. That is why in most contries (where voting acctually matters) the votes cast for leader are kept secret (Well that's not the only reason, but you get my point).
Now, I, Zombiebaron, have been knowen to conform from time to time, and so have we all. But, as I demonstrated (not very well) in the example above, confromity ruins the entire porpuse of voting. For instance, if a n00b see a picture on VFP which has been voted for by, let's say, Todd Lyons, Mhaille, and rcmurphy (not that I don't love everyone, it just that those guys are the first who came to mind ;) ), the n00b will be more likely to vote for that picture then if a bunch onf unheard of users had voted on the same picture. Of course, this also applies to VFH, VFD, and the Forum votes.
"But why is this a problem Zombiebaron? Those guys have good taste, and I don't mind if the influince me to vote", is probably what you are asking me in you're harsh raspy voices. Well, it probably isn't much of problem now, but it does need to be adressed (I think it kinda was adressed in Forum:Why We Vote by rc), because it seems that things whice are nominated these days either gets voted down, or passes with flying colors (mostly, not always), which is probably due to users seeing multiple positive votes and saying "Hey, if they liked it, how can I not like it?".
Anywho, I hope that this isn't to long, boreing, and misspelt for you guys, and also I hope that somebody else sees the trend (cause I swear I'm not crazy!). --Sir Zombiebaron 01:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said Zombie, just like I always do. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 01:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

READ THE HUMOR FREE SIGN....bloody wankers....eh? --Sir Zombiebaron 01:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Warning: the following could be construed as vote whoring. It's not, although the page in question is mine, it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing VFH and it will soon pass back into the obscurity from whence it came. Hey! I said "whence". Classy. See UnBooks:DoaC. It's got fors from a few of the best writers here (my favourites, at least), more from the A to A- list, and some from people who will, no doubt, eventually be kings among men. I don't see any bandwagon'ing there as the votes ended ten days ago (if it was a bandwagon, it must have been a small wagon. With a bagpipe playing band). For comparison see UnBooks:The CIGtTtW, which will pass. It has a much wider mix of voters, both fer and agin. So no conformity their either. Are you paranoid, or am I just not paying close enough attention?--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You little vote whore! :D Anyway, the link to "your" article is no longer funcitoning so I guess you were right and it got taken down. However, the second one contains a vote by User:The Blaque, which in my opinion would not have been cast were it not for votes from monika and Cornbread proceeding it. --Sir Zombiebaron 23:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, I was faced with a choice of either finding someone else's article and saying that it wouldn't pass, or using mine and saying the same thing. Which would you do?--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have used mine, but that's because my articles never pass VFH, and I know that they probably never will <sob> --Sir Zombiebaron 02:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So uhh... now that we've established that conformity does indeed exist, what's next?   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 02:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could brain drizzle a way to get rid of it in the frame of voting? --Sir Zombiebaron 02:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Rc doesn't really vote much anymore, except Against certain inane suggestions that continue to crop up from time to time. Perhaps I should follow suit? And Mhaille? It sure would throw a wench wrench into the recent vote whoring trend though.  :) Sad really, but prob'ly for the best... ~ Major Sir Todd Lyons GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC 02:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Todd. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Rc votes for an image, pretty recently too. Now I guess we all have to vote for it *sigh* --Sir Zombiebaron 03:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What really bugs me is that I apparently have to come up with reasons for keeping articles up for deletion, some just slap on Delete, and that's it, doesn't matter, just kill the damn thing. Look, if that were the case, wouldn't said article have been QVFD'd a ong time ago? Heck even a simple "has not been edited in a while" would be an OK reasoning. Mr. Briggs Inc. 03:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Eh?

What you are discribing may acctually be "Pluralisitic Ignorance" (a theory related to and including conformity) (probably spelt that wrong), where "newer" members of the group assume that something is the norm, and influince other people into beliving that their norm is the norm. Or, they are just lazy. Plus let me point out that some articles not QVFD'd because they slip through the fingers of the QVFDing users as they sleep/eat/aren't paying attention. --Sir Zombiebaron 03:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

But there are so many ways to catch QVFDs that it's just about impossible to miss, Recent changes, QVFD, New articles, Dead-ends, and tens of thousands of other things. Mr. Briggs Inc. 03:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Eh?

Do you have any idea the number of QVFD articles posted each day? If we miss 1 article a week, then we're doing fine, cause it will end up on VFD soon afterwards. But what you are discussing seems to come under th umbrella of the "Do we need more admins" debate, not the "Our voting is tainted" debate. --Sir Zombiebaron 03:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are forgetting one thing, and that is that you have one Dutchy bastard non-comformist and freethinker roaming this place. I make up my own mind (well, when I'm not drunk I do, when I'm drunk I just tend to rant and rave) and be very assured that this country of mine is filled to the gills with very individualistic, sarcastic, non-comformist, generally bastardic, eh, Dutchies. Oh, and Dykes. And if need be, I can mobilize them pretty quick by yelling for help in certain fora (e.g. http://geenstijl.nl) and flood your puny votings with an avalanche of non-conformism. I have spoken. -- di Mario 10:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What we need are more Devil's advocates, like me, who vote against something I don't like and to Hell with how many other people don't like it or give me grief for voting against "a great article" (like See Dick, FFW, Googlewacking... really, nearly everything Mhaille has done, so much that it has become quite the joke between him and me). That's my concept behind encouraging "voting for you," where even if everyone else likes something, if you don't, you should vote against. That's my thought on the matter, anyway. Luckily, very few people follow suit and vote just based on what I vote, as that would be counter-productive and make devil's advocacy obsolete. Or perhaps more important. Great, now I've confused myself again...  :)--<<>> 22:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Brad, in a perfect world we would not have people following what other people have voted. However the number of "as per User:User" votes is always on the rise. While "as per" comments are sometimes jokes, they do seem to indicate rampid vote conformity. Aslo Brad, wether or not people choose to conform, their psychological need to feel belonging to a group (although who would want to belong to this group :P) drives them to try and conform to the norms of Uncyclopedia's society. So they will adopte the same beliefs and actions as people who they view to be in more powerful stations withing Uncyclopedian society. Its really unavoidable, --Sir Zombiebaron 23:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's always factionalization. That usually helps any situation, right?--<<>> 23:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it IS a problem (other than the fact that I know that Brad, Sikon and Cornbread will ALWAYS vote against anything I create}, I think for the most part people will vote as their own opinions dictate. For example I was the only person who voted against one of Hardwick's articles a while back, because I personally didn't think it was suitable for featuring (the fact that it already had something like 22+ votes didn't affect my voting). The thing *I* don't like in voting is when someone mentions the author by name and the focus is on them as individuals rather than the article. That then gives the impression of conformity or worse, although I realise there is sometimes a joke element in this. Having said all this, lets remember that this site is about FUN. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

This is true. I've played with the "Brad votes against Mhaille" theme, because the "Brad votes against something skirting pornography" and "Brad votes against something because he can't cast aside his Puritan heritage" jokes have all been used so much, they are simply boring at this point.--<<>> 23:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I've voted for AT LEAST two of your articles.  ;)--<<>> 23:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Only joking mate, I know you love me. :) -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Mhaille my dear, of course you don't feel like you need to follow what other people do, you're pretty much on the top of the heap (at least from where I see it), and feel no need to look like everybody else. On the conterary, people will try and look like you. But yes, in the end its all about fun, even if that means that I take a second look at a page that's at +17 before voting against it, just to make sure. --Sir Zombiebaron 23:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

But there IS no heap, not even a Uriah one. In terms of voting for articles/images we all have the same voting power. Except for IPs, everyone hates them. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Well I know that. However, as an admin people feel the need to tell you how much they love so that you will feel predisoposed to do nice things for them. Hence, they try to be like you, because they feel that you will like people who are like you. So in the grand scheme of things there is a heap, much like the Order of Uncyclopedia. --Sir Zombiebaron 00:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

...the few times I've used "as per User" as a comment it's been because I've been for/against for the same reasons, not because I've gone and joined some conformity cult. Oh, as per Mhaille.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ditto ^^^^^^^^^ ~ Major Sir Todd Lyons GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC 02:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that where a substantive dissenting point of view is possible someone will take that point of view. The flip side of conformity is the irrepressible desire to stand out and assert your assholery individuality. Generally I think secure, established users like Brad are more likely to get all contrary and kick over tables in the process of dissenting from the majority than are new users...but once someone has made a coherent dissenting argument then the conformists are, I think, more likely to actually evaluate both for and against arguments before applying their rubberstamp. So consider it a service to God, country, and Uncyc to write those dissenting opinions.----OEJ 17:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)