Uncyclopedia:Deny recognition?

Motivations for vandalism (as distinguished from hooliganism and random humor) range from a psychopathological need for attention to a profound and deep-rooted hatred of everything. In short, the world is full of asshats. Some people would have you believe that trolls and vandals are interested in recognition and infamy. This is not true. Most of these people (if people is indeed the correct word) are really just crying inside. They don't care what we think of them: they just wish to take their frustration out on the nearest available punchbag.

Why vandalism isn't a big deal

Vandalism isn't a big deal. The average act of vandalism takes roughly 30 seconds to commit but roughly one Planck time to revert. OK, I'm exaggerating, but you get the point. If vandals were really that big a deal the whole internet would have collapsed in a flaming wreck long ago.

OK, so what the hell are you on about and why should I care?

Excellent question, my undereducated young friend. I'm talking about VFH and articles praising or encouraging trolls. Should we automatically not allow articles praising or encouraging trolls to be featured? I shall present both sides of the argument in the interests of fairness and then draw my conclusions.

Why we should allow articles encouraging trolls

1. Uncyclopedia's primary function (if you can call it that) is to be funny. So the most important question is: is the article funny?
2. As we have already established, vandalism isn't a big problem.
3. I can count the number of trolls who actually read the site's contents on no hands - partly because there are none and partly because I don't need to count on my hands.
4. The site is already littered with BENSON references.

Why we should not allow articles encouraging trolls

1. I'm a big fat stupid-head.
2. I maed a yuky doody.

Conclusions which can be drawn from this

1. We should allow articles encouraging trolls to be featured so long as they are funny. That is to say, encouraging trolls alone is not sufficient reason to vote against an article. Of course, if it's not funny and encourages trolling then smite it like the rancid pile of crap it is.
2. Those on the other side have no arguments and are really retarded.

How to tame a troll

I recently wrote a certain article about a troll. And, lo and behold, said troll has turned into a semi-productive member of a semi-productive wiki. Or maybe not, I'm not sure. I do know he fixed a typo on an article so that kind of still counts towards my point.

So what conclusions can we draw from this?

1. The particular always proves the general.
2. Writing about trolls occasionally makes them into useful human beings.

The ultimate point of this essay

My English/PE teacher always said that when writing an essay you should say what you are going to say, then say it, then say what you just said (I think it had something to do with filling up space). Of course, I didn't do what she said because she is an idiot who can barely spell her name. However, for the purposes of clarity, I shall now sum up my main points.

• Trolls are really dying inside and deserve our pity.
• Vandalism isn't a big deal.
• Encouraging trolls is not sufficient reason to vote against an article.
• Sometimes trolls turn back into people if they are kissed by a princess.