Uncyclopedia talk:Flamewar Guidelines

134.10.12.79 has been banned for blanking.

I would suggest that people actually follow the flamewar guidelines instead of being idiots. I mean, the point of the site is to encourage a degree of stupidity without burning into other people. If you're going to be an asshole to others, I will ban you. We're getting an influx of idiots, and I hope I don't have to turn registration on.--Chronarion 02:51, 8 Mar 2005 (EST)

Not every blanker, however, is gonna get banned. Or are they?

Famine blanked the following paragraph at the bottom of the main page:

Remember also those who died in Viet nem by being fried with soybeans. Good appetite. 80.201.235.242 13:13, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That paragraph looks rather innocuous to me; but since Famine is an admin, and has declared a holy war against "random humor", he will uproot humour (i.e., remove what he finds offensive to him rather than add a counterbalancing paragraph) whenever the point is too subtle for him, or hidden by an apparent political statement running contrary to his beliefs. Of course, these guidelines are "ignorable", and anyone, especially an admin, may decide to ignore them. Admins are above laws, especially the Uncyclopedia non-binding laws. Too bad. There goes my elation at having found a 'pedia even more full of freedom and anarchy than the Wiki. No room for humour on the Internet. :-( Tonymec 06:12, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

P.S. It may seem paradoxical that I'm advocating laws and anarchy in the same breath. The paradox is only apparent: I'm in favour of freedom, and of self-restraint in the use of freedom. One person's freedom stops where the other one's starts, whether or not there are laws to mark the boundaries. -- Tonymec 06:19, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense + Satire + Humor != Anarchy + Free Speech

(that is, we are not a random humor 'pedia). --Splaka 06:22, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe random humor for the sake of random humor is not enough because it lacks the "satire" element. But in my eyes, (nonsense + humor) = random humor, so (nonsense + satire + humour) = satire + random humour. (I know, I know, there may be a paralogism hidden there, but probably no worse than your ex cathedra unequation.) OTOH, satire requires free speech and a healthy range of freedom, otherwise it will find itself bound and gagged by censorship. So, is satire really missing? When in doubt, refrain from acting. IMHO that paragraph was no worse than the one above it (about "1939 flame wars"), and maybe pulling the blanket in the opposite direction. Or maybe not, but then what? If we kill all random humorists in the nib, we might quite well find ourselves without a single humorist, random or otherwise. So why start a deletion war on the very page which emphasises adding rather than deleting? I'm relatively new on this playground, but if it's "the other guy's ball, bat, backyard,and rules, and don't you dare step one inch out of line", then I guess I was wrong in thinking that it might be fun. -- Tonymec 06:37, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Some areas strive for, and allow freedom of, random humor. But some (so called) "Ignorable policies" are meant to be slightly more serious. Any detrimental edits on the project namespace (Uncyclopedia:) will most likely be reverted. Such policy pages should usually be both funny and yet informative. As this was an addition to a policy page, Famine was well within his rights and obligations to oversee it and, in that instance, revert anonymous and stupid edits to it. Why are you whinging about it so? --Splaka 06:45, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

OK, so let's spell it out: 80.201.235.242 was (and still is) me; minutes after doing that edit (my first one on Uncyclopedia) I thought I had better get a login name. Please tell me, what is "both funny and informative" about the paragraph just above the one blanked, and which goes:

Respect the Dead

As much as we like flame wars, please remember those who died in the 1939 Uncyclopedia Flame Wars. Man, do I love the smell of napalm in the morning. Respect.

? It sounded pointless and stupid to me, but I tried to understand. No luck. But this very policy is about not deleting, I'm not going to delete. What does it make me think of? 1939 is WW2, so let's say something about fire and Vietnam. But wait a sec, "nem" is a dish consisting of soya rolled in a crisp pancake and fried in boiling oil. I was expecting a smile, I get the axe. And yet I never thought of going against the policies in the page; quite the contrary, I thought I had found a way to add a little smile while staying in the mood of the page and avoiding the "detrimentality" of removing a "too short" paragraph with not much "point" in it. I know, all this site is about nonsense, but, as is extensively explained in this and other policies, not random, pointless, nonsense that could equally well be generated by hooking in a keyboard to a random generator. I thought I had understood what it was all about. Oh, well, let bygones be bygones. -- Tonymec 07:12, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The humor here doesn't have to be satire. Or any other particular kind of humor. It just has to be funny. We already have a lot of "random" pages - more than necessary, in my opinion (though oddly, Random is not really a humor page at all, nor is it random). There is room for random humor in places, but generally "policy" pages, loose as they are, aren't those places. And trust us, giving people complete freedom to write whatever they want doesn't work. It just results in a metric ton of garbage that no one will ever read. That's what blogs are for. --—rc (t) 06:52, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

"Funny" is a slippery term: what gets a smile, or even a belly laugh, from one person, will leave the next one cold as stone. If I don't see the point of a joke, I don't immediately declare that it "is" not funny (to anybody), and therefore without merit. Complete freedom doesn't work, OK, but how strict should censorship be? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? IMHO, reverting deletes should be more aggressive than killing random noise if we want to care for that fragile plant, humour. -- Tonymec 07:12, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yes, determining humor is subjective and difficult. Many of the deletions/reversions/whatever aren't one admin acting alone. Even if there's no indication that an admin consulted with another or with other regular users in deciding to delete an article, it may have been discussed on IRC or elsewhere, or huffed per previously determined deletion guidelines, like the burning spree I just went on (don't know if that's the case with Famine's edit). Please don't cry "censorship" as if we were trying to stifle voices here. We're just trying to maintain a site that's hopefully funny to some people. --—rc (t) 07:37, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

While the rest covered it pretty well, here's my answer as required by virtue of being an officer of Uncyclopedia:

A) Uncyclopedia: is protected policy namespace. I debated deleteting a bunch more of the rubbish on that page (as the lord high Chronarion just did) but settled for just killing an orphan instead of burning down the slums. Laziness on my part. I appologise, and I will not let it happen again.

B) As to whether "the point is too subtle for him", it wasn't. And as to whether it was "hidden by an apparent political statement running contrary to his beliefs" it wasn't, because my political beliefs are that I hate people. Passionately. Like the French. Especially anon-IPers. I revert and delete their shit all the time. Especially in the sacred Uncyclopedia: namespace. It just wasn't funny, like the most of the other crap before it on that page.

C) You were very very wrong when you thought that you'd "found a 'pedia even more full of freedom and anarchy than the Wiki." As others have pointed out, if we allowed that, we'd have a steaming pile of dung on our hands. If you think that that's the way, by all means, make your own free anarchistic wiki up - we'd love to direct a sizable portion of our traffic there.

D) This is actually a anarcho-dictatorship, run by incopotent blowhards with varied (and often random) political agendas. At times moderately-good articles will be huffed in large swathes, and at other times, random crap will be left on the site, and protected so that nobody messes with it. The admins on this website are far more randomly humourous than any of the "random humor" you've currently babbled on about. Frankly, we're the best at it, which is why lessor random humor gets whacked all the time. Except when it gets protected or pushed through a vote for featured article, due to the randomness of the admins.

E) And I'm sort-of confused - are you talking up there about reading articles on this site and trying to folow them as policy? Like there are some sort of rules here? There aren't any rules. This is an anarchy. If you continue to read policy pages and then bitch when people don't follow policy, I will have to ban you. Just like all those people I banned last week for not following policy. That will teach them not to play by the rules.

In conclusion, I thank you for playing, and hope that your time here has been full of wonder and learning. And did it ever occur to you that slapping a "genocide on random humor" template on my user page might have been random humor? It wasn't. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 00:11, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I blanked the edits of a dumbass. Do I get a cookie? --Aristeo 05:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Starting a flame.

Your Java is wrong. You have no decleration for "users" so you can't use "users.getNext()", it can't be a static function because of naming conventions and it can't be an inherited class, thus, your Java is flawd and won't run.

You get an D- for this assignment.

Dude, the Java is perfect. You're completely wrong about everything. 217.209.203.12 19:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you misspelled "declaration". You deserve that D-. --Jaykay 10:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pie is good eats with nose. Good call! Pie is also lard with black beans on my back.

This Website is Subversive

Is this site run by the USDOJ to ferret subversives?
You can tell me the truth because I can keep a secret ;) ;) you didn't post my IP address. that's mess up. maybe the DOJ has all my transactions going through their computers -- that would suck, 'cause I've been known to download tranny porn.

US Attorney loyal to The Cause: have you ever downloaded tranny porn or thought about downloading tranny porn?

unidentified uncyclopedia editor: well, ummmmmm........i touch myself

US Attorney loyal to The Cause: have you ever posted or thought about posting comments that were disloyal to the cause or did not fully support the current Adminstration?

unidentified uncyclopedia editor: well, ummmmmm........i touch myself

US Attorney loyal to The Cause: have you ever had illicit sex with a consenting adult male or thought about illicit sex with a with a consenting adult male?

unidentified uncyclopedia editor: well, ummmmmm........i touch myself

US Attorney loyal to The Cause: have you ever had heterosexual sex with a consenting adult where sex was negotiated up front or thought about having heterosexual sex with a consenting adult where sex was negotiated up front?

unidentified uncyclopedia editor: well, ummmmmm........i touch myself

US Attorney loyal to The Cause: Good citizen jurors, my closing argument fully support the unidentified uncyclopedia editor has thought subversive ideas that contradict the goals of the current Adminstration and deserves the maximum punishment for being human and thinking out loud.

You all suck

Flamewars are for fags, everyone knows that. You all suck massive shark cocks. TV4Fun 21:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)