Uncyclopedia talk:Writer of the 5.5 Years

Just saw this

I just saw this, and don't like the idea. Where was this award discussed? 5.5 years is, well, stupid, and to pick one user above the others like this should be saved for Writer of the Year, imnho, where the exceptional writers live. Maybe as a Killerfroggy award that he hands out to the winner, that seems better. But for the site, it just feels wrong to me, sayin'. Aleister 15:28 10 9

Was discussed here. As for 5.5 years being stupid, are you aware what website you're on? --UU - natter 15:35, Sep 10

I agree with Aleister. This idea is complete shit because we all know TOAST was the greatest anything ever. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 15:37, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Then vote for TOAST! You're telling me nothing new, Aleister. Now go vote because you know you want to. -- 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 17:23, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, except for the part about this award not being discussed, because actually you yourself also approved it. -- 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 17:28, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

I see no discussion pertaining to TOAST's 8 inch dick and his impact on several young children. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 17:54, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

The only thing discussed and voted on was a top 55 article list, not a "The Best Writer in Uncy's History" vote. I certainly am not going to pick one or two or three writers above others, with one winning. How many of the new kids have even read the pages, not only of the nominees but of the elder giants nommed? By stupid I mean even uncy stupid, no way one writer should be picked from an amazing pack. I'm agin' this award, and will cast my lot with TOAST in PROTOAST. Aleister 16:40 11 9

FUCKIT, since everyone is doing this anyway I'll put in a nom or two and comments, and vote for TOAST. Still not fair, no sir, notafaira. Aleister 17:21 11 9

Also, there's going to be five real winners. The runners-up get the cooler template, anyway. -- 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 20:08, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

From the other bit...

Don't get me wrong - I'm happy for this award to exist and for people to vote and all the other stuff. I just don't see this as contributing to the growth of the site. There are some awards here that I would fight tooth and nail for continuing - FA, WotM, UotM just to name a few. But these are to encourage people to continue contributing to high quality articles. Others, such as this, just seem to be over-egging the pudding, as they don't add any encouragement to continue to add quality, but more a way to reflect on previous glories. And I disagree with victimless - this kind of thing can discourage n00bs and semi-n00bs from contributing on the basis, as well as taking away good writers from actually writing. Lack of fresh blood and fresh new content is the thing that is most likely to hurt Uncyclopedia as a whole in the long-term. I've been here only a little over a year, but I visited here a fair bit a few years ago in what I would say was the time that this site hit its first peak in popularity, and a second peak is unlikely to surface unless we make it continue to grow. Someone pointed out that this doesn't take time away - they only spent 47 seconds to reply to my comments - but how much more time and energy has been spent on this as a whole beyond that? Or to make it a bit clearer what I mean - how much time has been devoted to these awards by people? Now counter balance that with how much time the same people have spent actually producing content? Even if we're talking a 3:1 ratio, that's still only 75% of an article produced when it should have been 100%. I haven't been writing anything new for a while as to be blunt I got exhausted by the sidelines and political bullshit that goes on in here. I've fought against joining in the IRC discussions and drawn away from Skype as well - in fact the only times I've been on there was to chat while writing and to get some quotes for UnSignpost. And now I've passed the tl;dr stage and then a bit more, but it would be nice when I say something in criticism for it to be understood it's like a PEE on an article - I criticise an article because I want that writer to do better - if I criticise a community effort like this it's because I want the community to be doing better. Nominally Humane! some time Monday, 02:04, Oct 4 2010 UTC

You do know that discussing this issue is going to take more effort that it is save?

On a more serious note, if you find yourself not writing, its probably because you either:

• see more urgent & important tasks that need done
• prefer doing other things

If we were to shut down all maintenance tasks (besides fighting vandalism in existent articles), we would get more than a few feature-worthy articles per month from our writer-admins. However, that would be at the expense of thousands of pages of crap and the resultant bad example for ip writers. I think we all can agree that maintaining quality control is worth the costs.

If you think you are getting distracted by other tasks, then you could always try to avoiding tasks you consider to be time wasters. --Mn-z 02:33, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is not economics. There is not a zero-sum game of time when it comes to this site. There may be if you want to calculate how much time each user spends doing what task on and off-site, but if you would do that, you'd be completely nuts and realize how futile that argument is, because we've got dozens of active users doing hundreds of tasks all the time. Some people write. Some people do maintenance. Some people are too busy with real life to do much else, but still want to remain tangentially involved, so they do stuff like this. Why does AFI do that "100 Years" bullshit, on which this award and related ones (most of which are going to get cut because I don't have the time/am already bored with this) are based upon? Why do they do that when they can be making movies? Because other people are already making movies while they do it, because lots of people do lots of stuff.

A while ago I argued that we should delete BHOP on the same exact reasoning you provide. In time, I came to realize that my argument was completely asinine. The only time that's wasted is the time it takes to type out these huge paragraphs that argue the same 2 points and never go anywhere. -- 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 08:36, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

What TKF said. --Mn-z 13:44, October 4, 2010 (UTC)