# User:The Woodburninator/RulesVsFunny

Alright, everyone. It's time I got something off my chest. Well, I've been trying for a while now. Trying to tell people, making templates, and whatnot, but my one man crusade against this is failing miserably. In short, the rules around this place are driving me crazy. Look, I understand rules. I understand the need for them, but the question has to be asked: What are we trying to do with this site? What is the point? Someone please tell me where I have went wrong, but here goes my understanding of the rules on this site:

1. We are a parody site of Wikipedia.
2. We are trying to be funny.
3. Don't be a dick.
4. ....
5. ???
6. Profit!

That's about it. My problem is not with those rules. I mean, obviously other stuff has to be there (No I.P. voting on VFD, No Over-creating templates, Don't spam shit) but our goals remain pretty clear to me: Parody Wikipedia while being funny, and not a dick. Done. For most of us, that's all that need apply.

## But...

But for some reason other shit gets in the way. I see it mostly on VFH (OH NO! NOT ANOTHER PERSON WITH A PROBLEM WITH VFH!). This is not limited to VFH, but that is where I find the best examples. I call them the "Funny, but..s" (lol, funny butts.). Against votes with the reasoning being:

• Funny, but...
1. ...It is short. People want to read articles longer than That time I was nearly raped by a yak during my sojourn in Canada.
• Look, from my experience people don't give a fuck about length. People want to read funny. New users get brought in by funny. No one comes because they read a mediocre, average-length article. I came FARTwait why this here? continuing, here to be a user here because I read a really funny article. If it makes you laugh, fuck the rest. Funny = Funny. There is no formula. The equation is not ${\displaystyle (Funny+(articlelength>40lines))/(Numberofcursewords+injokes)=Funny}$. No. Funny = Funny.
1. ...In-joke.
• Can someone point out what the problem with in-jokes are? I'm not supporting rampant in-jokery around here, but when we have an in-joke that is beloved by a lot of the users, and is considered funny, what is the problem? I've been around these Intronets (as the kids say) once or twice. I've seen sites that show in-jokes on (GASP!) the main page. And guess what? It was not a deterrent. I was fine with not understanding the in-joke if the damn thing was funny. Plus, it often got me immersed in the site when I went about trying to learn the origins of the joke. Man, I can't stress this enough, but... comedy = comedy.
2. ...OMG! SOMEONE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO CLEAN UP A PAGE! N00B ALERT! LEARN HOW TO FORMAT YOU DUNDERHEAD! TOO MANY RED LINKS! TOO MANY RED LINKS!
3. ...It's too British/American.
• Yes, there is comedy that is quite country-centric. But here's the thing: We can't please all the people all the time. I would rather see an article featured that all of Britain thinks is the greatest thing of all time rather than an article that everyone in the world can agree made them laugh 1.36 times. If you don't get it or don't know the subject, but everyone that seems to know what the damn thing is about thinks it is the funniest thing ever, just abstain. It's ok.
4. ...It's stupid humor
• Does anyone realize how hard it is to make good stupid humor? Everyone thinks you just throw some shit together, and it just HAPPENS to be funny. No. You have to craft it together just as well as other forms of humor. Stupid humor is humor too, and in many ways harder to write. Matt Groening has made a career out of it. Homer Simpson, and Phillip J. Fry. The two main characters of his two most famous shows have perfected the stupid idiot (...well, their writers have.) And they are FUNNY. There's nothing wrong with this. Again, humor = humor.

I'm sure the list goes on, but it would be pointless to go further with this.