User:The Woodburninator/RulesVsFunny

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 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 . 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.
  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.

I bet this guy is just bitter about something[edit]

Now, I have no problem saying I'm bitter about some of this. I still think it's a travesty that Talk:Sania Mirza was not featured because I had deleted some comments that, to be honest, added nothing to the conversation really. This is absolutely hilarious if you have read the article. Nothing on this site has made me laugh harder, for longer than that I.P. and his terrible confusion. Here's the thing, if people had voted against on this because no one who did not read the article would get it, I would be cool with that. Instead it was voted down because comments were deleted (they were quite unimportant, look at them. AND it wasn't even that those particular comments were deleted, just the principal of the matter), and because it was a talk page (which limits funniness.... how?). There are other examples that I was disappointed with, but now I just sound whiny. I'll just finish this by saying that funny should trump all. If there was a good amount of dickishness were involved, than it is different. Be funny, don't be a dick. Past that, rules need to be flexible. The scale of importance should read: Funny trumps all.

So, what? Users are trying not to be funny?[edit]

No, that isn't it. I see a bunch of guys and girls come in here trying to be helpful, trying to be funny, and are really cool people. Most of the regular users are really cool people. Unfortunately some users (cool or not), regardless of how helpful they are being, are a little too worried about rules. Everyone, just calm down. Remember this: funny is funny. We need the prospective new users for this site to see funny. The rest will come to them. I was told once (by whom, I don't know, and don't want to remember. I'm not here to call out anyone.) that we should stick to writing and featuring high-comedy, longer-ish articles over anything "stupid" or short. With this I could not disagree more. We are setting restrictions on our userbase and our writers. It is hard enough for most of us to be funny, we don't need restrictions. We need to be cultivating every corner of comedy on this site. I know "It's not about getting features" but for new users, getting something featured is a great reason to stay around writing. And if a new user has written a 10-sentence gem that we all laugh at then he deserves to be rewarded. It is not supposed to be about getting awards and highlights, but writers can be fickle, self-doubting people. Look at Cajek. I'm not sure where I read it, but I once saw him say that one of the reasons he left was that he just didn't feel that funny anymore. This was said by one of the absolute funniest people to ever walk into this place. If someone like Cajek could be hit with self-doubt, it can happen to anyone. So, please, don't restrict someone who is funny. Don't force people to write long-winded, high-comedy pieces that aren't as good as some of their other writings just to try and get featured. We should be forcing people to be funny in order to get featured. That is it.

So, you're saying we should be ED.[edit]

Absolutely not. ED is the way other end of the speculum spectrum. I happen to find very little of their stuff funny, but others do. To each their own. I'm cool with not seeing random Goatses around here. In fact, I may even go so far as to say I prefer not to see Goatses anywhere. (Did I ever mention I am totally cool with the no Goatse rule? That's a keeper.) I'm just saying we need to stop getting all bureaucratic around here. It is bogging down the writers and the comedy. I fear that we have gotten a little too self-important for our britches. Allow some different types of humor to be highlighted. Stop trying to stuff everything into a little box. Let our humor run free, dance with some bunnies in a forest somewhere. Stop worrying about all the other shit, and just worry about that one simple thing: Funny.

And Finally, the tl;dr version:[edit]

How The Uncyclopedia Scale Of Importance Should Read: