User talk:Modusoperandi/PLS/Results

So when is the list of judges going to be filled in? --EMC ^[TALK] 08:51 Oct 1 2009

I dunno. Sometime. I assume that it, being on the interwebs, does it automatically. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 12:59, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

I'm first to get mine in!

Really I had no choice though. I'm leaving tomorrow, and not getting back until it's over. Would you like a cookie, sir? 02:31,19October,2009

Sex vacation to Thailand? Say "Hi" to Min for me. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:38, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Keep guessing. Would you like a cookie, sir? 02:53,19October,2009

Cambodia? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:59, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Italy.    Orian57    Talk   03:05 19 October 2009

Don't be silly. They have Uncyclopedia in Italy. --monika 03:06, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Wow. You people is really oblivious. Would you like a cookie, sir? 19:29,19October,2009

You bet. • FreddThe Metalhedd • • • 19:32, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of strange vacations to lands without Uncyclopedia, I believe Zombs asked to be emailed when judging started. Did that get taken care of? --monika 20:08, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Obviously. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:31, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oh good. Now I feel less silly for feeling silly for asking. --monika 21:18, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't technically email him. I emailed someone, and put "forward to Zombiebaron" on it. I assume that after a long journey, it will arrive in his inbox with a story to tell. A heartwarming story about a dog, lost during a vacation or left behind when the family moved, that crossed the country to find its owner, probably. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:23, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Any luck with the heartwarming story? I could shout at him on last.fm if it would help. --monika 15:55, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Beings as his last contrib was in August, I would be ever so grateful if you did. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:01, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to tell you... He's judged it but hasn't posted yet because of some magical internet problem. --monika 05:15, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's better than "My dog ate it". Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:16, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

He sent me the thingie and confirmed he gave a tie for first place (4.5 points each). --monika 20:55, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

The dreams are crushed.

I won't be here to apologize to them when they see it, so can someone just tell them I said I'm not sorry at all? Would you like a cookie, sir? 22:29,19October,2009

From TPLN's excessive on-page judgery

Back when I was a young PLS winner, judges took time to judge, and wrote stuff on the judge page, feedback, if you will. So that's what I'm gonna do, if only a bit.

user:Mahm00shA/UnTweets:Osama Bin Laden - Great concept, high potential for funny that I felt did not quite get reached. Still, a nice piece. I did chuckle as I read it, not laugh out loud, and while big lols are not the end-all of the PLS or Uncyc in general, unrealized potential is a minus.

User:Necropaxx/HowTo:Fish - Unfortunately this article does not work for me. The concept is fine, but I did not laugh much. I think the main issues are (1) the characters are not rock-solid consistent (example, this exchange: Yeah, you! You stay away from my son, you hear?! I don't want you getting near him! Aw, come on, dad! I like fishing! Can't I go fishing with grandpa again?.....Oh, I guess. But he has to let me know when he's taking you! I had no idea where you were! Your mother's worried sick! The father's transition is too abrupt, then quickly later we find out grandpa broke out of a home, making the father's response inconsistent), and (2) the situation comedy is not solid - good jokes are rare, and the running situation is too disjointed to be consistently humorous. The potential is there, but I think you can find a way to more consistently connect the metaphor of the building fishing drama with the subtle molestation/crazy-old-man subtext. This factor is pretty weak as it is. This is not an easy thing to do, but comedy is not easy.

User:Zheliel/Why?:Become a Butcher - Hm. The laugh factor here for me is near zero. The images are few and not funny. The language is weak and the voice inconsistent (what is the pretense here? Is it a failed infomercial, as the ending might poorly suggest? It's impossible to tell), and there are multiple typographical and grammatical errors, and don't kid yourself - this makes a huge difference. My suggestions here would be to tighten up the language and find a consistent pretense or scenario on which the reader can "hang his reader-hat" so to speak.

User:Padimir Padoffski/UnNews: Catholic Church outlaws sausages - There is some potential here, but I'm not sure it's quite pulled off as strongly as it could have been. If I understand it correctly, we are going for not-so-subtle irony - satirizing the fact that the church often decries poorly interpreted mundane things, and this decrying hurts the product not one bit - indeed things banned or decried by the church often prosper as a result. I get all that, and the idea could be amusing. But it could have been better written. Once again, I think tighter, more reporterly writing style would be more effective. As it is it's a bit too loose and wordy. The Onion does a great job of a true reporter's style. I could rewrite this article in a way I think is tighter to demonstrate; take the opening for instance: "Just days after attempting to remove the word "crack" from English dictionaries, the Catholic Church today condemned the manufacture, consumption and possession of sausage across the globe." This sounds more like the language of a reporter, I think. Other problem phrases: "after he took to" too wordy, "to this" is unnecessary, "have turned into" should probably just be "and", "with effigies.. being..." is passive and weak, "have praised" should just be "praised", etc. Also, the image caption is out of place, even if somewhat amusing.

User:Guildensternenstein/Insipid Sentimental Women's Novel - Well, you got curmudgeonly old me to laugh out loud right away; "big blue sky -- of tragedy." Hah! I got the insipidness right off. "Or some bullshit" shatters the fourth wall too soon, I think. The fourth-wall crumbling begins vaguely in character ("thinly veiled feminine/fertility symbol"), but I think maybe it should gradually get more and more blatant. "Shitty metaphor" - same thing. Maybe tone that down, like "not the strongest of metaphors," to where a slow reader might still be able to believe we are not breaking out, and a quick reader can feel superior because he already knows what's happening. Subtlety, yeah. Oh, and you missed something, and I can't believe you missed it. Where is the parallel red lollypop at the ending? Susie should snatch a red sucker from the hospital receptionist and stick it in her mouth, and the writer should way too obviously point out that it was probably cherry, just like the one she remembered so long ago or some shit. I'm just saying.... Anyway, nicely done. Funny, clever, well well written, images are great, top-notch satire.

User:PuppyOnTheRadio/UnNews:Australia says "You just don't understand our humour!" - Very funny, very nicely written, fun to read and great satire. There is little to say about how this could be improved, plus I don't understand Australian humor, so how could I possibly help?

User:Why do I need to provide this?/HowTo:Be Homeless in America - Amusing, poignant, very well written, excellent use of images and structure. The humor level isn't over-the-top, but it's very appropriate for the subject. This is an enjoyable read and a feature candidate for sure.

User:Orian57/UnRadio:Tricia Bellerose on Pirate FM - Cute and well written. I might surmise that there are some cultural references missed, but I must call the humor level, though amusing, somewhat low for me. Images are OK, but could not be described as great. This is one I would not know how to tell you to improve, because the prose is excellent and the characterizations seem consistent, but I just wasn't highly amused.

1. User:Guildensternenstein/Insipid Sentimental Women's Novel

2. User:PuppyOnTheRadio/UnNews:Australia says "You just don't understand our humour!"

3. User:Why do I need to provide this?/HowTo:Be Homeless in America

4. User:Orian57/UnRadio:Tricia Bellerose on Pirate FM

5. user:Mahm00shA/UnTweets:Osama Bin Laden

Judge has judged. So shall it be said, so shall it be done. As GOB once said,

"My name is Judge." Whose name is Judge?
"My name is" That's a strange name.
"Judge. My Name" Yes, I am judging your name. It am strange.

"Is" Oh, now you're correcting my grammar?

AK's judgery, which, while less excessive, is still on-page

• Rules of baseball: This article was actually half-decent. While it did not make me laugh out loud, it was cleverly written and elicited a snort of amusement or two. The ideas are fairly well-expressed. The first part of the "Home runs" section was a mystery to me because I don't know anything about cricket, but not everyone would have that reaction. The article really needs images, however, and could do with a few more links, especially for its size. Give it a good conclusion, weed out the few grammatical/spelling mistakes, add some images and maybe trim it a little (since brevity is the soul of wit), and you've got potentially VFH-material here. 7/10

• Military Action: First off, the writer gains a couple points for good formatting and spelling/grammar, but loses a couple because this thing is so short. That said, while the author seems to have a good grasp of how to wield sarcasm (which is a plus, of course), I didn't find much funny about the article. The first section, Divorce, was a little clever in the way it described a standard divorce, but the second section, "Conservatism," looks just like simple political criticism and lacks any real punch in terms of humor. No images and a list are turn-offs, too. Sorry, try again next time. 4/10

• UnNews: Meteor shaped like Simon Cowell's head on collision course with Earth: My first suggestion for the author would have been to run the article through a spellchecker, as I noticed a handful of typos as I read through the page. That said, I'd normally say "add more content!" but this is UnNews, so you can get away with having a short piece. However, I was disenchanted by the fairly liberal use of swear words (not that they offend me; they just detract from an article's quality when used excessively) and the odd formatting for the quotes also made me a little sad. I can see this article being improved and turning into something good- maybe not front page material, but something that's worth keeping around and showing to your friends with a big proud smile on your face. 6/10

• Age of Mythology: Here are the first two sentences of the article: "Age of Mythology is a spin-off of crap which is about pigs. You can choose to be the Greek, the Niggers, the Craps, and the Klingons." Any self-respecting writer ought to be able to tell what the rest of the article is like. The rest of the article is almost nothing except lists that break a lot of informal writing rules: in-jokes (AAAA: AAAAAA AAA AAA.), excessive numbers (Chicks: Their sex has double resources but cost 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, bucks), overuse of sexual humor (too many to list), bad vocabulary (Due to extreme suckyness...), etc etc. No images, nothing but lists, and no real content. I feel slightly dumber having read it. 1/10

Ah, was I supposed to put that here? My bad. --Andorin Kato 20:18, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

It's probably better that you did. It's looking kinda crowded on the main page. Also, my opinions of the article are very similar to those descriptions. I just paraphrased due to a lack of time. Would you like a cookie, sir? 21:17,25October,2009

If you do that, you're supposed to put them on a subpage under your userpage. Didn't you get the instructions that nobody has written down? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:19, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I ignored them. Isn't that what I'm supposed to do? --Andorin Kato 21:20, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

Waahhh!!

Only an honorable mention! /fail • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Monday, 00:11, Oct 26 2009

You can't win them all. I could have, but you can't. Pup 03:02, 26/10/2009

This coming from the guy who entered three categories and only won one... YEAH, I SAID IT! WHAT?! • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Monday, 03:05, Oct 26 2009

<justification>I only entered into one. I just helped flesh out the others. </justification> Pup 03:11, 26/10/2009

Next time, consider ruthlessly crushing your competition. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:16, October 26, 2009 (UTC)