Forum:The Whorehouse

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > The Whorehouse
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1757 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I have an idea for a page that I'd like to see here. I call it The Whorehouse. This is a page where a user can go to whore his or her own articles that he or she thinks might be feature-worthy.

Why, you ask? For several reasons. One, the rules against self-noms for VFH are great and inviolable, and I totally support them. I also totally support the unwritten standard against whoring your articles in public (on talk pages and such). I never do it. I don't think. So this would be like a vetting place, other than Pee Review, where a writer can without shame post a link to his or her article and see if anyone else thinks it's feature-worthy. The problem is that Pee Review, an excellent and well-managed resource for the site in general, mind you, might not be the best resource for getting your own article featured. Pee Review is one person's feedback, and very often (as we see on the VHF nom page) one person's feature is another's piece of crap. With this, we could even eliminate self-nomming altogether; if you want to self-nom, no - you can vet it in The Whorehouse. Another thing I see as a major benefit is that all that shouting about "don't whore here" would have a direction in which to point potential whores. If you can't beat them, give them their own space. Legalize it. Whore-haters can say "Go whore that shit in The Whorehouse".

So here are the rules I would propose for The Whorehouse:

  • You may only post your own articles here, and you post your articles that you in good faith believe are feature-worthy.
  • No posting someone else's article - if you feel someone else's article is feature-worthy, you can VFH it.
  • Only comment on a article if you would not vote for it for VFH, and briefly state why. Perhaps recommend to the writer to get a Pee Review.
  • If you would vote for someone else's whored article for VFH, remove it from The Whorehouse and nominate it. All it takes is one person to nominate an article.
  • All whored articles are removed after one week if nobody VFH's them (or some other standard to be agreed upon)
  • You may remove your own article from The Whorehouse at any time, of course

Anticipated objections:

  • Many users hate whoring no matter what. Those users can avoid The Whorehouse.
  • Some may feel that this would discourage the use of Pee Review and/or load up the VFH queue with crap. Agreed. If that happens, The Whorehouse can be shut down by vice officers. Or, we can be elitist about it and grant access to The Whorehouse to writers who have demonstrated skill, teachability and usefulness.
  • Some may say great articles find their way to the top eventually, and no whoring is ever required. Maybe, but conversely, great articles sometimes get lost, or take a long time to find their way to the top. Meanwhile the feature queue suffers without them. Maybe.
  • If a good article gets a poor Pee Review, the writer can simply get a second opinion, and anyway we trust Pee Review; generally poor Pee Reviews are legitimate and the writer needs to fix an article before it's really ready. Yeah, that's true. I can't argue with that. But I don't know if that means we can't have this resource also. For one thing, if an article really needs fixing, the comments in The Whorehouse will indicate so, and if one person nominates it anyway, then VFH will reveal this. So the benefit of The Whorehouse - streamlining the process of matching great articles with someone who will nominate them - is not eliminated by this argument, I think.

I wrote UnScripts:Waiting For Godot 2: Waiting With A Vengeance in February. Of course I write for my own pleasure and not for the recognition from my peers, but then again, I don't write for my own pleasure, I write for the recognition from my peers. Right? Anyway, it seems that it is generally very well-liked. So I wonder, with all of these great, underpaid writers, what else is out there that might be really great work, but the author is too respectful of our culture to wave it about like a banner, and we and our Main Page are all the worse off for missing it? Maybe if they know there is a place they can go and be a whore without shame, they will do so, and we will all benefit.

Or just tell me to shut up and go back to my little corner. --Globaltourniquet GlobalTourniquetUnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 18:18, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

If you think you can make it work, go for it. I know people have tried this a number of times and it always seems to stagnate and fail. But anything's possible if you follow your dreams! -- Also, penis. 18:25, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Didn't MrN already do this? Plus, there's Hyperbole's VFG page which is kinda like that. And you shouldn't write to get features, you should write to write. If you're only writing so to get features, I'd have to believe you're an attention-craving whore. You should be a dick-craving whore. You're an embarrassment to your mother, Global. You really are. MegaPleb Dexter111344 Complain here 18:35, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
RAHB: You mean, be italic about this? Actually, these responses are nice. I would like to find out what didn't work about earlier attempts like this before I would jump.
Dex: I crave dick as much as the next guy, that's another issue. But I'm also a wiki-improvement whore. And I do write to write. Click on the squeezey globe in my sig and check out my list of articles that no one has ever read and that I've never whored (or even loaded the Pee Review queue with). When I saw the response to Waiting... <non-ironic self-indulgence>I wondered if others, like me, are hiding their brilliance, or worse, unlike me, are unaware of it. That's all.</non-ironic self-indulgence> Oh, and I think this is a different animal from VFG, don't you think? This is for shameless whoring, which VFG also seems to discourage. --Globaltourniquet GlobalTourniquetUnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 18:49, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Well, those who don't know they're talented aren't very likely to put their page up for public display on a whoring page. I think the reason that most attempts have failed is simply that people like to write and get praise more than they like to read and give praise. People put articles up, but don't read any. I mean, we have the recent articles template to bring attention to twenty five articles at a time, and the UnNews template which does like fifteen or something I think. I don't think the execution has really been the problem, I think it's just the nature of usership that creates the supposed need for such a page in the first place. But if you think you can make it work, like I said, it's all up to you. -- Also, penis. 19:07, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
We already have pages for whoring. They're called "userpages". Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:21, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but userpages aren't really a single central page on which collective whoring can take place. Personally I think this would be a good thing to at least try- better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. --Andorin Kato 06:29, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
I for one have nothing against a whoring page. -- Style Oranssiviiva Guide 20:22, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
It should, at least, be a place you shouldn't have to whore around much. And, although Pee Review is in some cases useful, in others it hardly is, for reasons I'll not go into. So for those who want to whore without criticism, the page should be useful. By the way: MrN9000:s Collaboration page is Whorehouse by another name. Hm. What if you just joined forces with him/that place? I don't see why the page couldn't fulfill two functions. Both should gain popularity by that. -- Style Oranssiviiva Guide 07:24, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Whoring Below

Uncyclopedia:VFH/UnBooks:Insipid Sentimental Women's Novel (2nd nomination)

Go here and vote For. C'mon. I know you all want to... —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 23:11, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia:VFH/UnTweets:Osama Bin Laden

Come on, it'll draw a smile of enjoyment on your face, at least. FreddIs Great In Bedd 22px-Flag_of_Egypt.png 18px-Foxicon.png 09:15, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Modusoperandi

/me stands on street corner, shows a little thigh Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:21, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

What's $50 get me? —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:26, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
All this. 374 pounds of white chocolate. Sweaty white chocolate. In badly discoloured tighty whities. And some badly contained beanbag chair stuffing. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:29, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
If that's the case, what's $19.24 get me? Because that's all I have. My wife doesn't trust me with credit cards or the checkbook anymore. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 06:00, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
That's it?! Cheapskate. It's people like you that give "John" a bad name. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 06:25, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects