Forum:Namespace prejudice

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Namespace prejudice
Note: This topic has been unedited for 430 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.


The displayed rules for VFH (at Uncyclopedia:VFH/Rules) states, among other things:

  • Articles from all namespaces (including UnNews, UnTunes, HowTo, UnBooks, etc.) are eligible for VFH. Votes against articles based on namespace prejudice will be discarded.

Yesterday, I voted against the featuring of UnBooks:My Summer Vacation in Saudi Arabia and of Why?:I'm not sorry I ate your Unicorn, commenting on each: "Very good writing, but hardly encyclopedic." Shabidoo, author of the former, protested on my talk page (now archived).

My opinion is that Uncyclopedia is known as a satire encyclopedia, despite its other projects that extend it toward free-form comedy writing, and that the main-page feature should further this identity rather than showcase high-quality articles that blur this identity. This is a subset of my opinion that our focus should be the reader rather than the author, which has chronically attracted controversy of its own from authors who want a freer hand. (And Feature honors.) (Virtually all of these have retired to other websites where they have a freer hand.) I imagine that the reader of the main page is a casual acquaintance with little conception of what Uncyclopedia is, and featuring a good but unencyclopedic essay will send him away still without one. Now, if Uncyclopedia wants my vote on VFH, as it seems to, then you get the above piece of my mind. If writers are still opposed to "namespace prejudice," then I will rescind my two votes.

Vote: Delete the prohibition against "namespace prejudice" in the VFH rules

  • Symbol delete vote Delete. Hear hear. Spıke ¬ 10:07 18-Aug-13
  • Symbol against vote Against. While I agree that we are predominantly a parody of an encyclopaedic style of article, above that idea is that we are a comedic website. The number of non-mainspace articles that have been features in the past (including several Top 10 of the year) suggests that there is relevance behind that proviso in the VFH rules. I'm still inclined to vote against an article that is not encyclopaedic - which is my prerogative - but only in that it's one factor that guides my decision. I'll definitely vote for an article that I find funny but not encyclopaedic.                               Puppy's talk page01:45 18 Aug 2013
    The rule that I am proposing to delete states that it is not your prerogative: that certain votes "will be discarded." There is nothing in this question regarding how you should vote. Spıke ¬ 14:11 18-Aug-13
    Clarification then - the first part of the rule I would keep. The latter part I would remove, but I recall very few - if any - instances when it has been enforced.                               Puppy's talk page03:07 18 Aug 2013
    Why? The rule just states that if a person votes against an article and says: "This should not be featured, as it is a HowTo (for instance)", his vote will not count. Isn't it fair? Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 15:11, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
    Puppy: I accept your amendment, and have no problem retaining the part that says that nominations from any namespace are welcomed. Anton: Fairness is not the issue; any evenly enforced rule is "fair." The question is whether a rule should set aside votes based on their rationale. I would indeed strike a vote that said, "I'll never vote for anything that that 'Anton' wrote." For the sake of this discussion, let me concede Shabidoo's point that my "unencyclopedic" claim will tend to disparage most nominations from UnBooks: and Why?:. Should my votes stand? Spıke ¬ 15:32 18-Aug-13
    Ok. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 15:37, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
  • Formerly Symbol against vote Against., now just confused. There are many good UnBooks, UnNews, UnScripts, etc. and they are not always encyclopedic. Does this mean that some people will vote against them only because they are not mainspace articles? Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 14:04, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol against vote Against. Articles in other namespaces should be judged by the criteria for those namespaces. For instance, Unbooks should read like a short story of sorts, and UnNews should read like a proper news article, UnScripts should read like a play script, and all of the above should be funny enough to be featured, if they are to be featured. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 22:09, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol against vote Against. I think the system such as it is fine (as set out by Sims). I have been against Navelism, in-jokes, articles of the calibre(!) of I maed a yuky doody and featuring forums. However UnBooks and UnScripts offer a writer a different format than just writing a pseudo encyclopedic entries. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 12:26, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
    I too agree with Sims above. Now let's get back on topic. This Forum is not calling for the deletion of a namespace, but of a single sentence in the VFH rules that say that votes cast from a certain viewpoint will be stricken. Nor am I proposing that votes in opposition to my viewpoint be stricken. Spıke ¬ 12:55 22-Aug-13
  • Totally against. One cannot know what the general readers want from this site except to guess or assume...as we don't do ANY research or surveys or analyse trends. We care about the readers...but should we conform to one specific user's theory about what readers want? I doubt most user's here even believe there is a "reader" that they are writing for and put this above all else (improving their writing, building something, creating laughter on and off site). The other spaces are as important as mainspace and I cant think of a good reason to change this. --ShabiDOO 00:25, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
    That perspective actually reinforces my feeling that this provision should be deleted. The reason being is that we do have a way of trying to determine what the readership wants - and that's VFH. Striking votes - for whatever rationale - destroys the little validity of what results we do get from VFH. Having been on the receiving end of vote striking to push back against an article of mine, I'm firmly against vote striking.
    Keeping in mind I've never voted against an article purely on the basis of it's namespace, and so many of my own articles have been of a non-encyclopaedic style - even those that are in main space. It has been a partial factor in some of my votes, but only on articles that are borderline (in my perspective). I haven't looked at the nomination that has raised this issue, so I'm saying this as far separated from this instance as possible, and trying to express this in as impartial way as possible.
    But I strongly agree that “…there is no reason that content should not be featured if the community votes for it.” This is why I support the premise of this forum - that the second element of this rule (re: vote striking) should be removed. If anyone suggests that we should not allow a nomination of any article - that I will strongly argue against.                               Puppy's talk page12:18 29 Aug 2013
    VFH represents the views of writers the ocasional gobshite and very ocasional IP...I don't see how it represents what regular readers want to read.
    Yes...I agree about striking. I think featuring templates is annoying and "a wizard did" it was totally stupid but if people vote for it I utterly stand behind it being featured. I also totally respect SPIKE's vote against non mainspace articles even during this time of very few voters and I don't think he should revert his votes just because most of us want non-main-space articles featured. --ShabiDOO 00:31, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
    I think our readership is predominantly regular writers, occasional gobshites, and very occasional IPs. But it's also the only real litmus test we have of what readers want.                               Puppy's talk page12:36 29 Aug 2013
    We have thousands of unique visitors per month. --ShabiDOO 02:33, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Namespace prejudice II: A New Beginning

Fine speeches all. May we try again? This is not about: Should you write a HowTo. Are HowTos valid articles. Is there a well-defined way of assessing the quality of a HowTo. Should you nominate a HowTo. Should you vote to feature a HowTo. Should a HowTo be featured if it wins the vote. The only question for your consideration is:

Shall we delete the part of the instruction that says, "Votes against articles based on namespace prejudice will be discarded."?

Score: 1
  • Symbol for vote Yes Spıke ¬ 01:20 29-Aug-13
  • Symbol for vote Yes Users can vote how they like. While I find namespace prejudice bizzare, baffling, very strange and confusing...there is nothing disruptive about it...and the votes should stand. Each user decides the kind of articles they want to see featured on the front page for whatever reason. Unless the vote is motivated by a crusty dislike of a user, payback-voting, making a point unrelated to the article, used as a tool to spit out abuse and insults or its highly unconstructive criticism...I can't see any reason to strike any votes at all. --ShabiDOO 02:32, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol against vote Against. AgainstGreen Slightly Against. Symbol neutral vote Abstain. Pup has illustrated it below and I think that such votes should be stricken. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 11:30, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol for vote For A test of a good democracy is to see that even the most outrageous views get their right for a vote. Although I do not agree with the user's comment I do not want it to be stricked out as he has the freedom of expression. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 11:36, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
  • 180px-Symbol apathy vote.svg Meh. It may or may not be okay with this idea, it is very confusing. Newman66 Visit my table here! Contributions My works 14:07, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
  • Logging in just to vote AGAINST customizing uncyclopedia just to make it fit in with Spike's notion of How It Should Be. How it should be is articles get judged solely on their merit and not what namespace they originated from. You don't want your retardedly biased vote stricken? Simple, just vote against and keep your opinion to yourself. -OptyC Sucks! Icons-flag-us CUN22:59, 29 Aug
    Really?!?                               Puppy's talk page11:05 29 Aug 2013
    In other words: Logging in just to indulge in spite. I did not open this Forum to impose my notion of How It Should Be but to propose we stop threatening to enforce someone else's notion of How It Should Be. Optimuschris's notion that I am welcome to vote, but merely prohibited from disclosing my reason for voting, is perverse. Indeed, one effect of our current threat to strike votes is to encourage fake rationales. Spıke ¬ 23:29 29-Aug-13

Speech!

This whole forum seems to be moving in the direction of banning nominations for some Uncyclopedia formats. While I respect people's rights to be prejudice and in all fairness that is all that Spike has asked so far, I do not feel that democracy should be comprimised:

This is a very complicated issue. We are balancing our authenticity as a mock/parody of wikipedia against our general comedy outputs as a website. Perhaps a seperate VFH for UnScripts, HowTos, Whys etc. should be made so that it can feature at the bottom-ish of the front page. Or perhaps we give a good UnScripts, HowTo etc. article an award but don't actually feature it.

However the wrong thing to do is break our sense of democracy. If people come to this site to write an UnScripts as we provide them with that opportunity they should receive equal treatment to those who write a standard article. This idea of banning nominations for such an article is essentially saying, if we can't chuck those users who write those articles out, we'll deny them freedoms and rights.

Now of course I respect the views of those who do not want such articles created/nommed for VFH and do not think they meant harm by this but I think it is time for Uncyclopedia to give our respect to the man who fought so hard in the name of freedom 50 years ago. Martin Luther King (Jr.) addressed the same problem we have here in a different context. If we get rid of this rule then we are denying some users their rights which is unequal and unfair. I will not let myself be witness to this breech in democratic principles.

If you want people to share your view, then you must convince them not to vote for UnScripts, HowTos, Whys etc., not cut off their rights to vote to them. There is still an option to vote BNP on the voting form but not many ever do because they're racist and fascist, you still have the right to vote for them they have not been removed from the voting form. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 08:26, August 29, 2013 (UTC)


Response to the first sentence (of ScottPat's speech)

No, it isn't.                               Puppy's talk page09:48 29 Aug 2013

You obviously haven't heard Spike say on VFH that he doesn't agree with the other article formats in the first place. This is simply a compromise that will help to build up towards an aim of removal of those formats. But don't listen to me, be my guest, Chamberlain and sign the deal that states Germany promises not to invade Poland. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 10:25, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
Spike is not a voting majority. Besides, what is being discussed in an unenforceable rule. Let me illustrate:
Nomination for random article
  1. Previous vote stricken as votes against namespace are naughty User:Some admin
  2. Symbol against vote Against. I don't like it User:Him
    I have no justifiable reason to strike this vote out User:Some admin
See the point?                               Puppy's talk page11:23 29 Aug 2013
Yeah I agree that the first guy shouldn't have his vote striked out as he is feel to express an opinion however I was just warning everyone in the long run not to ban VFH nominations for other article namespaces. You claim that this forum was 100% not going down that route however I was saying that there is a 5% chance it could and I was encouraging people not to go down that route in an attempt to eliminate that 5% chance using democratic free speech. Someone's got to do it or it will increase in chance. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 11:34, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
If the sentence in VFH rules gets deleted, this vote (Pup's image) won't be stricken, but that would simply be absurd!
Then we will just have to put a banner at the beginning of each project's main page: Sorry, but if you create an article in this namespace, it will have a high chance of not getting featured, as it is not mainspace. This will at least be honest. And all these projects will die out, knowing that some of them are almost dead already and there will be even less people contributing to them. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 11:37, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
But that's abusing democratic rights. If enough people vote against an article based on whatever reason then that article should not get featured. I don;t happen to agree with the opposing view however I have a right to let him/her speak it. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 11:41, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
Compromise solution:
  • Articles from all namespaces (including UnNews, UnTunes, HowTo, UnBooks, etc.) are eligible for VFH. Votes against articles based on its namespace are discouraged.
Bit in italics is the change. That way we don't delete votes - no matter what the opinion of the rationale is - but we indicate that it's not an ideal rationale for a vote.                               Puppy's talk page11:45 29 Aug 2013
The way you discourage them to vote with prejudice is in the comments section, below their vote not in the official rules. The rules still show bias here which is undemocratic so I cannot agree with your compromise. Sorry. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 11:50, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
It is a better solution than simply deleting this but it is even less logical: Spike, at least, said that namespace prejudice (or, how I call it, namespacism) is allowed and stricking votes that state the same thing are disallowed. Now we say that namespacism is not a good solution (we do not ban but discourage), tell the voter that what he does is not very good but we still allow this vote to count and maybe even ruin a nomination of a good article that is just not in the mainspace. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 11:53, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
Exactly the point I have being trying to communicate with you! Tell the voter your opinion but do not include an opinion as part of the rules! Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 11:58, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Democracy is not a first principle of Uncyclopedia, which is essentially a piece of private property administered and populated by volunteers. We adhere to democratic forms for some things; for other things we have an outrageous system of voting but counting some people's votes more than others; and for some things, such as comedy strategy in pages in userspace, we don't use democracy at all. Therefore, that something is undemocratic does not mean we are bound to drop everything and change it. This discussion, and especially the opinions on democracy in general, are off-topic and have nothing to do either with the issue at hand, Uncyclopedia in general, or writing funny stuff.

I don't agree with the above compromise, to replace the threat to delete votes with nagging about how one should vote. If you believe in voting as the best way to measure the tastes of those who take the time to vote, then we ought not codify anyone's personal tastes into the instructions. Spıke ¬ 13:26 29-Aug-13

Ha! Trust Spike to point out that companies aren't democratic institutions. Of course he is correct but then surely a company ought to stay as democratic as it can and it is up to the companies workers to ensure that it does. On a seperate note I am concerned for some users actual views on democracy itself, which is off topic I know, so that it is why this discussion is here. I would move it to a different page however I don't think people are interested in the vote anymore just the weird desbate. (Why don't you exercise some of the companies undemocratic rights then Spike and change it while no one's looking!) Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 13:36, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

We should neither be democratic, nor should we be totalitarian. Uncyclopedia does not support any particular party or ideology, it just should give people as much freedom as it can without the harm for the general system or any users. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 13:43, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Ah… Uncyc is a wiki, which is built upon an ideology. That ideology encompasses creation via community consensus, which requires determining consensus via voting. In short, a wiki is, by its defining principles, a democracy.                               Puppy's talk page01:45 29 Aug 2013
So if we don't have totalitarianism or democracy, how do we choose which is correct when we come to situations like this? What is your solution to choosing whether namespace prejudice is good or bad? Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 13:49, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
Pick a card - any card.                               Puppy's talk page01:50 29 Aug 2013
I'll choose the King of Ace, I think Anton will choose the King of Philosophy, he can determine what is right or wrong because he is not totalitarian is he? Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 13:55, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
Bollocks, Pup. MediaWiki is a software suite. Democracy is a governing principle. Neither presumes the use of the other. It is wise to search for consensus, to use equal voting to measure consensus, and to not invent hokey reasons to go against consensus once measured. But democracy is not the only way to achieve or measure consensus, or motivate people, or even to motivate volunteers. You can be productive under a Good King or a democratic republic; and each can eventually go sour. Our highest value is not to follow consensus or obey the majority but to establish and follow policies that will keep you here and writing comedy despite many competing leisure alternatives. Spıke ¬ 14:42 29-Aug-13

We are all off-topic basically. This rule on VFH is not a question of democracy but of the consequences it may have on Uncyclopedia. My opinion is that: if we allow namespace prejudice, we should immediately kill all the projects that are not main space articles. If we still allow them and want to encourage people to keep them alive, we should not allow namespace prejudice which is a factor that can kill different projects. That's all. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 14:51, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

But that's not the point. The people who vote for namespace prejudice are the problem not the fact that it is allowed. As I have constantly tried to explain educating people not to be prejudice is the key here as that stays long-term and everyone understands why it is bad rather than simply censoring it. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 16:19, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
Like many simple concepts, "open editing" has some profound and subtle effects on Wiki usage. Allowing everyday users to create and edit any page in a Web site is exciting in that it encourages democratic use of the Web and promotes content composition by nontechnical users.
Taken from www.wiki.org                               Puppy's talk page09:40 29 Aug 2013
Puppy is completely right. Most of what we care about here is decided via democratic vote/consensus...it's obvious and common knowledge...and I don't think much more need be said about it. To go off topic ... FAR MORE important than the democratic element are the three rules of uncyclopedia including a lack of bad faith, assuming users are stupid, condescending nastiness, degrading judgmental dickery, arrogant elipsical arguments and a general disdain for members of the community continually and openly expressed and putting down user's comments and arguments as dumb/ignorable/contemptible or simple horse-play. Also...we don't dance as much as we should...dancing in new, surprising and hysterical ways. --ShabiDOO 02:50, August 30, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Puppy's sentence and Shabidoo's response. Democracy is the only way round the problem as I have dedicated this whole page to in lecturing Anton. I don't think it is bad having a debate on the topic. As long as we all enjoy it and it stimulates us. It is good to challenge the idealogy behind things sometimes. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 07:22, August 30, 2013 (UTC)

Answer to democracy

I agree that we should be democratic but democracy has its cons. For example, in real life, you can vote against the candidate because he is not native/has lived in another country/has some foreign relatives. But isn't it just crazy?

At this point, I am just against such a system which allows such things. And now we are trying to be more democratic but less intelligent and tolerant! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 11:43, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Well I believe in democracy and in democracy even racists can vote. Education and brainwashing is how you deal with destroying the racist support not by preventing their speech. Votes should be decided by people hearing each others points of views and then deciding on the one they like or adding another viewpoint. Not on being told these are the only options we've censored the rest, now vote. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 11:48, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
Democracy is an extremely old system that should be changed. Hitler became the head of Germany because we had such a system. But don't misinterprete my words: I am not against democracy, I am against its old form. If I would be creating my own system, I would create something I would call "progressive democracy" that is more intelligent and does not accept actions that ruin itself.

Basically: democratic systems accept actions that are not democractic, because the system is so democratic, it accepts anything. Isn't it justsilly? Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 11:57, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

All votes are equal, but some votes are more equal than others.                               Puppy's talk page12:00 29 Aug 2013
Yet again Anton we disagree on one small point:
  • Your solution is to include a democratic opinion that you think is "correct" and "intelligent" (from your perspective) in the rules.

Rules: Please vote for who you want in the next election. The Nazi Party has been banned because it is racist and I don't agree with racism.

Voter: Better vote for the ZP then!

  • My solution is not to include an opinion in the rules and instead allow people to think what they want but in the process of voting allow parties to influence people to vote:

Rules: Please vote for who you want in the next election.

Voter: The Nazis seem alright.

Another voter/politician: Did you know they're racist and want to harm people based on skin colour?

Voter: Oh dear, that's horrible. Well I want vote for them then, I'll vote for the ZP.

See? Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 12:05, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Main space good, alt space better!                               Puppy's talk page12:16 29 Aug 2013
OH DEAR! Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 12:17, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
Scott:

Voter I want to vote for Hitler!

Politician I am pretty sure he is racist and is against any nation that is not Aryan.

Voters He wants us to become a great nation! We are Aryans and we'll vote for Hitler!

Hitler is elected. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 12:44, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

2 + 2 =
                              Puppy's talk page01:03 29 Aug 2013
Pup, it is four, five, four, thousand, anything, just make the pain stop! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 13:18, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
Anton:

Voter Why can't I vote for Hitler?

Politioian Sorry but we've censored him.

Voter Why? I bet you've done it because he's pointed out the flaws in this government. I hate this government they've given me nothing. I'm gonna help this guy to speak out against you oppressive lot.

(Major unrest. Military coup) Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 13:10, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Scott, are you saying it is better to allow anti-humanitarian actions and be "democratic" (with a large question mark), rather than make more intelligent rules and be a bit more strict to people expressing their opinion, if it harms the humanity. [1] Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 13:18, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Reasons against

We are currently planning to delete one sentence from the VFH rules that says that all votes based on namespace will be discarded. Therefore, such votes as "This is an UnScripts, and I never liked this Uncyclopedia project" will be discarded. On the contrary, if this person says: "I have never liked theatre plays", this vote is silly but will get accepted. Now, what this change may produce:

  • There will be less nominations of different UnScripts, HowTos, UnBooks, etc, as he/she will be afraid that the vote will fail, as their article is not mainspace and so it is now completely legal for this nomination to fail, not because it is bad, but because it is of a certain namespace".
  • There can even be less articles created in these namespaces and some of the projects (if not all) will end up dead, knowing that they are now almost dying.
  • Uncyclopedian Democracy will encourage namespacism, as the German Democracy has encouraged totalitarism (by not banning it). Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 13:18, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
To the first point you mentioned I refer to the fact that you need to educate people not to vote with namespace prejudice but you cannot put it in the rules as that suggests that you are better than they are when you are acting as unfairly as they are. (The Nazis never one a majority and used brutish tactics to get in. The democratic system in Germany is different to Britain and America which offers a much better system for eliminating the less supported parties.)
The projects are not dying at all and never have been.
Every single country in the World has a racist party and considering that only a very few of these parties managed to get into power in the whole of the last 200 years of Western democracy, I would say that that is a fair system.
Stop presuming you're opinion on namespace prejudice is correct. How do you know the racists aren't correct, how do you know that namespace prejudice is a bad thing? Your whole argument pivots around the decision of what good and evil are! Where is your actual proof that your opinion should be in the rules as it is better than someone elses. Democracy provides a simple, clever answer. The morals behind goodness and the correct opinions are determined by the people. If the people vote in the racists then, the racists are correct for those four years. The thing at fault wasn't the voting system but the people's education. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 13:28, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

The projects are dying. Look at UnReviews; UnGame, even UnBooks! I do not assume my opinion is the only right one, I assume that what we are planning to do is a wrong thing. And, off-topic, I am against democracy if it allows something non-humanitarian. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 14:59, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Democracy doesn't cause the harm though. Surely educating someone to realise facism is bad is better than sensoring facism. What do you propose instead of democracy though? Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 16:16, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
  1. Freedom of speech is never absolute. You will get punished for screaming "Fire!" In the theatre, where there is no fire, even in the mist democratic country. But nobody is against this!

Off-topic

Puppy, you bellyfeel newspeak? Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 13:40, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Newspeak doubleplusgood. Full bellyfeel bb.                               Puppy's talk page01:48 29 Aug 2013
That's doubleplusgood duckspeak! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 14:52, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic

None of you have understood anything thats going on here...you're all too stupid to get what is really meant here...and because of that everything should be rephrased in a less stupid way because your kerflofiousness is degrangublating your rather floppity mankititiousness...and I find that totally beside the point and not bearing on the overall goal of this forum. Or is it a set of invisible pink kittens who are being degrangublating. Actually I think it is the kittens. Or uncyclopedias. Actually...you're all just trolls kerflopping around. Or maybe A wizard did it. Sigh...mankititiousness and degrangublatiousness is kefloffing me up. ShabiDOO 17:17, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Filial Piety --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 07:57, August 30, 2013 (UTC)

Resolution

In the discussion above, only Anton199 offered a sustained argument for more closely managing VFH votes to improve the results, and he was largely argued to a standstill by ScottPat, here and off-line.

More significantly, although my fellow Admins wrote to encourage nominations from any namespace, as I do too, none of us seem disposed to strike votes based on "namespace prejudice" (and other users should not get in the business of striking anyone's vote on anything), nor even to welcome complaints that someone else's VFH vote evidences a prejudice and should be reviewed. The only time such a complaint has been raised this year, the claim was not that it violated the spirit of Uncyclopedia but that it violated this piece of The Rules.

I conclude that the text, "Votes against articles based on namespace prejudice will be discarded." is an empty threat and will delete it from the rules. Spıke ¬ 14:03 17-Sep-13

Reaction

So why the forum? Why did we all have to vote and express our opinions? That's like Hollande who was the cause of all the debates about whether gay marriage should be allowed or not, whilst the same result could be achieved without so much noise. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 16:10, September 17, 2013 (UTC)
And to clarify: I offered several arguments and not only one, and not all of them were take in account. All the voting process is strange, as many users have took part in it and it will be strange, if their contribution is not noticed.
Also, why do we actually need to delete the rule? As you say, it happens extremely rarely that a vote gets discarded because of namespace prejudice, or even never. That means that it does not bring any harm and just tells the users that they ought not vote against something based on the namespace, which can be interpreted like this: "Uncyclopedia has many completely different projects. Therefore, we don't support any particular mainspace and the chances of getting featured a good UnBook are equal to the chances of getting featured a mainspace article". Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 16:30, September 17, 2013 (UTC)
Because it is good practice to keep the rule book up to date so that there are some hard rules to fall back on. Afterall the Americans love ammending their constitution and it's about time they stopped madmen having guns after yesterday's catastrophe. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 17:59, September 17, 2013 (UTC)
The forum simply confirms that few of us like namespace prejudice...but not enough to ban it. So its stricken out. --ShabiDOO 19:05, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

Anton: It is not clear that for me to amend the rules without opening a Forum would result in less "noise." Indeed you were not required to vote and debate. Why, then, have a debate you don't win? Not to give you this chance to flog the same arguments a second time and see if it plays out differently. Why do we actually need to delete the rule? As above: The text is an empty threat.

ScottPat: The Constitution of 1787 is not amended on a whim nor excessively. Amendment now requires 38 states to agree, and has happened only 18 times since 1791. The purpose is not to ensure good results but to specify the ground rules and protect us from arbitrary government. Madmen don't obey gun laws. Posturing about the state of a foreign country's laws belongs in BHOP, if on this site at all. Spıke ¬ 21:42 17-Sep-13

I have to say I'm not satisfied with this resolution. While I feel that this rule should be modified, this forum has not reached that consensus.
The way the vote was originally phrased was confusing - many people vote against the deletion while the comments they made didn't reflect the actual point of the vote. The second time a vote was held there were only 4 votes and no clear consensus.
This forum led to significant debate, but not directly about the issue at hand. But I can't see any consensus being reached at any stage, and this resolution seems to be presumptuous.
Given it's a rule that is rarely - if ever - enforced, a change to it without a clear majority vote appears to me to be damaging to the democratic processes that Uncyclopedia use, for very little actual gain.
My feeling on this was - prior to the addition of this resolution - that the matter was closed. If it hasn't been then I'd suggest that a new vote be held, after a period of about a month or so to let the dust settle here, with definitive timeframes and specific wording as to what is being voted for and against. And I'd move the new vote to a new forum.
That seems like the best possible way to gain a consensus on a change that is - in many ways - a non issue.
A unilateral decision, on the other hand, is more likely to be divisive than the topic at hand itself.                               Puppy's talk page11:20 17 Sep 2013
I agree with whatever we haven't agreed upon and revisit this subject later. That is my Aleisterism of the day. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:10, September 18, 2013 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects