From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Policies
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1553 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Hi all. Ljlego here again, with a friendly message. I've noticed that a grassroots campaign to update our policies has taken hold. So far, everything we've got is stellar. However, I come with a gentle warning: do not let this go too far. I've seen quoticide, improvements to systems, and countless other things become "fads" among the community, wherein everybody wants a piece. I warn you that, if we over-policy our site, it will become awful. This is a long way off, and as I said, those who have thus far done it have yet to cross the line, but be wary. Before you draft a new policy, consider this: we aren't Wikipedia.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 18:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just starting to worry if maybe the "update all pages" fad had been replaced with an "update all policies" fad. I blame too much sugar before Uncyc-time. --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 22:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Pfft, your policies are so 2006. Spang talk 11:37, 12 Aug 2007
My recent purge in updating policies (and drafting a few new ones) came from one thing: I felt that some of our rules and policies were outdated. One policy was still explaining the outdated NRV, when we're onto ICU now. According to this:
"Rules on Uncyclopedia exist to maintain some order and stability. Some argue that the presence of rules on a website which is dedicated to humor is "bureaucratic" or "Wikipedia-like". These people are asshats and should be ostracized from the Uncyclopedia community based on sub-section 12 in paragraph 9 of chapter 42 in the "Uncyclopedia Rules & Procedures For Ostracizing Infidels"."
I realize that the presence of too many rules can cause more harm than good, but the ones that we have now are completely necessary and in the future, if we as a community agree to adopt a new rule or policy, I think it should be done without us having to worry about "too many rules". I'll be worried when we have a rule titled, "Uncyclopedia:No giraffes". --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree. Notice how I mentioned your three new policies as "stellar." I am simply making a friendly warning that we can go overboard, and knowing this community, will.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 23:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
African Giraffes? -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
Yeah... YEAH! That makes sense! SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle12:05, 13 August 2007
I know it very well could happen, but for some reason I just don't feel worried about a website that calls critics "asshats" becoming bogged down by rules. +Boomer 02:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This community? Go overboard? I can't believe it! P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

For totally going overboard! Woo! Oh-ver board! Oh-ver board! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, sir, I'll have you know that chanting of that sort is largely frowned upon in the forums. There are people trying to type, you know! P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
/me floods the page with the word overboard exactly two hundred and forty-two times.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 11:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia:No Giraffes Policy

Uncyclopedia recognises

Uncyclopedia notes

  • Being run the fuck down is not conducive to writing good satirical articles.

Uncyclopedia proposes

  • No giraffes.


  • Giraffes are made of awesome, win, and more awesome. eXtreme Against.Hinoa talk.kun 21:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak against. I don't see giraffes as being a problem just yet. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • For fighting giraffes in Africa so we don't have to fight them at home.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 00:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, Crete. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
  • Fiercely Against Zebras. Because matters like this are simply never black and white.--Vosnul 11:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Against. I don't want to piss off a giraffe and end up getting run the fuck down. +Boomer 17:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
                                   ::::::         :::
   ::::::::::         :::::::::
   ::::::::::         :::::::::
    ::::::::           :::::::
     ::::::             :::::
     ::::::             :::::
     ::::::             :::::
      ::::               :::
      ::::               :::
       ::                 ::

Are you sure they aren't a threat? I just came across this guy now.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 00:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal tools