Forum:Proposal:The complete rules

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > Proposal:The complete rules
Note: This topic has been unedited for 4137 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Here is my proposal for The Complete Rules of Uncyclopedia:

  • Rule 1: Be funny and not just stupid. Rule 2: don't be a dick.
  • Write good, funny stuff. At least amusing. Humour is very subjective, but if you're really clueless about it you'll learn quickly by cattleprod.
  • To delete crap, mark stuff with {{NRV}} (where it has a week to live) or list it on QVFD (if it should die right now). Only send it to VFD if it's really marginal, and even then fix it instead if you think you can.
  • The admins' job is to keep the site not shit.
    • Admins zap the truly crappy on sight and NRV the eminently deletable that needs to explain itself fast. If you are sure your work was genius, (1) ask the admin why they zapped it (errors happen and are reversible) and (2) make it better.
    • There are various procedural rules set out on some voting pages. They were each put there to keep the site not shit. If you have a serious argument that they keep you from being funny and not just stupid, discuss it rather than messing with them.
    • If you pull questionable shit, you are likely to be blocked per "keep the site not shit." If you rules-lawyer what is "questionable shit," you're probably being an unfunny dick. If you need "don't be a dick" or "be funny and not just stupid" explained to you, you lose.
    • Admins sometimes get hotheaded because they deal with more stupid shit than you ever thought existed. Please forgive their flawed humanity.
  • "Don't be a dick" is second to "Be funny and not just stupid", but it's not third to anything else. And if you do want to get away with being a dick, you'd better prove frequently you're the funniest bastard on the wiki.

That's how I see it. As far as I can tell, it all follows from that lot.

Is there anything important I've left out there? Is there anything too redundant in the above that could be cut?

What makes the above short is that it is fundamentally aimed at the clueful. In my experience, instruction creep happens when you try to explain clues to the clueless. That's why WP has so much policy it's routinely ignored. That and it attracts borderline aspergics like moths to a flame - David Gerard 03:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

But part of the reason we feel we need to explain to the cluless is that they bitch and whine, and we sometimes look like assholes for simply banning them. If we set an official policy which states that it's ok to ban people for being clueless, I'll be good with showing them the door. Then we can trim down on the rules, and streamline everything. But I think that there needs to be a discussion as to the magnitude of cluefullness someone needs in order to participate on this site.
More clearly stated: If we can blanket-ban anyone not cluefull enough to follow the simple rules, we can have simple rules. If we're expected to try and coach the clueless along, and show them The Uncyclopedia Way, we're not going to be able to have simple rules. Simple rules will help us cut down on the signal-to-noise ratio. However, kicking all the clueless out will help tremendously. And I really think they rely on each other. I'm hoping that it's not any surprise that I vote for simple rules. ;) Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 14:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, not enough coffee. To make sure my point is clear, the reson for lots of words is that the clueless are...clueless. They raise a big stink when admins do their jobs, and delete/revert their crap. It's far easier to say "Read HTBFANJS" then just argue with the clueless. They don't understand what the admin's jobs are. They don't understand why their 3-line article got deleted. If we have simple rules, (like we once did), we end up spending a lot of time explaining to the clueless. If we have massive, detailed rules, we just point them there, and save our time for more important things, like deleting the crap they just posted, instead of reading the rules.
Regardless of whether the rules are short and sweet or long and detailed, the cluless won't get them. If they are detailed enough to spell out what the cluless have done wrong, we can at least point them there in the hopes they get it. If they are short and sweet, we either ignore their whining and look like uncaring, distant pricks, or we waste a lot of our time explaining our actions. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 14:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Bah, tell them rules 1 and 2, then refer them to HowTo:Get Banned if they have any further questions. <<Bradmonogram.png>>16:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Despite the fact that we've been fairly free-form about it in the past, I would like it if we could set up some real rules as regard copyright. Creating a derivative work from a factual source to add funny should be fine. Photoshopping copyrighted images to add funny should be fine. Copying other people's jokes/comedy should be unacceptable unless they are public domain. Posting other people's images without modifying them yourself should be unacceptable unless they are public domain. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You're still trying to solve cluelessness with words. When I say this doesn't work, I'm speaking from bitter experience on Wikipedia. What actually happens is that if there are only a few words, the clueless assume it's a cabal conspiracy; if there's lots of words, they quibble and become querulous and rules-lawyer and try to rewrite them and generally make COMPLETE FUCKING PAINS IN THE ARSE of themselves. Then you eventually have to ban them for a year. Then because they're clueless they keep trying to come back, then you spot them because they're being clueless fuckheads in the exact same way, then you kick them off, then they assume conspiracy. Lots of words means so many rules that the clueful just ignore them, and more stuff for the clueless not to understand - David Gerard 01:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm getting your solution - is it 2 rules, and if you break them you get banned? No justification required on the part of the admins? Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 01:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Nah, the one block rule above is: If you pull questionable shit, you are likely to be blocked per "keep the site not shit." If you rules-lawyer what is "questionable shit," you're probably being an unfunny dick. If you need "don't be a dick" or "be funny and not just stupid" explained to you, you lose. If they're too clueless or obtuse to understand that repeat page blanking is bad, that vandalism is bad, that long shitty flamewarring is bad, etc., etc., we probably don't want them. Is that any clearer? For both the newbie and the admin - David Gerard 12:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I mulled this over, and I have to say, I think it has promise. I too have been a little irritated by our rules creep, even though I helped author some of it. Pointing people to a streamlined guide, and basing bans on those two guidelines might make life easier for all involved. I threw together a test page with a few more words than you have above. My one concern is that we'll have to be very viligant at keeping it simple.
And I think I'm finally starting to get your whole point - adding "Don't be a Dick" as Rule #2 pretty much fixes any problems people might have with Rule #1. Because if they have an issue and are civil about it, all is well. If they have an issue and are a dick about it, the door hits their ass on the way out. I throw my full weight behind this plan of action. For. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 15:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I like it. Could probably do with shortening. But yeah, everything above after the first line is essentially commentary and hence endlessly malleable or dispensible - David Gerard 16:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm liking the Famine rules. Forfor. --KATIE!! 16:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I, too, am for Famine's rules. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 00:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Both of you are banned for lack of reading comprehension - that's my formatting - those are David Gerard's suggested rules. Please check the top of this section again. While I'm all for glory and honor, you at least need to try to get it right... Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 03:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You, sir, are banned for inability to read in between the lines. User:Famine/Rules --> "the Famine rules." Also, your version is a bit more explicit. So I'm for the bastard child of David Gerard and Famine, if that makes it any clearer. --KATIE!! 03:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I far from rule - that was just me running with a modest proposal - nothing to shout about. (or butcher children over.) Anyway, this kid's got my good looks and his smarts, so what's not to like? Besides the fact that he can't inherit the kingdom until he kills off all the other heirs. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 03:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I really like DavidGerard's rules. I like Famine's re-editing of them somewhat less, but they work and I would support them. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to be a bit more specific on some things. While the obvious, such as page blanking and whatnot, doesn't need clarification, I can think of some questionable bans in the past. I tried to remove a reference to me on a particular article, got banned for a few days. How was I to know I couldn't try to keep attacks on users out of the main namespace? Another time Famine reverted a LOT of edits to Tourette's Syndrome with no reason mentioned in the edit summary. Spelling was wrecked, templates were altered, links removed, etc. When I reverted it asking what happened in the edit summary, it was reverted again with no answer. I reverted once more, mentioning in detail what is in the edit summary, got banned. Asked what was going on on Famine's talk page, got yelled at and ban extended. I particularly wonder about the rule with admins fallibility, since some admins seem unwilling to even admit their infallibility and ban those who question them. --User:Nintendorulez 18:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that's adequately covered under the "questionable shit" clause. Also, in the future, it would behoove you to talk with the admin in question prior to reverting their edits, as that's a super-express route to bannination. --Algorithm (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Which isn't very specific to say in the rules Humorous? Yes. A legitimate rule? No. It's basically the same as "If we feel like banning you for no reason whatsoever when you least see it coming, we'll do it". My point is that we need clarification. The rules leave too much gray area of what is and isn't bannable, and I'm sure some people may constantly fear getting banned out of the blue for something that nobody ever knew was bannable. --User:Nintendorulez 22:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a de-facto double standard; if someone like Nintendorulez were the one creating and recreating a substub like euroipods, he'd be banninated in a New York minute for recreating a twice-deleted page. I doubt that we really want to entrench this disparity (where some just get away with more than others) as "official" policy? --Carlb 01:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That was my whole point about Euroipods from the very beginning. All it does is encourage idiots to keep writing shit like that, and unlike the writers of Euroipods, they'll just wind up getting banned for it. But how were they to know that a featured article is also the kind of thing you get banned for? It's nothing but mixed messages. --User:Nintendorulez 22:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools