Forum:Speaking of things sucking...

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with '{{Forumheader|Village Dump}} ...VFH has been doing that a bit lately: # Uncyclopedia:VFH/Papercuts of Doom # Uncyclopedia:VFH/I love pudding # [[Uncycloped...')
 
 
(12 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 13: Line 13:
   
 
Now, it doesn't cause all that much disruption, as blatantly stupid, no-effort articles get voted off pretty quickly. But it really gets people riled up for no good reason, which is the part that sucks. I really wish there was a way to discourage these sorts obviously stupid nominations, because it makes good contributors feel pretty cheated. Having an article up for VFH takes a lot of effort, usually, whereas these rather idiotic nominations represent virtually no effort and collect annoying amounts of votes that more sensible people have to beat down with '''against'''s. In short, it was funny at first, now it's bloody annoying and even more insulting. Can't we set some sort of [[ban|way to discourage these things]]? {{User:Dr. Skullthumper/sig|00:33 Aug 31, 2007}}
 
Now, it doesn't cause all that much disruption, as blatantly stupid, no-effort articles get voted off pretty quickly. But it really gets people riled up for no good reason, which is the part that sucks. I really wish there was a way to discourage these sorts obviously stupid nominations, because it makes good contributors feel pretty cheated. Having an article up for VFH takes a lot of effort, usually, whereas these rather idiotic nominations represent virtually no effort and collect annoying amounts of votes that more sensible people have to beat down with '''against'''s. In short, it was funny at first, now it's bloody annoying and even more insulting. Can't we set some sort of [[ban|way to discourage these things]]? {{User:Dr. Skullthumper/sig|00:33 Aug 31, 2007}}
  +
:Terrible idea. All users have the right to nominate an article to the VFH. Abuse of the system is worthy of a ban, but there's not much you can really do. --{{User:Electrified mocha chinchilla/sig}} 01:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  +
::Fisher Price? Main Page? This page does not exist?! That's not '''abuse?''' {{User:Dr. Skullthumper/sig|01:24 Aug 31, 2007}}
  +
:::Report the user(s) to the [[Ban Patrol]] if you want and the admins will determine whether you have a legitimate case or not. --{{User:Electrified mocha chinchilla/sig}} 01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  +
  +
One man's hilarity is another's terrible not-hilarity. Humour is subjective, and you can't start saying, "''anyone can nominate an article for VFH, unless the majority don't like that article or idea, in which case you might be banned.''" That's not a very good way to go about things. VFH is for deciding what is featured on the main page - and if somebody nominates it, all that means is that they think it would be good to have on the main page. There is nothing bannable in that. If you want to see the nominated article on the front page, vote yes, if not, vote no. Simple as. If it's not a normal nomination, and the feeling strikes you, you're welcome to make an impassioned plea to not feature it, as doing so would literally kill the hard-working writers who have worked so hard to write their normal article, who would be made to wait another day for their 10th time in the spotlight. Just as you're welcome to ''not'' do that, and move on. Now whether or not you want to move on or not is a matter for conjecture.
  +
  +
And who would decide what's abuse? What about someone who nominates an article several times in order to get it on the front page? Is that abuse? When somebody nominates the main page, are they trying to mess up the system by forcing you to look at another table row, or are they just thinking of the visitors who come to the site, and see that the main page has been featured, and get a laugh out of it? And if the article is just bad - ''somebody'' thought it was funny and worth putting on the main page. Just vote no, and if you're feeling helpful, offer advice for next time.
  +
  +
The main problem I see here is writers who don't like to see any article that doesn't have the standard "look" or one of the accepted deviations from the norm make it to the front page. It's similar to the problem with modern art; yes, you could draw a picture of someone, but even if that person hasn't had their picture drawn before, it's ''still been done before''. A lot. They're trying to do something different. A classical artist could look at modern art and say, "I spent ages painting my life-like portrait, and people want to look at this print of a Campbell's soup tin repeated over and over? That's unfair to real artists, he hasn't put any effort in at all compared to me!" As with the articles, somebody has an idea to make somebody laugh in a ''different'' way, and people want them banned because they're trying to do something different? Bah. My advice is that if someone has a different idea for a nomination, don't automatically shoot it down because it's different or because your article that's currently on VFH that you spent way more time on would get featured later - think of it from the point of view of a reader, not a writer. "''If I came to uncyclopedia, and saw this on the main page, would I laugh, or be compelled to read more?''" - if yes, then the featured article has done its job. And remember above all: uncyclopedia isn't and was never meant to be serious. Stop taking VFH so seriously. {{User:Spang/Sig}} <small>05:46, 31 Aug 2007</small>
  +
:Point taken. Thank you. I was mostly reacting to others' complaints, myself. I just didn't want to see people hurt; but now I understand the situation more. Like I said, thanks for the thoughtful response; I get stupid once in a while. {{User:Dr. Skullthumper/sig|18:24 Aug 31, 2007}}
  +
::Well, I have to say that I ''would'' like to see [[Main Page]] featured, 'cause I think a cascading effect would be somewhat amusing. Either way, it all boils down to one thing: modern art is friggin stupid. {{User:TheLedBalloon/sig}} <small>18:04, Aug 31, 2007</small>
  +
:::<s>'''For'''</s> <s>'''Against'''</s> <s>'''Abs.'''</s> <s>'''parakeet'''</s> '''Rewrite.''' {{User:Dr. Skullthumper/sig|18:45 Aug 31, 2007}}
  +
:There's a difference between a dumb nom and a "different" one. I, myself, personally have had "different" articles hit VFH, to varying degrees of indifference. Undifference? Whatever. My point, if I have one, is that it's not banworthy either way. Just vote '''Yea''' or '''Nay''', give a reason, and move on. Now, can anybody tell me where I parked? {{User:Modusoperandi/sig}} 20:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  +
:I know it's a bad case of bumping an old topic when I have nothing to say, but I just wanted to make a few mumbly House-of-Commons "Here here" noises at Spang's comments. I shall try to resist the urge to bump while I'm reading even further down what else I've missed lately. --{{User:Strange but untrue/sig}} 14:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  +
::Why not say this at the top of [[VFH]] and [[VFHS]], sort of like the message at the top of {{tl|VFDRules2}}:
  +
  +
''"Please don't nominate [[Fisher Price]], [[This page does not exist]] and other such articles for feature; that has been done so many times we might kick your ass of the site forever in our frustration."''
  +
  +
--{{User:Manforman/sig}} 14:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  +
  +
Perhaps make a list of things that should not be nommed and put a link to it on top. {{User:An Ape that Only Exists on Thursdays/sig}} 20:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:27, September 9, 2007

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Speaking of things sucking...
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2411 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

...VFH has been doing that a bit lately:

  1. Uncyclopedia:VFH/Papercuts of Doom
  2. Uncyclopedia:VFH/I love pudding
  3. Uncyclopedia:VFH/Ralphenheimer
  4. Uncyclopedia:VFH/Main Page
  5. Uncyclopedia:VFH/Holiday Hawk
  6. Uncyclopedia:VFH/Giga Bowser
  7. Uncyclopedia:VFH/Fisher Price
  8. Uncyclopedia:VFH/This page does not exist
  9. Uncyclopedia:VFH/Talk:This page does not exist

Now, it doesn't cause all that much disruption, as blatantly stupid, no-effort articles get voted off pretty quickly. But it really gets people riled up for no good reason, which is the part that sucks. I really wish there was a way to discourage these sorts obviously stupid nominations, because it makes good contributors feel pretty cheated. Having an article up for VFH takes a lot of effort, usually, whereas these rather idiotic nominations represent virtually no effort and collect annoying amounts of votes that more sensible people have to beat down with againsts. In short, it was funny at first, now it's bloody annoying and even more insulting. Can't we set some sort of way to discourage these things?  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  formspring) 00:33 Aug 31, 2007

Terrible idea. All users have the right to nominate an article to the VFH. Abuse of the system is worthy of a ban, but there's not much you can really do. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 01:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Fisher Price? Main Page? This page does not exist?! That's not abuse?  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  formspring) 01:24 Aug 31, 2007
Report the user(s) to the Ban Patrol if you want and the admins will determine whether you have a legitimate case or not. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One man's hilarity is another's terrible not-hilarity. Humour is subjective, and you can't start saying, "anyone can nominate an article for VFH, unless the majority don't like that article or idea, in which case you might be banned." That's not a very good way to go about things. VFH is for deciding what is featured on the main page - and if somebody nominates it, all that means is that they think it would be good to have on the main page. There is nothing bannable in that. If you want to see the nominated article on the front page, vote yes, if not, vote no. Simple as. If it's not a normal nomination, and the feeling strikes you, you're welcome to make an impassioned plea to not feature it, as doing so would literally kill the hard-working writers who have worked so hard to write their normal article, who would be made to wait another day for their 10th time in the spotlight. Just as you're welcome to not do that, and move on. Now whether or not you want to move on or not is a matter for conjecture.

And who would decide what's abuse? What about someone who nominates an article several times in order to get it on the front page? Is that abuse? When somebody nominates the main page, are they trying to mess up the system by forcing you to look at another table row, or are they just thinking of the visitors who come to the site, and see that the main page has been featured, and get a laugh out of it? And if the article is just bad - somebody thought it was funny and worth putting on the main page. Just vote no, and if you're feeling helpful, offer advice for next time.

The main problem I see here is writers who don't like to see any article that doesn't have the standard "look" or one of the accepted deviations from the norm make it to the front page. It's similar to the problem with modern art; yes, you could draw a picture of someone, but even if that person hasn't had their picture drawn before, it's still been done before. A lot. They're trying to do something different. A classical artist could look at modern art and say, "I spent ages painting my life-like portrait, and people want to look at this print of a Campbell's soup tin repeated over and over? That's unfair to real artists, he hasn't put any effort in at all compared to me!" As with the articles, somebody has an idea to make somebody laugh in a different way, and people want them banned because they're trying to do something different? Bah. My advice is that if someone has a different idea for a nomination, don't automatically shoot it down because it's different or because your article that's currently on VFH that you spent way more time on would get featured later - think of it from the point of view of a reader, not a writer. "If I came to uncyclopedia, and saw this on the main page, would I laugh, or be compelled to read more?" - if yes, then the featured article has done its job. And remember above all: uncyclopedia isn't and was never meant to be serious. Stop taking VFH so seriously. Spang talk 05:46, 31 Aug 2007

Point taken. Thank you. I was mostly reacting to others' complaints, myself. I just didn't want to see people hurt; but now I understand the situation more. Like I said, thanks for the thoughtful response; I get stupid once in a while.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  formspring) 18:24 Aug 31, 2007
Well, I have to say that I would like to see Main Page featured, 'cause I think a cascading effect would be somewhat amusing. Either way, it all boils down to one thing: modern art is friggin stupid. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:04, Aug 31, 2007
For Against Abs. parakeet Rewrite.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  formspring) 18:45 Aug 31, 2007
There's a difference between a dumb nom and a "different" one. I, myself, personally have had "different" articles hit VFH, to varying degrees of indifference. Undifference? Whatever. My point, if I have one, is that it's not banworthy either way. Just vote Yea or Nay, give a reason, and move on. Now, can anybody tell me where I parked? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I know it's a bad case of bumping an old topic when I have nothing to say, but I just wanted to make a few mumbly House-of-Commons "Here here" noises at Spang's comments. I shall try to resist the urge to bump while I'm reading even further down what else I've missed lately. --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 14:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Why not say this at the top of VFH and VFHS, sort of like the message at the top of {{VFDRules2}}:

"Please don't nominate Fisher Price, This page does not exist and other such articles for feature; that has been done so many times we might kick your ass of the site forever in our frustration."

--Sir Manforman CUN 14:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps make a list of things that should not be nommed and put a link to it on top. -- clumsy Ape (feast) (Riot Porn) 20:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal tools
projects