Forum:Standards of humour

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Standards of humour
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2666 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

This is not the first time I "rant" about this "subject". In fact, I'm not going to rant this time - so we should actually say this is the first time I don't rant about this "subject". This is a friendly reminder to everyone that we should:

Standardise our humour.

There are now articles that have different kinds of humour - humour that we all cannot readily understand and/or accept. This is bad! We should set up a committee that decides, once and for all, what kind of humour is good for the site. Who wants to be on this committee? I don't. I just want clear-cut rules for what kind of articles - and jokes - to write and/or to nominate so that they get featured! The front page is the most important page of the site, so I understand as well as anybody that we need those standards. That's why we need the committee. Another way would be to form a committee that decides which articles are eligible to be considered for nomination on the front page, after reclamations, declamations and smoothing out of style and, naturally, sanding everything so that the article really shines like a porcelain pussy! Really. We will need to even Uncyclopedia out somehow. I rest my case. -- Style Oranssiviiva Guide 13:27, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Please form a committee under this header

The Committee Against Against Voting

Please form another committee under this header

The Committee For Humor Reform & Saguaro Licking

Random Man Comments

As with most situations in "the real world" we don't all come from the same background, have the same cultural references or the same view of what humour is. I am happy for Uncyclopedia to reflect the diversity of humour and not focus on one idealised view of what that is. That said we do need to polish up our funny, just as excellence should be in whatever field we "work" in. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)

Well said, Mhaille. You know, some people even like the IP-style random humour that makes up the vast majority of this site. --Black Flamingo 20:10, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
We're huge in the "crap" demographic. Uncyclopedia is the Two and a Half Men of the internet. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:57, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
Well said, Mhaille. Cheers for pursuit of excellence--and for Ignorable Policies, which hold that any violation can be excused by exceptional writing. Boos for resolving diversity by forming a democratic committee to devise an official stylistic orthodoxy. UN:HTBFANJS goes a long way toward advising noobies what isn't funny and what is no longer funny; bad comedy here is mainly refusal to read or follow that guide. Many of my favorite and funniest articles and UnNewses do not contain a single "joke." I am far outnumbered and would be outvoted by those who embrace randomness, memes, and templates--and would leave before the votes were counted. Spıke Ѧ 00:41 28-Nov-10
Spike - you're a pretty good satirist, even excellent at times. Don't let that fool you though: randomness can be funny at times, and that often doesn't depend on the text but on your own mood. Don't try to control the uncontrollable and you'll be excellent 90% of the time. -- Style Oranssiviiva Guide 15:54, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
I applaud you fellows for so eloquently and effectively putting it to terms... ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101128 - 00:46 (UTC)
If users want their own ED here then I guess that could come about if enough people want it. Or perhaps turn VFD into VFH and they will get the same result.--LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 13:45, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
Romartus just shut the fuck up, OK? -- Style Oranssiviiva Guide 14:41, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, be nice... ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101128 - 15:07 (UTC)
I spent all my niceness last year when I tried to plead with control freaks to let others have their fun too. I'm done, again. Sarcasm doesn't do it, pleading doesn't do it, reasoning doesn't do it, nothing does it. Against control, nothing works. Control + attempts at humour = fail en masse. That's what you will eventually get by building fences - articles where everything is in place so tightly that no joke can be squeezed in. -- Style Oranssiviiva Guide 15:49, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
This comment baffles me, as the apparent reason for this Forum is to propose additional fences. UnNews, for our part, were not control freaks but accommodated your request earlier in the year to create a new "UnNews Column" genre, though I came to doubt the need for it, and you have not used it since. Spıke Ѧ 15:58 28-Nov-10
That's the problem with sarcasm - some people get it, some do not, and some become even more sarcastic in response. On that note, have you voted for the UnSignpost on VFH? I'm not sure if that's a serious nomination or not, either, but at least it's more technically plausible than that other thing I nominated... ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101128 - 16:04 (UTC)
To those who weren't on chat later: I did start this forum as sarcastic but the issue is real - read Olipro's bit later on in this thread. I do like Spike's articles for the most part, so that wasn't sarcasm. -- Style Oranssiviiva Guide 17:02, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
Acknowledged and thanks. I had taken everything here seriously, including the "slap" at Romartus. Spıke Ѧ 17:05 28-Nov-10
*slaps SPIKE with a wet towel* ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101128 - 17:11 (UTC)
Thereafter, Multiliteralist delivered a further rant, jaunty but insolent, on User talk:Romartus; I confess my bafflement as to whether that too is sarcasm. This Forum now seems neither serious nor sarcastic but an attempt to stir up a hornet's nest before Multiliteralist (again) cleaned out his locker and left slamming the door--a door I see Zombiebaron has now locked behind him. Spıke Ѧ 00:10 30-Nov-10
Looks like the best solution for all now... would just be to all buy me chocolate. Go on, get me chocolate! ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101130 - 00:53 (UTC)

My rant

OK, you bastards! Would you like to, finally, tell me which are Mnbvcxz's two favourite words, PLEASE???? -- Style Oranssiviiva Guide 13:14, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Pregnancy & Erotica. Although BUTT & POOP!!!! are would be my 2nd choice. Also note that both "BUTT" and "POOP!!!!" are in all caps, and "POOP!!!!" has exactly 4 exclamation points to make it sparkle. --Mn-z 01:27, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Your Rant

Sexy girls

this rant isn't that good, but this image makes up for it

My Rant to your Reply

My Constructive input to all of this

Ok, so the basic issue is this: Across VFH, there are varying applications and paradigms of when to vote and what direction to vote in and it varies by individual. Consequently, some users have developed something of a reputation for consistently voting down articles because that person believes that every Featured Article should be a Magnum Opus. The result of this over time leads to the build-up of animosity.

Now, I'm going to give my personal view and say this: we have 365 days (ad infinitum) to provide articles for and it's unrealistic to expect every single article to be a veritable Mozart concerto... or to put it another way, if you have to drive a different car every day of the year, you're not going to be driving a Bugatti Veyron every single day, and if you expect to be doing so, then in my opinion, your expectations are unrealistic.

So what do I propose to deal with this? A set of guidelines; something to simply try and show people the way in which we try to apply voting logic, whether someone chose to follow it would be down to their conscience... such as where Against votes are concerned, I would give the view that generally speaking, if you're going to vote against, it's because you are diametrically opposed to the article seeing the light of the front page, NOT because it simply failed to make you laugh enough - in any case this is just an example, if you respond to this by questioning my views on what constitutes appropriate voting behaviour, you've missed the point, so please don't. -- Prof. Olipro Icons-flag-gb KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 16:22, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

There is a T®OLL on VFH right now casting a handful of votes, and I recall someone about two months ago religiously voting against every nominee with no explanation at all. Are these acute abuses magnifying the problem beyond what it is chronically? I tend to think taking action against the 2% beats trying to codify valid-versus-invalid votes for the 98%. Spıke Ѧ 17:10 28-Nov-10
Mmm, add to that the IPs that seemingly come by just to vote on VFH, and the socks people make and use for that... meh. ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101128 - 17:12 (UTC)
Well, we know who holds the record for that. Spıke Ѧ 17:13 28-Nov-10
What, sockpuppets? Are you insinuating that I would use them to influence voting, or something? Because I would never do something like that. Never. It would go against my mucked-up sense of honour. In fact, I could decide you've already insulted that honour... ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101128 - 17:54 (UTC)

I think Olipro has some very sound points and ideas. Personally I like the idea of putting forward some sense of criterion (without excessive rule building) to VFH voting. I think the community at large has often been to relaxed about drifting into a somewhat 'Nietzschian Battle Royal' with eachother with each of us pursuing very sociopathic criterions of our contributions - instead of trying to work from the same page and build consensus and constructively contribute to eachothers work - that's not saying I personally have been a force that has abated this culture or condoning users becoming insincere yes men on VFH either.--Sycamore (Talk) 17:20, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said on a previous discussion, I don't think multiliteralist's suggestions will accomplish what he is trying to do. VFH is an election between articles, meaning if article "X" is featured another one, article "Y" won't be. If we become more hesitant to vote against, (or vote "for" on anything that is tolerable-"meh") it will actually cause us to feature a higher proportion of conventional "good" articles, at the expense of more original/edgy articles. :Basically the conventional "good" articles will get all "for" votes, while the more controversial articles will get some against votes but not any extra "for" votes to counteract the against votes.
As an example, my article, Ussher is what I would call a typical conventional "good" article. Its coherent, properly formatted, etc, and is mildly to moderately amusing. Whereas That time I was nearly raped by a yak during my sojourn in Canada is an example of a controversial article, some people think its one of the funniest things ever written, while others think it should be deleted. If we apply the standard of "vote 'for' on everything that doesn't suck", something like Ussher is going to get a bunch of weak/good enough/meh "fors" and probably no against votes, while That time I was nearly raped by a yak during my sojourn in Canada is going to get a large number of "for" votes, but also more than a few "against" votes. --Mn-z 22:06, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
Well said, Mnbfdgsssss... well said. ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101129 - 22:16 (UTC)
Apparently Lyrithya has a Dvorak keyboard since she can't spell my username. --Mn-z 21:34, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick comment: everyone has one vote. They also have one opinion, which is no more valid or invalid than anyone else's, and they have the right to express that opinion. So some people vote against some articles? Woo. Articles have been featured before with plenty of against votes - if it's good enough, generally it will get featured eventually - maybe on a second try. So what's the big deal? I fail to see why people seem to get so worked up over certain users voting according to their own standards, particularly when they seem to apply them pretty consistently, which is, as far as I'm concerned, fair enough. None of which will pull Multi off that high horse of his, but hey ho, it'd be a boring year without a dramatic VFH rant from him. --UU - natter UU Manhole 09:53, Nov 30

It's that time of the year for some contributors. I guess if Hyperbole was more of a regular user, he would have exploded over some issue or other by now. Multiliteralist got there first. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 10:01, November 30, 2010 (UTC)


Edit conflict for that? Great.

Now that we have a discussion going - let me repeat...

...what I said last year. If I see an article that doesn't totally suck - and is not heavily against my view of what is proper - and some people vote for...

  • if it doesn't work for me at all, I'll just piss off without voting
  • if it does make me laugh a bit, depending on mood, I will vote for

And of course I vote for good articles, whether I like the joke or not. What this means is: I restrain myself, not to cause unnecessary animosity. This means I'm not trying to control front page; instead, I promote stuff I like, and also let others have their fun. I think this is right, and this basically is what I expect of others. Why? Because writing comedy should be fun, and there simply are too many different ways of fun to control it. If you constrain others and/or don't want to give them recognition for an attempt that is funny enough, if not a stroke of genius, the result will be


Read your psychology. -- Style Oranssiviiva Guide 18:09, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Or we could feature Special:RecentChanges. ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101128 - 18:13 (UTC)

We can't feature everything that doesn't suck unless we feature an article an hour. Even then, we need to have some cut-off. Is Ussher good enough to be on the front page? What about Proto-badger? Its short, but it can get a few laughs. Again, what about A yuky doody wizard did it? Its a merged inside joke, and took about 5 minutes to write, but I think more than a couple people laughed at it. Also are Mama Luigi or iCarly {the current version has nothing to do with newts btw) "good enough"? They aren't particularly funny, but someone did put some effort into making them better than the previous versions. Or what about UnBooks:A UTP: Link Gets Pregnant and Dies? I admit its not that funny, and creating a comic book format you-tube poop isn't my best idea, but I did put some effort into that, and said effort deserves recognition. Or how about User:Hyperbole/Super_Secret_Girlie_Page!? Sure, its random fetish porn, but its satire, and I think its funny.
What I am getting at is this: we need to have a cut-off somewhere for featured articles. Where-ever we set the cut-off, there are going to be some articles that, although effort was put into writing or improving them, they won't be featured.
Additionally, by lowering standards, you'll dilute the recognition we give to high quality articles. This will, in turn, cause writers to tend to produce merely good articles if that is all that is required to get a feature. --Mn-z 01:10, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
*points toward the current feature* Sometimes goodness just has nothing to do with it, anyway... O___o ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101130 - 01:31 (UTC)
Admins are cold hearted bastards who cheat and lie and steal and cheat. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:49, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry. ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101130 - 11:37 (UTC)
I fail to see why you're sorry. If anyone owes us an apology, it's your parents. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 17:23, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
My parents? What have they got to do with any of this? Seriously, I was raised by my cat. ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101130 - 17:33 (UTC)
Somebody should've told you this earlier, but your father is a furry. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 17:51, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
WHAT?! *is appropriately shocked* ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101130 - 17:57 (UTC)

Obviously The Solution is Clear

From now on we should just smash together the worst memes we can find and make a horrid abomination EVERY DAY and put it on the front page. This way, everybody loses and no one gets hurt by not having their content featured. This way, everyone has an equal chance of getting their wonderfully written article featured, and that chance shall be zero. We don't need to worry about how good it is or if it meets our standards, because it was made to fail. And all will be sunshine and roses.--Sirrah CatshirE Chess the Striker2117 17:53, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

How about we feature Euroipods everyday until the end of time? That's even less work. --Mn-z 23:27, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
How about someone get me some coffee? That'd be a more productive use of time. ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101130 - 23:38 (UTC)

In the words of Rorscharch...

NEVER. Now, someone find me a dead child molester to pin this to. Woody On Fire! Wood burningTalking Woody Stalking Woody 18:34, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

This one?--Sirrah CatshirE Chess the Striker2117 18:36, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
Tonight, a comedian died in Uncyclopedia. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)


Is anyone going to make a serious reply to my arguments that:

A. Unless we feature more than 1 article a day, if Article "A" is featured, it can do at the expense of Article "B" not being featured,
B. Going toward a system which discourages against voting will only result more inoffensive normal good articles being featured (i.e. Ussher) at the expense less conventional articles not being featured (i.e. Suddenly, 'coons, Fuck ChiefjusticeDS, &
C. Unless we feature every article on the wiki, we will need a quality cut-off somewhere, and somebody's article is going to fail said cut-off. --Mn-z 23:52, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
A rebuttal? I doubt it. To restate: Featuring is a zero-sum game; errors can be to feature an unworthy article or to deny a worthy one; and you cannot perfect the system nor find the "right" balance with a longer rulebook.
Now, the initiator of this thread (and the other two threads currently most active) has been "retired"--and has then begged two admins to also block his IP (but to please let him stay on IRC). The entire episode--debate plus abrupt, angry "resignation" over an issue he told me was raised merely as sarcasm--seems to be about attracting attention. Y'all have been trolled. Spıke Ѧ 10:21 1-Dec-10
WHAT?! By Multiliteralist? NEVER, I SAY! NEVER! Woody On Fire! Wood burningTalking Woody Stalking Woody 17:02, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Uncyclopedia has trolls? You are just making this up sir!--Sirrah CatshirE Chess the Striker2117 18:54, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
Trolls? What are trolls? ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101201 - 22:01 (UTC)
I think they are those things with the pointy red hats that sit in people's lawns and wait until they aren't looking to eat them. I'm pretty sure that Travelosity had a series of commercials with the "Roaming Troll" who would dine on the flesh of the staff of various swanky hotels. Ergo, I believe this infestation must be stopped at once.--Sirrah CatshirE Chess the Striker2117 00:26, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
No, those are gnomes - they're used for perimeter defense. Although maybe some of them have been running wild... er... ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101202 - 00:51 (UTC)
Then this still leaves unanswered what trolls are! Oh wait, I know! They are those white horse-like things with horns on their heads. Although the are usually a nice thing to have around because of their healing horn powers, they can be very painful if you anger them. My friend angered one of those troll-horse-thingies and ended up with a horn through his stomach. He would have died from the puncture, but the horn kept him alive and in pain... We should feed the gnomes to these trolls and hope they kill each other!--Sirrah CatshirE Chess the Striker2117 04:51, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Or... we could hide. Over here. *hides* ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101202 - 07:40 (UTC)
But they see everything...0.0 --Sirrah CatshirE Chess the Striker2117 19:36, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to note that the vast majority of suggested improvements will in fact to tend have the result exacerbating the problems they are attempting to correct. --Mn-z 01:43, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Or even making new, more interesting ones... ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101202 - 01:55 (UTC)
The people want change, they never said it was change for the better. More problems == more fun!--Sirrah CatshirE Chess the Striker2117 04:53, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Change for the better that really is better usually involves dictatorships and military states. On that note, want to help me take over the world? ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101202 - 05:34 (UTC)
We've got ninety-nine problems but a content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit ain't one. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 07:29, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Although that some of us are editing it might be a problem... ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101202 - 07:40 (UTC)

Fuck it. I wanna keep arguing.

YOU ALL SUCK. There. I've spoken my peace. It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 11:52, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... on that note, I'll add a nice I HATE YOU ALL. Yes. I feel better now. ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101203 - 14:44 (UTC)

Fuck you all! We should only henceforth create redirect pages to the worst things we can find on this site. --Sirrah CatshirE Chess the Striker2117 19:38, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Personal tools