User:Necropaxx/VFH Etiquette

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This is an essay. It is not an ignorable policy on Uncyclopedia, so you should ignore it even more and disregard the mad ramblings of its writer. Or you could submit it as an Uncycloversity assignment in lieu of actually doing any work.

Everybody loves to see one of their articles on the front page. This is true VFH is the system that Uncyclopedia uses to decide which articles will be shown on the Main Page. VFH is neither good nor bad; it just is. How we, the users at Uncyclopedia, use VFH can make it either a very good place where the users vote in harmony, or it can become a festering pit of drama. How do we avoid the drama? By following some basic VFH Etiquette, we can ensure that VFH is a good, happy place where cute bunnies frolic and articles get featured.

Why, you may ask, is there the problem of drama in the first place? I'll tell you. When someone writes an article, it is their article, and any attacks on it are attacks on them. This is because people take things personally. There is no fixing this. People will always take things personally. When someone's article is nominated for VFH, the author is quite literally putting up his work on the chopping block of public opinion. It is very stressful, especially for a new author. When someone makes a comment like "Symbol against vote Against. This is VFH, not VFD" or some other thoughtless blurb, the writer will take it personally, and you have a nasty, undulating drama on your hands.

So how do we avoid making careless comments that lead to nasty drama? By following VFH Etiquette. But what is VFH Etiquette? This, my good user, is what this essay is all about.

edit Basic Tenets of VFH

Before we start, there are a few "tenets" of VFH that need to be addressed. These are VFH truths that must be accepted if drama is to be avoided.

  1. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone, no matter what he thinks about the article, can think whatever he wants about it. A user can legitimately feel that the funniest articles in the world (all located here) are absolute trash. Another user can legitimately feel that A wizard did it is the funniest page ever. (Whoops) No matter what you think of an article, you are allowed to think it. No other user can bully you into thinking otherwise. This is true.
  2. Every against vote deserves a comment. If you don't like an article, be sure to tell the author why. Symbol against vote Against. is not helpful at all. The author deserves a reason why you didn't like it. Even if it's as basic as "I don't like the concept," which by the way is something the author cannot get around, even if it's basic as that, the author deserves a comment. This way the author can go back and improve his/her article until it is perfect (or good enough; I know several featured articles that aren't "perfect").
  3. Be nice. If we are to have a happy VFH, we have to act like our penises and boobs are big enough that we can be nice to each other. Being careless is nobody's fault. Being a jerk is someone's fault. At all costs, do not be mean. Fudge a little if you have to. But do not be mean. Being mean will lead to drama, and IMO, trying to start drama is a ban-worthy offense.

These are all the absolute truths I can think of, but there may be more.

edit For Votes

For votes are pretty safe, because you're agreeing with the author that, hey, this is a funny article. That usually sits well with the author. The problem comes when in your for vote comments, you may say something careless or downright mean, like "I like this article even though it basically was written by an epileptic monkey with half a brain and no gonads." Or, if you say something, and another user takes your comment and makes fun of you. This is when drama starts. The second one isn't your fault, so don't stress about it. However, being a not-jerk is under your control. So be a not-jerk.

edit Against Votes

Against votes are more volatile. There is a good chance that when you don't think an article is funny, someone won't like that. Remember, you are entitled to your opinion. You can think whatever you want. This does not mean, however, that you can be mean about it. If you don't like it, say why. Your criticism can be constructive to the author. If the author takes your advice and makes the changes you'd like to see, you can turn around your against vote, and both you and the author are happy. It is a good idea to revisit the nominations once in a while, to see if circumstances have changed.

Against votes, as previously mentioned almost always deserve a comment. There are a few exceptions: There is no article there (just a red link), it is an invalid nomination (and even then you should put "invalid nom" if no one else has), the author has self-againsted because he/she isn't finished with it, or it's already got a score of -3 and you're just helping it die.

But what if you just, for some reason, just do not like the article? It is hard to be nice when you are basically saying, "you can't make me laugh." So be vague. Say, "I didn't find it funny." Or, "The concept just doesn't grab me." Or accompany your comment with "Sorry" (even though you may not be). This way you avoid being mean even though it could hurt the author's feelings. If you

edit Abstains

Abstains are tricky. They can legitimately be used if you think the article has its merits, but not enough to garner a for, while on the other hand not bad enough to earn an against.

Personal tools