Forum:Thoughts on the Illogicopedia Rulez

<<< Back to Logical Sector • <<< Back to Forum

Hello, everybody. I have some ideas/suggestions here that may or may not be good ones. Any admin who has done more work on the site than I have (which I think includes most, if not all of them) has a perfect right to tell me to shut up if they don't like the ideas.

The reason(s) for these is because I think we have swung dangerously near the haunted domain of teh Encyclopedia Dramatica by not adequately defining what is NOT allowed. The site's gotten off to a great start as far as we have been getting lots of good nonsense, but with it has come "junk" / Total Crap that we need to filter out.

What should NOT be allowed in the main article namespace (this is not a complete list)

This stuff should be DELETED!

1. Anything gross and/or disgusting, or that puts gross/disgusting thoughts in people's minds should not be allowed.
2. Any form of pornography should not be allowed.
3. Anything that promotes the use of addictive drugs and/or mind-altering substances should not be allowed. If you can't think of enough nonsense without the aid of these things then you have no talent for it and should not attempt to contribute to the site at all.
4. Anything contraversial, anything that is for a real cause other than nonsense or Illogicopedia, anything with a message relative to the real world, anything for/against the status quo or for/against societal change should not be allowed.
5. Anything that seriously tries to convince intelligent people that it is truthful and/or factual should not be allowed. Such things belong elsewhere because they are not nonsense and thus run contrary to the mission of the site.
6. Anything that is openly and deliberately offensive to people in general, to a single person and/or to a specific group of people should not be allowed. (The intended effect of the last three: We can't preach here and we can't directly mock politicians, actors, CEOs, Amish and other people. We can create content related to nonsensical non-political things they say/do but cannot mock them directly. So, lets f***ing kill Google.)
7. Spam should not be allowed. Spam needs a clear definition, so here's mine: I don't have a problem with one page that is nonsensical, interesting to look at and possibly even read but also happens to be an advertisement - that's not what I would call spam. But anything that exists merely to promote something other than nonsense and Illogicopedia itself and does not help the mission of the site needs to be eliminated.
8. In-jokes that are not for the benefit of the Illogicopedia user base should not be allowed. (This rules out many forms of vanity.) Things written in codes or cyphers are fine but please make sure there is some reasonable way for people you don't know to unravel it. (Meaning: If you're telling people it's in code and the code is a secret, you should also make a solution availible somewhere/somehow so that it won't be an in-joke you're excluding Illogicopedians from. It's easy to get around this rule by disguising your code as random keyboard banging, which is fine)
9. Vanity that does not signifigantly contribute to making the site interesting to look at and possibly even read should not be allowed.

What SHOULD be allowed (this is not a complete list)

These SHOULD be allowed and encouraged!

1. Articles that contain random banging on the keyboard with titles relevant to random keyboard banging. These articles are not completely devoid of meaning: some people can tell whether you're banging on a qwerty or dvorak keyboard by looking at these. Someday, these random bangings might even help researchers invent a better input device / keyboard layout than either of them. LOL.
2. Repeating characters or phrases (such as OMG OMG OMG, the AAAAAA thru ZZZZZZ series, and so on)
3. Illogical streams of text such as "I ATE MY SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT FOR BRUNCH TOMORROW AND ALSO BORROWED SOMEBODY'S CEILING THREE BLARGLES FROM NOW" that are just ... insane.
4. Importing articles from other wikis and just generally shifting or replacing the nouns in nonsensical ways.
5. Engaging in an ARG. (Alternate Reality Game) My cursed article phenominon is sort of like a mini-ARG that doesn't have a point and hasn't been updated in a long time. But Illogicopedia, being a site for nonsense, is a perfect place for ARG puppet-masters to drop clues. We could even run our own ARG somehow if anyone (perhaps me) can think of a good enough idea for one.
6. Rewriting famous books/stories/plays/movies (perhaps nonsensical classics like Alice in Wonderland or the Rime of the Ancient Mariner) with completely new/different characters and situations.
7. Rewrite famous stories in leet, like "Tales for teh Leet" did with Shakespear, only the obscenities in "Tales for teh Leet" could not be included.
8. Invent logic puzzles that don't have a logical solution and answer them illogically.
9. Write descriptions/advertisements for objects/products/creatures that cannot possibly exist but would be useful/funny/dangerous if they did. (Examples: Bouncy Castles, Flying Trees)
10. Write sets of instructions for how to do impossible things / operate impossible machines to do impossible things.
11. Casual contributions should be encouraged. People shouldn't be not writing because they're afraid their stuff's going to get deleted and/or people are going to get annoyed with them for writing it. This kind of site is perfect for practicing writing by writing really terrible stuff, which is how everyone learns how to write well.
12. Just general randomness and nonsense - but especially good/interesting new ideas should, above all, be encouraged.

There's got ot be a better way to word this - I mean, it's not in the precise language of how a policy page needs to look/be but I thought maybe this will get the ball rolling on this "quality" issue people have been bringing up. I would like to clarify that while the site is NOT exclusively dedicated to producing really great or awesome high-quality stuff, (in fact, we are, by definition, a safe haven for really stupid, low-quality stuff) we do generally like to have quality nonsense, and we should not allow Total Crap. Total Crap should be posted to Encyclopedia Dramatica where it belongs, and has lots of friends. It's kind of like MySpace in that respect. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 17:15, 30 Jeremy 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on Thoughts on the Illogicopedia Rulez

I wrote all of this on my (offline) computer at home before reading about the debate that's currently going on on the site. I think the suggestion that articles should be merged to a large degree rather than deleted is a good one. I think simply deleting content should always be a last resort. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 17:20, 30 Jeremy 2008 (UTC)

Boo hiss! Rules suck. Remember to rebel against authority kids!
Seriously though, I think everything you've outlined there is pretty much covered by the commandments but I suppose it was about time some rules were written. I wouldn't go around imposing them on everybody, just have them there as a reminder and if any of them are broken point the vandal/person in the general direction of them. I'd hate for us to become like Uncyclopedia.
In short, yes. Your last comment about deleting stuff as a last resort I fully agree with. -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 19:24, 30 Jeremy 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we definately don't want to become like Uncyclopedia (Too restrictive and delete-trigger-happy) but also not like Encyclopedia Dramatica (Too ... full of useless crap)

Everyone should please start adding articles they come across that belong there to Category:Random mashing of the keyboard so we can make decisions about merging and re-arranging them. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 21:58, 30 Jeremy 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see articles more developed or a special place for very short, undeveloped pieces. I like the rule especially about non-offensiveness. I think just about anything should be allowed but articles should be separated by how much they are worked on when submitted. We need both long articles and short ones, thoughtful and random and mixed. Perhaps there could be a category for the brief (near stubs) that folks like to write.--MathPoet 17:22, 31 Jeremy 2008 (UTC)

One thing I am strongly opposed to is this overt censorship we have. What we need to realise is that swearing is actually a modern part of language. Hell, I'm hearing 7-year-old girls telling each other to "fuck off"! (is that because I live so close to london?)! Anyway, my opinion of swearing is that not swearing is an unnecessary limitation of the vocabulary imposed unto children much as the idea of religion is forced upon many. There's a reason why church is becoming less and less popular throughout the world, and that numero uno reason is forcefulness. Anyway, it is nice to see that we're maintaining standards, but it feels we're getting far too authoritarian over it. Recently a particularly tame HelloolleH edit was reverted for being too something or other "aaa might offend 11 year olds' parents" etc. Have yew SEEN the Racism article? I think we do need standards, such as no uber-obscenity, non-parody racism and pornography etc, but we often go way too far. Where has a society gotten when a simple "shit"(censorship by Fonchezzz) has to be encased in the censor template? -- 19:49, 31 Jeremy 2008 (UTC)

I think your example, as it appeared when I looked at it just now, is an unfortunate one for your argument ... unless someone really finds it offensive, it would stay put under the policies I suggest, since it's clearly nonsense and does not try to convince anybody of anything.

On the issue of censorship, I do not believe that censorship is, in and of itself, a bad thing - especially when it is used not to restrict creator's freedoms but to give people options and choices about what information they do and do not want to be exposed to. I wouldn't want my hypothetical seven year old daughter of the future telling anybody to "f*** off" and I think I should be able to read to her, if she wants to hear it, stuff from Illogicopedia without worrying that I'm going to be teaching her any new words of the sort that often changes the ratings of otherwise G/PG-level movies.

One of the major problems that have made me become dis-satisfied with Uncyclopedia is the increasingly crude and disgusting INSERT RANDOM SENTENCE ENHANCERS HERE LOL messed up idea of humor they have where anything that involves sex and/or "modern language" must automatically be funny and probably should get featured on the front page. I don't find that funny or amusing. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 19:50, 1 Farbleum 2008 (UTC)

I find it unfortunate that while you don't want to see language that PG movies get booted for, the article above seems to be expected on the premise that it is nonsensical. so there is an exception? Were someone to find it offensive, would it still stay? Racism is a plenty good example, because it includes a modicum of swearing and offensive merit. And yet, it stays because people feel it should stay. And so, I feel too that language as such should stay -- perhaps be moderated. Banning it right out is trouble.

Moreover, some people find it funny and amusing -- who are we to tell them no? I haven't seen us tell anyone else been told no. What's goin' on? --Sir Asema ^Politics _{Complaint Inbox or Outbox} 22:04, 1 Farbleum 2008 (UTC)

Asema hit the nail on the head there. In the right circumstances I believe 'coarse' language can add to a piece and make it funnier, and I know there are others who do too. We cannot just ban swearing, but yes, there should be some sort of moderation, we only want it when it really will improve an article. And also, when reading to your 'real' child, can't you just skip the bad bits? That way everybody wins :P --$_{lleH}^{elloo}$ 22:10, 1 Farbleum 2008 (UTC)

No, no no no no no no, G and PG are fine. PG-13 is kinda borderline but could be OK in some circumstances I think. R has got at least one foot over the line.

Looking at the Racism article again ... what language are you referring to? I give the example of having a hypothetical daughter but honestly, I don't want to read explicit material myself anyway. It isn't really funny to me. I find it kind of sad, in fact.

I'm not really all that bothered when I *can* just skip the bad bits but on Uncyclopedia, the "bad bits" took over the entire site, so that the majority of the content seemed to be the bad bits and the gems were getting buried in more and more sewage. I'd rather be criticized for supporting "censorship" than to see that happen here. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 20:04, 4 Farbleum 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't answered a multitude of my questions. Were someone to find that article offensive much like you find profanity offensive, would it stay? I'm refering to the term 'negro,' for one thing.

Moreover, this is a ruling on a site, is it not? I'm sure that everyone respects you find profanity sad, or not funny -- but some people do, and we should not tell them no, for we are not telling anyone else no. D'ya get it now?

The problem here is, although I made be reading you a bit too harshly, is that you don't want to see swearing EVAR. if that's the case, I'd rather (to be boorish) walk away from this conversation, for such a thing baffles me, but if you want, say, non-Uncyclopedian swearing, I'm sure that can be arranged and even supported.

Now, as for controversial subjects -- this is, again, going against what you've suggested -- freedom to the writer. If someone needs to rant, so long as their thoughts are encased in something pleasant to read, why not let them? At this point, Nerd, I rather feel you're trying to stay away from subjects other than pure nonsense, which, while the site's subject, has been done to death.

And now as for what should be allowed:

People shouldn't be not writing because they're afraid their stuff's going to get deleted and/or people are going to get annoyed with them for writing it.

Sure thing. So why, pray tell, do you have a small laundry list of things to be deleted?

Now, just to show you I'm not cranky from the recent vandalism, I fully support the idea of ARGs. ARGs are awesome.

--Sir Asema ^Politics _{Complaint Inbox or Outbox} 22:38, 4 Farbleum 2008 (UTC)

"Moreover, this is a ruling on a site, is it not?" - No, because I am not unilaterally enforcing these. In fact, I'm not even sure I even support all of them. These are just suggestions/ideas that may or may not be good ones. I'm suggesting we go in the general direction of these but not these exactly, see what I'm saying?

"Why have a laundry list?" - Because people are telling me that that quality has been declining and have been proposing plans to stop this from happening. I just spouted off some proposals off the top of my head that we may want to discuss / implement / ignore / change.

I've been thinking: whether the things are allowed and how they should be treated are two seperate issues. I ought to go through this and put "we don't allow" "we discourage" "we allow" and "we encourage" in seperate sections.

"The problem here is, although I made be reading you a bit too harshly, is that you don't want to see swearing EVAR. if that's the case, I'd rather (to be boorish) walk away from this conversation, for such a thing baffles me, but if you want, say, non-Uncyclopedian swearing, I'm sure that can be arranged and even supported." - Well, what I would like in a perfect world is different from what I reasonably expect to actually happen in the real one. In a perfect world, people wouldn't need/want to swear. (i.e. the world would be perfect, there would be nothing to swear about)

In the real world however, it's reasonable to expect that people who don't follow the same standards/lifestyle-choices as I do are going to use coarse language some of the time. That's obvious and to be expected.

But, I think it's reasonable to expect people to generally keep their language generally clean when writing about most subjects in articles. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 20:18, 5 Farbleum 2008 (UTC)

"Would Racism get deleted if someone objected?" If it were up to me, then: No, probably not without a community vote of some kind. What it would get it some kind of tag explaining what the problem is. If the problem isn't really that important (according to a vote of the users) then the tag would be removed again - otherwise it would stay until the problems it described were fixed. Um, yeah I think that covers just about everything. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 21:29, 5 Farbleum 2008 (UTC)