Illogicopedia talk:Commandments

Suggestion of two new commandments

• We are not evil. Our site should not be harmful to people or the world in general.
• We are not serious. Nothing, or as little as possible on the site should be expressed or taken seriously. Hey you, over there, having an edit war - Take a chill pill, guys!

What does everybody think about adding those two?

Should we have, like, a vote on each of them or something do you think? --Nerd42 15:37, 21 Aym 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you could switch them, as the second one is very close to sane and the evil is almost exactly the same as nasty, so you could reword them and merge them with these but adding them in pat seems pointless as you end up repeating yourself.--Silent PenguinLeave Me Alone 17:27, 21 Aym 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the existing ones don't cover these areas, because you can be sane without being serious and you can be evil without being mean and nasty. the "don't be evil" idea applies mostly to how admins should behave and how we should never encourage vandalizing another wiki. the "not serious" is kind of something that ought to be binding on me, personally, mostly. i have a tendency to take things too seriously as you have remarked before now :) --Nerd42 14:00, 24 Aym 2007 (UTC)

If the 'don't be evil' commandment is elaborated on, you know, outlined on the page, then I agree with that one, especially the conduct of the good Illogicopedian as an ambassador to other wikis. And yeah, maybe the 'don't take things too seriously' is something many wiki users need to adhere to, what with edit wars etc. "Just take a chill pill dudes." In short, I would not object to adding these, though we should be wary of having too many commandments. -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 15:07, 24 Aym 2007 (UTC)

eleven and a half seemed like a good number to me :) --Nerd42 15:32, 26 Aym 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the commandments more or less sum up the policies, if added, it'd be good to write something on the policy page reflecting the new additions as well. Further elaborating could be put there and linked to from the commandments, as with the "Not Mean" and "Not Nasty" ones. --Fluffalizer 15:49, 26 Aym 2007 (UTC)

Well, can I add those other two commandments I wrote up there or do they need to be reworded or do we not want them? I still think those were good ideas but only fi the community agrees. --Nerd42 16:00, 24 Octodest 2007 (UTC)

I'm against the additions. "We are not evil" is to all its useful extent a repetition of "we are not mean" and "we are not nasty." The other commandment proposal, "we are not serious," could cause confusion because it almost contradicts commandment 2's statement, "We take nonsense seriously." --I forgot 20:15, 29 Octodest 2007 (UTC)

well there's a difference between mean, nasty and evil. Like, mean deals with how we treat individuals, nasty deals with how we treat controversial subjects and the idea of this Evil commandment (inspired by the Google motto) would deal with the site's mission to the world in general. (i.e. our nonsense is generally good/positive as a whole and is not evil) Uncyclopedia's About page states: "The mission of Uncyclopedia is to provide the world's misinformation in the least redeeming and most searingly sarcastic and humorous way possible." and I think nonsense can be rather more redeeming than that.

On the we are not serious thing, yes that is a contradiction because this is Illogicopedia LOL --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 18:35, 6 Novelniver 2007 (UTC)

Well as long as you expand upon each point then it sounds fine. Now, i think is the time for action, by that I mean some other admin *cough-Nerd-cough*. By the way Nerd, your sig is all &$*&^$&*^% up, it pastes all the code each time you use it. --Testostereich • (ballsack) 18:42, 6 Novelniver 2007 (UTC)

Lul

On second thoughts, I can see why "we are not funny" is then there, but isn't it kindof untrue. Theirs som e quite funny stuff on Illogicopedia. Features generally have some kind of humour value, so isn't "We are not Funny" unecessary. By just getting rid of it we won't even be telling anyone we're about humour anyways. I just think it's a bit misleading and as such should be removed. --Testostereich • (ballsack) 18:35, 18 Aym 2008 (UTC)

#2 could perhaps be merged with #1. "We are not Sensible"? Also, seeing as the Nasty commandment is in practice often used for both "mean" and "nasty" situations, perhaps they could be merged into one "We are not Nasty"? --Fluffalizer 21:37, 18 Aym 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Should we have a vote on the admin forum or something? --Testostereich • (ballsack) 21:49, 18 Aym 2008 (UTC)

Given some more input without general disagreement, I think this talk page will do. --Fluffalizer 00:54, 19 Aym 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, an admin vote may take 324 years, or something. -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 17:12, 23 Yoon 2008 (UTC)

Disagree

I don't think we should remove that one. I'd suggest we merely rephrase it to say:

• We are not required to be funny - just nonsensical.

That would preserve the original intention without creating confusion. I don't want to see subjective funny-ness as a requirement. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 18:25, 23 Yoon 2008 (UTC)

I think we definitely think we can merge nasty and mean, or reword the nasty one to be more specific to something like lude and rude.--Silent PenguinLeave Me Alone 19:37, 23 Yoon 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, hows about 'lubed and nude'? -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 09:47, 24 Yoon 2008 (UTC)

So what's the consensus? --Testostereich • (ballsack) 10:46, 24 Yoon 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. Maybe we should just add it. That was really fundamental when we started the site ... that unlike Uncyclopedia we wouldn't be required to stay within a subjective standard of humor. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 21:29, 23 Jumbly 2008 (UTC)

Then add it, I guess --Testostereich • (ballsack) 21:30, 23 Jumbly 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the swearing thing (again). Should we be against all strong curse words or what? In most cases, I've been changing 'fuck' to 'frig' or 'freaking' just cos I think it has a similar impact whilst not crossing the line. But, we need a definitive policy on strong language. -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 21:48, 23 Jumbly 2008 (UTC)

We want a strong policy, but not a policy that is strong. As in we need balance to be able to carry out some swear-bannage without restricting creativity. --Testostereich • (ballsack) 21:52, 23 Jumbly 2008 (UTC)

Proposal - Uncyclopedia no longer relevant

• Whereas, the Commandments were, of course, originally written to show Wikia we had some sense in how we're going about our nonsense so they'd give us some help server-wise, and
• Whereas, we are no longer crawling on our hands and knees to get permission from Wikia to start the site by assuring them that we aren't competing with their pet baby dinosaur Uncyclopedia. (though we still aren't in competition with them) and,
• Whereas, I don't think it's necessary or appropriate for us to be giving them free publicity by putting the name of their site in such a prominent part of our site's policy, and
• Whereas, I would also like to get my previous proposal taken seriously,
• Be It Resolved, that we replace Commandments 3 and 4 with the following:

• • We are not required to be funny - just nonsensical.
  • We are not some other web site. We don't do things just because some other site does them. We are not a substitute for any other site.
  • We are not against other web sites. Illogicopedia is not in competition with other web sites and doesn't discourage people from working with them when appropriate.

I think this is a good idea and want to get it taken seriously. --Nerd42 20:49, 16 Arply 2009 (UTC)

VOTING REGULATIONS

There is voting currently taking place below this template, So here are the voting basics: Users are permitted one vote each. Please clearly state whether your addition is a for, an against or a comment. Remember to sign and to update the vote count. Nominations count as a vote for unless specified as "Neutral" or "Against". Take care not to overdo self-nomination. If you wish to change your vote, then cross out the previous using the <s> tags. Frog-infested pineapples are not allowed in the voting area until they have been de-frogged. Click here for more details

Vote "For" Here

• 4! --Nerd42 15:56, 17 Arply 2009 (UTC)
• FORE! Joe9320 07:04, 19 Arply 2009 (UTC)
• May the For be with you Sithman8 18:18, 21 Arply 2009 (UTC)
• Yes - however, though not important, I think the first one could be phrased more in the style of the place - though such if a good idea can be done at some other time. Otherwise, suggestion:
• !sey - !ti si a doog aedi - but don't you think all this seriousing up of Illogicopedia morales is going to serious-up the whole image of the shite(site)? Deplanetiser 04:07, 7 Aym 2009 (UTC)

Say "Stupid Things" Here

(no offense to people who want to say anything else here)

Still considering this, but I believe Uncyc to be a huge part in Illogic's history and should be noted in some way or other. That said, we don't wanna be seen to be leeching off them for the rest of our wikilives. I'm willing to go with what the community thinks as a whole, but I would not be against removing the commandment. Oh yeah, and we are not Uncyc :) -- Hindleyak  ( Blab | Blog )   12:05, 17 Arply 2009 (UTC)

I've always been against any copmmandment vaguely resembling the first proposed one, the nonsensical to funny spectrum thing is to me an unwritten thing, implemented only when the editor writes their piece, it doth not need to be enshrined in law imo. Also, Hindlesberger raises a point. --92.12.162.16 20:15, 17 Arply 2009 (UTC)

This law is meant to restrict the admins actually. I would like to get it in writing that we have to come up with a better reason to delete stuff than our own subjective ideas of what's funny and what's not. And that we'll continue to accept content even if it's not very funny. --Nerd42 20:23, 18 Arply 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with Nerd on this. Currently I only delete hate/spam pages or articles made of just plain gibberish but tag the rest with the appropriate templates or whatever. -- Hindleyak  ( Blab | Blog )   10:47, 19 Arply 2009 (UTC)

What do we need to pass this? I'm thinking at least five votes but I dunno --Nerd42 13:27, 20 Arply 2009 (UTC)

Usually I go on consensus rather than votes, though I bet if you went ahead and made the change nobody would bother. Then again, I haven't seen MMF or Testicles around here for a while... if anyone objects it could be reverted easily. -- Hindleyak  ( Blab | Blog )   11:41, 23 Arply 2009 (UTC)

Does this look like a consensus to you? :) --Nerd42 14:23, 23 Arply 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. -- Hindleyak  ( Blab | Blog )   16:18, 24 Arply 2009 (UTC)

stupid things. Sithman8 14:11, 23 Arply 2009 (UTC)

LOL :) --Nerd42 14:23, 23 Arply 2009 (UTC)

STUPID THINGS! Some WHAT!? (talk) (contribs) (edit count) 02:22, 25 Arply 2009 (UTC)

• • We are not just funny - we are funny as in the smell, and accept sheer nonsense.

--Fluffalizer 20:09, 23 Arply 2009 (UTC)

(I think that was a suggestion, not a vote) well I didn't want to say "we are not merely funny" though .... I really did want to say we are not required to be funny. This is because of kind of what started happening at Uncyclopedia where they eventually came to a point where they really weren't about what's funny to other people - but about what the admins thought was funny. i'd like to avoid that whole mess by saying up front that we aren't required to be funny in the first place. --Nerd42 14:55, 24 Arply 2009 (UTC)

It was meant to be a vote and a separate suggestion; so if poor, disregard the suggestion (which as said was not important anyway) and count the vote. --Fluffalizer 15:37, 24 Arply 2009 (UTC)

I want "We are not required to be funny" to be added, but I think the Uncyclopedia should be left in or at least left in as sub-commandments. Some WHAT!? (talk) (contribs) (edit count) 02:24, 25 Arply 2009 (UTC)

Why's that, I don't see any link we might have with them as fundamental or relevant to our site policy. --Nerd42 20:14, 4 Aym 2009 (UTC)

Deleted a rule without permission

"We're not supposed to persuade anyone" made me feel... uncomfortable. Hope nobody minds. Cajek 03:23, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

:O CONTROVERSY!!! Umm, yeah. I should probably do something, being an admin and all. --Testostereich • (ballsack) 09:49, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with that deletion completely. I think it's a goofy rule and I never understood why we had it. Sure, if an article is persuasive in a humorless way, I guess it should go, but if it's persuasive in a funny or surreal way, I see no reason to get rid of it. Good call, Cajek! --THE 10:08, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

He's a witch! burn him! also, this needs a proper discussion, not one man and a backspace.--Silent PenguinLeave Me Alone 10:45, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

Coolio

Discussion time I guess:

We're not supposed to persuade anyone"

That's our suspect.

My two cents:

PROS:

1. Prevents fierce ideological battles raging which could distract people from the inactivity going on elsewhere in the site.

2. IMO, is one of the things stopping us be Uncyclopedia.

CONS:

1. Pretty limiting. Stuff like Lightbulbism, which is among Illogicopedia's finest material would be deemed questionable by this rule. It may make the writer feel like they aren't allowed an opinion.

2. No one remembers the commandments anyway, so it'd be another sentence wasted.

Anyway, discussion! --Testostereich • (ballsack) 12:17, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

Making a quick glance over Lightbulbism, I don't believe it violates the rule. --Nerd42 14:11, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

Why I think "We are not persuasive" is important

In all seriousness, I am a very ideologically driven person. I believe that some positions are right and others are wrong. I believe in changing people's hearts and minds to the right positions. If I'm heavily involved in a project, and it's being used to support/promote positions I think are wrong, then I want that stopped, I want to fight back and answer/respond to all criticisms so that all the people will know what the real truth is.

Trouble is, that gets really tiring. It gets people tied up in long, drawn-out conversations/arguments/debates like this one which do not contribute to a relaxed, enjoyable atmosphere for a humor or nonsense focused online community.

Furthermore, if I log in everday seeing the front page of the site promoting positions or lifestyles I think are wrong, I find that depressing. And ideologically driven "humor" tends to be very very negative. "Depressing and negative" are not what I had in mind or desire for Illogicopedia.

If the community disagrees with me and we vote to get rid of this commandment, then (apart from the nasty content issue which, unlike this one, is an issue I would stay or leave over) I would support implementing Uncyclopedia's way of dealing with ideologically driven content through "constructive flamewars" which I think is probably the best solution if we're going to allow that kind of thing at all. But that will, I believe, lead to producing a much less relaxed and radically different kind of web site that I don't think will be an improvement. We'll also lose something that I think makes Illogicopedia unique compared to other web sites in our category - we don't really argue all that much, but just hang out and have a good time.

If we get rid of this commandment, expect to get political attack pieces from me against President Obama, who I think is a total nutjob. --Nerd42 14:11, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

Nerd42? Holy crap I remember you! You left Uncyc because you were offended by our articles. Anyway, Tl;dr. Anyway, you're an idiot. Anyway, Illogicopedia is not supposed to be persuasive, no matter how serious an article seems to be. If I wrote an article saying Why?:Be a Satanist and it actually convinced someone to be a Satanist, that wouldn't break the "don't be persuasive" rule because THIS IS FUCKING ILLOGICOPEDIA. Delete, obviously. C'mon, who the hell are you, anyway? Cajek 15:38, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

Who am I? One of the co-founders of this web site? Which, contrary to your apparent belief, is not an extension of Uncyclopedia? --Nerd42 15:48, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

That was an IP address. Listen, THE-- my adopter and king of this site, plus he's an admin-- says delete, so delete. Done. Cajek 15:44, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

Stupid thing deleted my cookies for some reason. Anyway, no that's not how we do things here. You need a community vote to change the fundamental rules of the site - see the discussion above on this page when I wanted to change the rules. --Nerd42 15:48, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

If I wrote an article on Notpersuasive-opedia honestly trying to persuade people that actually persuaded people, it would be no different than the same article on Illogicopedia: WE'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PEOPLE'S BELIEFS (Uncyc included). The reason I'm worried about this is it sounds... fascist. I started looking at your guys' rules because I don't remember the difference between this site and Uncyc. When I saw that, I was like Oh, now I can't write anything. So, boop, delut. Cajek 15:51, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

Just because you're not supposed to write anything directly for or against any particular religion, controversial philosophy or political party or candidate doesn't mean you can't write anything. This site's supposed to be for nonsense - so basically you can't write anything that makes enough sense to persuade people to agree with you. In a nutshell this is saying "Chill, relax, make nonsense, not arguments." --Nerd42 15:55, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

Give me an example of what would work and what wouldn't, cuz I... oh who cares, I'm going back to uncyc where we can write whatever we want. Nerd42, writing long arguments doesn't make your dick longer. Just wanted to point that out XD Cajek 15:59, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

I suggest anyone who hasn't should read Illogicopedia:About#Isn't_nonsense_typically_negative? just so they're informed on the issue.

I'm all for people from Uncyclopedia coming here and/or frequenting both sites, but not if they're here to try and make our site more like theirs, or just into a sort of extension of Uncyclopedia. We've got our own thing going on, and it's different and if we were going to change to be more Uncyclopedia-like that would kind of make our site redundant. --Nerd42 16:02, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

What would work and what wouldn't

What wouldn't work:

Obama is a crazy nigger who broke out of a Chicago mental asylum to become President. He thinks that the way to solve the United States's problems with debt is ... MORE DEBT!!

What would work:

Obama is the nickname of the prototype "Oxygen Bomb A" - a new type of weapon which works by creating Change in the atmosphere of politics.

The first bit is very negative and critical. The second bit totally redefines the object in a surrealistic way and doesn't take a position one way or the other on the guy. --Nerd42 16:12, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, I personally think the rule itself is a bit faschist, but, when i thought about it, persuasive negative stuff, as Nerd so nerdishly put it really wouldn't look at home on Illogicopedia. I love stuff with a persuasive edge, that purveys the authors opinion subtely throughout the course of what they're writing but direct attacks on stuff would just seem a bit... out of place. It'd be too like Uncyc. Controversy is way too much effort, and it means not everyone gets to enjoy the article so meh. To me persuasive articles like the kind you get on uncyc would stick out like a sore thumb over here, it wouldn't be cool. I've always seen these "rules" as helpful guidelines that weren't set in stone either way, but had a core gist that users should stick to. --Testostereich • (ballsack) 16:30, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

Yeah ... calling them "commandments" is a sort of joke in one sense ... but not in another. I do seriously think if we stray too far from these, our site will be alot less fun in the long run. I also like stuff with a persuasive edge but I don't like it on Illogicopedia where I go to relax and not think too hard about stuff. Illogicopedia shouldn't be giving people headaches or indoctrinations.

I mean the whole idea behind Illogicopedia is "Hey, let's get together and type stupid stuff!" "OK!" and I really think debates on politics, philosophy and religion will take away from that. --Nerd42 16:34, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

Even if we change this rule I still wouldn't be motivated to care/write about that kind of stuff, I'm pretty many others wouldn't be too. We've come this far without people really saying anything or pushing the rules, it's probably more the right to do it this is about me thinks, I agree with you that the site would most likely be a lot less fun if everyone started writing opinionated arguments, in my opnion the best way for that kind of stuff is the way THE infers it in his epics. --Testostereich • (ballsack) 16:47, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

wow this song i just heard is like, exactly what's happening to us --Nerd42 18:14, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

I suggest...

...that we change it to we are not HUMORLESSLY persuasive or openly persuasive or something like that. As testostereich has said, there are many articles with the author's opinions subtly interwoven throughout. I think adding "homorlessly" or something to that effect would clarify this rule to avoid us becoming too fascist-ish. It is my personal opinion that we have as few rules as possible here, because fewer rules means more creative freedom. Cracking down on articles just because they're "persuasive" without regard to whether or not they're funny, interesting, or surreal would be over-the-top. --THE 19:43, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is, that only works if you have opinions which are subtle. If you've got simple or blunt opinions, then you'd still be out. It seems to be an all-or-nothing situation to me. --Nerd42 19:56, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it all or nothing, just specify it's based on a case by case basis. If such cases ever arise baby. --Testostereich • (ballsack) 20:19, 4 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

Trouble with all or nothing is that many articles on the site COULD be considered "persuasive," such as some of mine including lightbulbism, Boris and the American Dream and the monstrous monster from the murky marsh. Changing the commandment to humorlessly persuasive or perhaps blatantly persuasive would take care of any inconsistency. I'm not talking about people's opinions being subtle, I'm talking about the presentation of those opinions being subtle. An outright ban on opinionated articles is still completely over-the-top in my view. --THE 01:55, 5 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

Testicles called it exactly. Essentially it doesn't matter too much about what commandments are there and what aren't.

Each article should be judged individually - if it's deemed too politically motivated, the author is directed to another, more politics-based wiki. If you ask me, the commandment's probably better not there at all, because if the event arose that someone did write extreme political/religious commentary (I don't believe this has happened at all up until now, and is pretty unlikely to in the near future) we could quite easily point to one of the other commandments as the reason. Too many commandments and we start turning into Wikipedia.

Now, back to my egg custard. -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 10:34, 5 Yoon 2009 (UTC)

Dammit people

Whenever we reach consensus nothing happens. Or it gets whittled away back to what it was. I say we settle the persuasive debate once and for all, personally I like Hindleyite's opinion that means the other policies cover it. Any thoughts? Testostereich • (ballsack) 20:38, 16 Jumbly 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! The new paragraph on "no persuasiveness" is totally unnecessary. I hate the rule, and many other community members have expressed lukewarm views toward it. A number of articles here could definitely be considered persuasive, including MANY of mine (lightbulbism, Santa Claus the Socialist Menace, Boris and the American Dream, etc.). Adding a paragraph to Illogicopedia:About about the damn rule that half the site disagrees with is a move that I whole-heartedly disagree with. --THE 22:28, 16 Jumbly 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, just this once though, instead of debating it back and forth I say we put it up for a vote. Testostereich • (ballsack) 22:31, 16 Jumbly 2009 (UTC)

I'll start up a vote on that talk page. --THE 22:34, 16 Jumbly 2009 (UTC)

You just edit conflicted me :P I'll be there in a second. On an unrelated note, I suddenly realised that you are in fact an admin today, in the bath. Don't know why. Testostereich • (ballsack) 22:36, 16 Jumbly 2009 (UTC)

I just went ahead and rewrote the paragraph, to basically say that we don't tolerate extreme and blatant political persuasiveness, but persuasiveness is okay in some cases if it's artistically or surreal...ishly done. Also, I was in the bath today and I suddenly realized that I love singing passionate love songs to my own kneecaps. --THE 22:46, 16 Jumbly 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware this conversation was going on (Don't know how I missed it ...)

If we're going to allow propaganda, I expect you will rather not like the sort I'd write, and I expect I'll rather not like the sort you'll write. For example, under the newly relaxed rules I would (presumably) be able to write, "I Can't Believe It's Not a Baby!" as an "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!" parody about the abortion issue. It could talk about how abortion clinics and margarine companies are teaming up to create a new kind of Soylent Green type spread to put on your toast, made out of aborted remains put through a blender. I could also write about the "blood diamond" issue in Africa, and absurdly advertise, "Get one free severed hand with every purchase!" Once you let this kind of stuff in, it just doesn't stop and there are plenty of places for it elsewhere online. Why here?

Propaganda takes the "non" out of "nonsense". I do recognize that you at least have some kind of line, but I think even if we were trying to relax the rules a little, the specific placement of the new line is going way too far in the other direction. I think we ought at least to make clear that you ought not to write with a specific/coherent political, philosophical or religious point in mind. - that making a serious point should not be your main goal / the defining element of your work.

If you recall, other reasons for the original policy included the fact that we don't want to turn out just like Uncyclopedia where, in theory, you can write whatever you want as long as it's funny, but in practice, whatever you write gets edited to slant towards the majority view of the editing community.

By the way, the entire section on persuasiveness probably ought to be moved to the page I made to grouping everything we don't want: Illogicopedia:No Total Crap. --Nerd42 15:23, 20 Jumbly 2009 (UTC)

First of all; I would have no problem with "I Can't Believe It's Not a Baby!" because that would most likely be hilarious. With the others... well, no. I agree with THE on the front that a lot of articles are slightly persuasive in a way. Blatently parodying major and sometimes disturbing issues should not be allowed but you can't say no persuasiveness at all because then you wouldn't be able to write about so many things. And I think we all know that Lightbulbism is just parodying Scientology (but I don't care because Scientology is not a religion, just an elaborate scam). But in the end, it doesn't even matter! I had to fall; to lose it aaaaaaaaaaaaaaal! But in the end, it doesn't even maaaaateeereeer! I think what THE wrote is perfect and does not let in what Nerd mentioned above. And one last thing: Jesus Christ, Nerd, how far up there is that stick lodged? --T3 15:27, 20 Jumbly 2009 (UTC)

Well, if that kind of thing is OK, it kind of defeats the purpose of having a web site devoted to purely nonsense. And the "fun house mirror" rule from before didn't prevent writing about very many subjects ... you couldn't have written about abortion but a literal take on "blood diamonds" in which they belong to rock-collecting vampires might have worked out. It also seems to me that we're losing an essential difference from Uncyclopedia ... except that they wouldn't even accept "I Can't Believe It's Not a Baby" if I recall correctly. That would seem to make them better than us in my thinking ... wow didn't think I'd ever be saying that. --Nerd42 15:35, 20 Jumbly 2009 (UTC)

I can appreciate your concerns about illogicopedia becoming a political battleground. My concerns rest with EPICS that DO have persuasive elements to them. Under your strict, "absolutely no persuasiveness" policy, those EPICs (many of which have been featured) would be violations of site policy. I'll now provide more in-depth examples of some of my semi-persuasive EPICS. Since I wrote them, I can tell you exactly what I intended them to be. Lightbulbism was meant to be a satire of the darker elements of ALL religions. Boris and the American Dream was basically me goofing around and having a blast writing a dystopian version of America, but it could be considered persuasive. Same with The Monstrous Monster from the Murky Marsh, which is meant to include some cartoony, exaggerated commentary about human nature. Santa Claus the Socialist Menace was mainly intended as a surrealist romp, but it also contains some political satire. Articles like these exist on illogicopedia. They have for some time. And they fit in to illogicopedia, because, even though they have some elements of persuasiveness, they're absurd, bizarre and surreal. And absurdness, bizarreness, and surrealishyness are what make illogicopedia special. And banning all persuasiveness articles is over-the-top. --THE 15:55, 20 Jumbly 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think what really makes illogicopedia special is the largely unlimited creativity. No extreme profanity, no vanity, no blatant endorsements of your favorite political party...but other than that, writers can write whatever they want. And that leads to high-quality surrealism, nonsense, and sometimes comedy that wouldn't belong in the rigid environment of uncyclopedia. A blatant ban on all persuasiveness, regardless of how tasteful or subtle the persuasiveness is, would infringe on that creativity, I think. The new rule is a compromise, Nerd42. It bans blatant political persuasiveness and propaganda, which is what you want. It leaves room for surreal, vaguely persuasive EPICs, which is what I want. It makes room for case-by-case evaluation of persuasive articles, which is an idea both Testes and Hindleyite endorsed. --THE 16:04, 20 Jumbly 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Lightbulbism violated the old policy in the first place. It's not exactly a rant against Scientology, but just kinda lightly makes fun of it, as if seen though a fun house mirror as the old policy said ... --Nerd42 19:53, 20 Jumbly 2009 (UTC)

Just the fact that you think Lightbulbism is okay proves my point exactly. It is a persuasive satire. All along I've been making the point that we do have persuasive satires on the site. All I want is to make it perfectly clear in the site policy that we do sometimes accept satires with persuasive elements, provided that they're sufficiently surreal to be considered illogicopedia-ish. If that's the same thing you were saying with the Fun House metaphor, it sounds like we have nothing to argue about. --THE 01:16, 21 Jumbly 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wrote Liberals ... and I didn't think that violated the existing rule ... My point's supposed to have been that you can write about persuasive subjects but not write persuasively, only nonsensically. --Nerd42 15:22, 21 Jumbly 2009 (UTC)

Mwweeeelll, as I've already cited, we do have some articles with persuasive aspects on the site. The policy page now takes those pages in to account, while continuing to prohibit blatant political propaganda. --THE 17:10, 21 Jumbly 2009 (UTC)

Make consistent

By the way, this new standard, if implemented, ought to be consistent ... Illogicopedia:About still says, "Satire that is intended to persuade people to a specific point of view is directed to a political wiki." - a sentence which I did not write. --Nerd42 15:39, 20 Jumbly 2009 (UTC)