Board Thread:Administration/@comment-24376429-20140208190533/@comment-24097978-20140210025213

Neo Bahamut wrote: The Sleeping Beast wrote: Yushi316 wrote: Well, TEH is good... for a cheap laugh

And wall o' texts are good for giving me a migraine. Since they have a purpose (causing Sleepy pain), does that mean they should stay, even if they don't fit everyone's definitions of the word 'good'?

Not really an equivalent situation. Teh Day of All Teh Blood is presumably parody. A wordwall being "good for giving you migraines" is just a play on words. I do not see why it would be a problem to have a parody category, but if we want to shunt those kinds of stories off to trollpasta, that's fine, too.

But I disagree that writing quality is completely subjective. No, you can't measure it exactly, but there are essentially universal standards. Also, popularity fluctuates, influenced by time & random chance. If a story remains consistently popular when plotted against a long sequence of time, it is at least notable. I took his/her comment in the sense of purpose (TEH has a purpose in making people laugh; word walls have a purpose in making my head hurt.) If I was misinterpreting their comment, then ignore my response.

There are universal standards until you ask the wrong person. Bye, universal standards!

'Standards' change with the context of the writing. As an example, it's perfectly fine for me to chop letters off words and replace them with an apostrophe when I'm on this website, writing in a casual context. In contrast, if I wrote "givin'" instead of "giving" in a thesis paper, I'd be laughed out of the English department.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have standards -- don't get me wrong -- but I am saying that this is a topic which can go many different ways depending on which side of the fence you're on, and who's fence it is.