<div class="quote"><i> <p>Neo Bahamut wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>The Sleeping Beast wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Yushi316 wrote: Well, TEH is good... for a cheap laugh </p> </i></div>
<p>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'? </p> </div> <p>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. </p><p>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. </p> </div> <p>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), in which case they <i>are</i> equitable situations. If I was misinterpreting their comment, then ignore my response. </p><p>There are universal standards until you ask the wrong person. Bye, universal standards! </p><p>'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. </p><p>I'm not saying we shouldn't have standards -- don't get me wrong -- but I <i>am</i> 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. </p>

<div class="quote"><i>The Sleeping Beast wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Neo Bahamut wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>The Sleeping Beast wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Yushi316 wrote: Well, TEH is good... for a cheap laugh </p> </i></div>
<p>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'? </p> </div> <p>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. </p><p>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. </p> </div>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), in which case they <i>are</i> equitable situations. If I was misinterpreting their comment, then ignore my response. <p>There are universal standards until you ask the wrong person. Bye, universal standards! </p><p>'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. </p><p>I'm not saying we shouldn't have standards -- don't get me wrong -- but I <i>am</i> 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. </p> </div> <p>Well, even if a pasta has a bad rating, it would be up to a VCROC or a higher power to delete or reset the ratings, which would potentially make this system more stable, and in this way it could actually work :D
</p>

<p>The one thing I wanted to hold up as to why Jeff should have stayed here was that this is the Creepypasta Wiki.  Saying that you don't want a classic, genre-defining story here is like saying you don't want creepypasta here. </p>

<div class="quote"><i>ClericofMadness wrote:
The one thing I wanted to hold up as to why Jeff should have stayed here was that this is the Creepypasta Wiki.  Saying that you don't want a classic, genre-defining story here is like saying you don't want creepypasta here.</i></div>
<p>If a story with as many plot holes, non-believabilities, and irregularities as Jeff the Killer is a genre-defining story, we are in a bad position. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>ClericofMadness wrote: The one thing I wanted to hold up as to why Jeff should have stayed here was that this is the Creepypasta Wiki.  Saying that you don't want a classic, genre-defining story here is like saying you don't want creepypasta here. </p> </i></div>
<p>I wouldn't go so far as to argue it's genre-defining, but I believe Jeff has his place here as an example of creepypasta history. Also, as I said somewhere up there, such classic pastas are gateways to better things. They read one pasta, they read more. </p><p>Though, for anyone who's going to chime in with "But if it's here, people will copy it and quality will drop!11", that's very true. But, they'll do the same if it's hosted elsewhere; it'll just take them longer. </p><p>What we need to do is clarify what the Jeff formula is (the current ruling on it isn't very clear as to what makes a pasta Jeff-formulaic) and how it can be avoided. </p><p>We also need to make it very clear what topics have been banned, and organize such things in a central place (perhaps a page that lists things you don't accept pastas of anymore, and a link to the Spinpasta wiki) as to cut down on the butthurt when their Jeff-sequel is inevitably shuffled off this digital coil. In this way, it's possible for a watcher like myself to first off, know what to mark for review/deletion, and second, give a clear reason for our actions, should the author desire one. </p>

<p>There will be no rating system, we had one I rigged up long ago and it just flat out doesn't work. </p>

<p>Was it for the reasons that we said, or different reasons? </p><p>The thing is, if people try to copy Jeff, just...don't let them. Just because it was okay at one time, that doesn't mean that it's STILL okay. </p>

<p>I personally think that we should have the old stories here, regardless of their quality. Eventually, those pastas will die out of popularity and be forgotten by most of the Creepypasta community. I feel we should have a bit of old on the wiki, to show that creepypasta has gone a long way from cheesy Internet stories. </p><p>This wiki has gotten too big for than it can hold. Our current systems and government are not up to par for handle the massive userbase and content. The foundation where this wiki was founded on wasn't meant to handle a wiki this size. I believe we will eventually adapt to the demand, and strive for site we want to become, but it is going to take work and time from all of us. </p>

<div class="quote"><i> <p>Neo Bahamut wrote: Was it for the reasons that we said, or different reasons? </p><p>The thing is, if people try to copy Jeff, just...don't let them. Just because it was okay at one time, that doesn't mean that it's STILL okay. </p> </i></div>
<p>The reason it didn't work is because JtK and Slenderman had super high ratings while much less known but better written stories recieved little to no rating. This made the rating system more of a popularity contest (Just like PotM). </p>

<div class="quote"><i>Sloshedtrain wrote:
I personally think that we should have the old stories here, regardless of their quality. Eventually, those pastas will die out of popularity and be forgotten by most of the Creepypasta community. I feel we should have a bit of old on the wiki, to show that creepypasta has gone a long way from cheesy Internet stories. <p>This wiki has gotten too big for than it can hold. Our current systems and government are not up to par for handle the massive userbase and content. The foundation where this wiki was founded on wasn't meant to handle a wiki this size. I believe we will eventually adapt to the demand, and strive for site we want to become, but it is going to take work and time from all of us. </p> </i></div>
<p>They'll be forgotten if they're gotten rid of too. Faster if it's that way. But in a way, that's wrong. If we keep old bad-quality stories here, we are setting ourselves up for mass of blatant rip-offs and badly written works. </p>