Debate:WIGOCP parody exposure policy

I propose we partake in a parley about policy on pointing out parody at Ponservapedia.

I have made a start. Feel free to add new lines of reasoning, or comment and debate on existing points using indentation like any other talk page.

Arguments for open parody discussion
1. Nothing is parody

Conservapedia is a hive of Poes. Time and time again it has shown that even the most ridiculous content, thought to be parody, is from a genuine user - notably Aschlafly himself. Even content that was blatantly intended to be parody has in some instances been endorsed by Sysops. The line between genuine contributions and parody is blurry - people will disagree on what is and what isn't. And that makes a rule against parody exposure difficult to enforce. ONE / TALK 20:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

2. Everything is parody

Everything on CP could be regarded as parody. So providing we point everything out as parody (which we invariably do), CP Sysops simply won't know how to act. They're obviously not going to delete the whole site just because we said it's parody. And that means they're going to have to use their own (demonstrably terrible) judgement to detect parody - just as they would be doing if we didn't exist. ONE / TALK 20:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

3. It's not our objective to keep CP full of parody

Pointing out parody might get it fixed, yes, but does that matter? As long as we have a capture of it for lulz, I don't think it does. The site is already wholly discredited by Aschlafy's own exploits... it doesn't need to hang on to its parody to bring it down. ONE / TALK 20:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We are here to discuss what happens on Conservapedia, not to protect/support the individual agendas of people who want to actively undermine the site, which some of us don't support anyway. --Leotardo (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No we are not ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 15:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For the people this debate is aimed at, yes we are. --Leotardo (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) Leotardo was probably referring to just WIGO:CP and its talk page, rather than RW as a whole. ONE / TALK 16:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever, I don't care what you people do. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 16:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously - that's why you've now commented twice on something you don't care about. --Leotardo (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) I would have to go with this point. Whatever RW's roots and history, we've grown beyond that (despite what the paranoid ramblings of people like Karajou might say). There is more than enough lunacy being spouted by Andy, Ken & TerryH, that makes the need for parody redundant. AFAIK we don't even have any active socks over there at the moment and if there are, they certainly aren't creating parody.
 * We have capture bot, and it'll be fun to have a laugh at them scurrying around, fixing the problem - if they do. Remember, on CP it won't just be a case of removing the parody - editor's will be blocked and possibly all of their edits reverted. The more parody we high-light, the more paranoid they'll become over there. Hell, I'll even admit to adding the words "Big Penis" to certain of Karajou's warship articles. Happy hunting. -- PsyGremlin  16:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just let the place die so we can go on with our lives. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 16:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's the most important point for me as well. If they only notice parody after it has been mentioned at WIGOCP, it'll remain a testament to their stupidity whether or not they remove it. And Ty, what's the problem with CP-watchers discussing CP-related guidelines on a debate page? It's not like this is interfering with the other workings of RW. Röstigraben (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because you have your own forum section. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 16:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a suggestion Ty: why don't you focus on what you're interested in, and we'll focus on what we are interested in?  Then I promise I won't act like an asshole and tell you that you should be concentrating more on CP since that's what I like to do.  --Leotardo (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 16:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

4. It's totally unenforcible anyway

People will point out parody anyway. It could be removed, but such censorship will likely instigate an HCM, and CP sysops might find it in the edit history anyway. The only solution is oversight, which is excessive. ONE / TALK 20:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In hindsight this comment is fallacious - just because we can't enforce a ban against parody exposure, does not mean we can't "limit the damage" by discouraging parody exposure. ONE / TALK 16:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

5. Not discussing parody makes it obvious it's parody

If we discuss every bizarre belief that gets edited into Conservapedia except the ones by people we think are parodists, it will make it obvious we are trying to protect that CP editor. Particularly when a thread is started about a "may be a parodist" editor on Talk:WIGO and we all remain quiet. That stands out. The best thing to do is to rip the parodist to shreds as if they were real. --Leotardo (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, there is evidence from the Secret Dicussion Group that the sysops actually think like this. ONE / TALK 15:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just glad that the cabal already determined to give my new sockpuppet some attention but not be too hard on him. Thanks guys. 16:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

6. These sorts of rules quell discussion.

Since many of us have no idea who is and who is not a parodist, a chorus of "Shut up! That's a parodist!" makes people gun shy to discuss anyone but the same Top 5 sysops (who also might be parodists). It also completely defeats your goal of protecting a parodist by outing them yourself. --Leotardo (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Arguments for restricted parody discussion
1. Pointing out parody can nip lulz in the bud

A new user is a prime target for banning if a Sysop spots parody. Instead of pointing it out, we should at least give that user time to ramp up the parody to lulzier levels - as has happened with those parodists who've been promoted. ONE / TALK 20:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Voting
I vote that we vote.

Vote
Vote. 15:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * -- 22:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 04:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I demand visible consensus that RW (as a whole) doesn't endorse parody. 07:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But only if we can get a secret ballot. There should be a vote on the procedure. Röstigraben (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No vote
*I vote that all votes be immediately discarded--Opcn (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)