AVID:Requests for Comment/Ban lengthy "Strongest oppose since" intros

I know it's all in good fun and all, but at the end of the day it's unnecessary and adds nothing to what is being said. "Strongest oppose/support" should be enough as is.

EDIT: Okay, I've decided to change a few things in my proposal. Instead of outright banning them, how about adding a word limit to the intros (4-5 words after "Strongest oppose/support")? That way, people can still inject a little humour into the intros without it devolving into "Strongest oppose since the time I went with Vanellope Von Schweetz to watch the Mario movie" or anything like that.

Support
I understand it's just joking around but at the end of the day it's kinda annoying imo. In my eyes it's just users trying to one-up each other with who can come up with the weirdest scenarios- Airvibes (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Just because they are annoying doesn't mean we have to downright ban them DW Signature.gif(• USER TALK! •) 20:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * agreeing with Dante Jet Dzhet (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

. [second updated rating: Due to demonstrations of personally insulting users and other people, I can no longer support this even in a truncated format. Unless a specific clause is made for those situations, I can't support this tradition any longer.] While it's great to demonstrate a point of you feel exceptionally strong towards an opinion, at some point the meaning became lost in translation and has turned into a game of a leapfrogging one another with the most absurd situations, to the point that they are seriously distracting from the point of RfCs - to show support/opposition to a proposal brought up by our community members. I get you folks want to have fun with it and enjoy the thrill of it, but the gag can only go so far before it becomes repetitious; and I think we've personally jumped the shark with the gag, so I support it. Solarstrike (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Bro. The concept and point of RFCs ("to show support") is still retained, as evidenced by the statement "(Strongest support since). We need much more content for the channel, and this would be absolutely brilliant." seen on the AVID Documentary RFC DW Signature.gif(• USER TALK! •) 20:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it really though? Because it seems with what feels like every RfC that has sprung up recently, it felt like it was more important to come up with the next "Strongest {x} since {y}" statement than to lay down the actual opinion of the user. And also, not every editor has the same tendencies and feelings towards things than you - what you and some may see as "funny and harmless", others may find incredibly distracting and take them away from the actual point of the RfC, which is community opinion. And I get variety is important in the grand scheme of things, but we need to find other means of variety elsewhere. Besides, the statement you pointed to for "support" was when the gag was still fresh and interesting, rather than the stale, worn out gag I feel it has become. Solarstrike (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure nobody ever thought that. Not even Calvin thought that, and I think he was the one who even started this (Maybe). It just comes to head while typing (or at least that's how I did it). DW Signature.gif(• USER TALK! •) 21:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Compooper was the one who began this, and even he's turned against the concept over time. And besides, with some recent examples personally beginning to dig into making mockeries of the deceased and insulting users, my patience for these sorts of things has rubbed off significantly. So unless there is a specific clause made for these sorts of comments to be stopped, I'm done with these sorts of votes. Solarstrike (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

as someone who originally did the Strongest support in the world comments, I agree this has devolved too far outside of the original intended purpose. Hate to put my foot down but this isn't professional at all. Compooper (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * for these reasons. Despite having done it myself recently, I too feel they've overstayed their welcome. Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png (Lets chat!) 12:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps introducing "in the world" as an official support variant would curb this. Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png (Lets chat!) 12:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

. Just use the standard types available to make your point. Discussion is furthered by substance, not ridiculous superlatives. Thatvhstapeguy (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd say those in "Support" have good points. And I did this "extended support" thing before. · Talk · Edits 01:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

since... ah, whatever. They are getting kind of annoying tbh. I don't want a total ban but there should be a limit on length. AlmightyKingPrawn (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

On the consensus that we either 1. Have a word limit, or 2. replace it with "In the world" or "In the universe". Also, instead of 4-5, can it be 9-10? I feel like with 4-5 we wouldn't have much room for a creative sentence. (• USER TALK! •) 21:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * 9-10 is too much imo NancerAVID (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * well what about 6-7 DW Signature.gif(• USER TALK! •) 02:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Abstain
I'm fine with the intros themselves, but the people who want them removed are making good points. Gilby1385 (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose
since you had this idea, we love this stuff Sonictailsknucklesshadow (talk), 17:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

since you made this RFC. There is basically no problem with this. It's just a fun way to make a joke. (• USER TALK! •) 19:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's gotten way out of hand recently, and again - they really add nothing to the discussion. It's just unnecessary fluff. NancerAVID (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Dude, it's really not a problem. It's just a joke. And as a matter of fact, they aren't really lengthy either. It's not like they are 20 words; plus, most aren't even 15 words. Also, if they add nothing to the discussion, why so mad at them? DW Signature.gif(• USER TALK! •) 20:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What's the joke? NancerAVID (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The joke is having a funny follow-up sentence. That's literally the joke. It's funny, wholesome, and makes the voting system a whole lot more fun. DW Signature.gif(• USER TALK! •) 20:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What Dante said CalvinWilkerson-transformed.png(The Third Place) 20:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't make it "more fun". It just distracts people from the actual points being made, and (solarstrike's words) it's become a game of leapfrogging people with the most absurd situations. It's probably going to get to the point where they do exceed 20 words and take up half of the RfC. NancerAVID (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence of how this distracts other users. DW Signature.gif(• USER TALK! •) 20:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Literally the way people use these as ways to avoid making solid arguments. Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png (Lets chat!) 14:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

for now. They should stay but have a word cap of maybe 10 or so. JrStudios (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * examples for useful ones include:
 * VERY Strong oppose
 * Not so strong oppose
 * BORDERLINE oppose
 * better than "StrONgEST oPPOsE sINcE RoBLOx BeGAN PromOTING rtHRO" JrStudios (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Eh, I admit it is kinda annoying to watch those over and over but not THAT much to reach the point of banning them. Of course they add nothing to the discussion but, let 'em be, they don't harm anyone. Jet Dzhet (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

since Sesame Street stopped using the Funky Chimes music in 1992 for Season 24. Someone can't take a joke (The Third Place) 20:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * ...what's the joke? You're just adding random information completely unrelated to the actual topic on the end. NancerAVID (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see what's the problem. IAmThe789Guy (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's unprofessional - just like you thought the mascots were. NancerAVID (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah, and even though I still think that's the case, can't we just have a little fun. IAmThe789Guy (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not really fun anymore though. Maybe when they started happening they were slightly humorous but now it's just people topping each other on how absurd their situations get. NancerAVID (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah, your right, hold on. IAmThe789Guy (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * lmao, I found another person who thinks the mascots are unprofessional. Do you just hate the community having fun? DW Signature.gif(• USER TALK! •) 20:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah they pretty much do lmao CalvinWilkerson-transformed.png(The Third Place) 20:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I was literally the person who MADE the RfC to get them added in the first place, let alone creating Vivi! NancerAVID (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't read the "you" part my bad DW Signature.gif(• USER TALK! •) 23:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this joke is annoying and just the same punchline over and over (Strongest support/oppose since [insert monumental event that makes no sense in the context of this vote]), but honestly, banning silly phrases like that is as stupid as the intros themselves. They are harmless jokes that don't attack anyone and showcases the fun side of the community we have been putting more attention to as of lately. Consider me crazy for disagreeing with a request I seem to like at first, but this feels more like a pet peeve than an issue that seriously needs action. Camenati (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You do raise a good point, we have to consider if RfC's like these still make sense or did the meaning of it get lost in translation. I see most RfC's nowadays are just vague suggestions that are not easily enforceable. Compooper (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * While I do personally still think we need to seriously dial this gag back a bit, I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing in itself (since the point is to show you feel especially strongly towards an opinion). I do think some more shades of nuance and gray are needed - like maybe have one per RfC or the ten-word limit JR proposed. If it does come out to a flat-out banning, I don't mind either way. Solarstrike (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

since I saw those three posts on SuperMax124's DeviantArt account, which totally scream Nancer. SomeGuy (name change coming soon) (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay that one doesn't even make sense NancerAVID (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't have to make sense tho. that is the point right? :/ DW Signature.gif(• USER TALK! •) 13:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Changed my vote after reading Camenati's argument. Dialing it down would be a good compromise. · Talk · Edits 03:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Since Scary logos wiki existed  (My Talk Page) 17:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

One of the WORST ideas that I have ever seen on this wiki! Sickminecraft45 (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * ...really? there's been tons of bad ideas here but this is what takes the cake for you?? NancerAVID (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * [cough cough] Scary Logos [cough cough] Remove Trivia [cough cough] Revive Nicknames [cough cough] Stolen Content [cough cough] Memorial Template [cough cough] Bring Back AVID Remembers [cough cough] RENAME AVID AGAIN [cough cough] [cough cough]
 * Must have had something in my throat DW Signature.gif(• USER TALK! •) 02:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sickminecraft45. Sonictailsknucklesshadow (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Lmao like you can talk, you're the king of bad ideas here. Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png (Lets chat!) 14:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ouch! I think I burned my hand on that hot take. DW Signature.gif(• USER TALK! •) 17:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

(Talk/Edits) 17:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments
If this gets removed then I am gonna lose faith in some of this wiki. We just want something fun to add on to our votes, there is no reason for this to be removed other than "this has gone on too long" or "this is unnecessary". (• USER TALK! •) 20:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * that's why i made this RfC in the first place - because they ARE unnecessary. unlike the mascots, which add a little humor and personality to the site, these just bog down actual discussion and surprisingly enough, aren't funny. i genuinely don't see the "joke" in something like "Strongest support since God put Adam and Eve inside a garden and started the human race.". like... starting the human race isn't a support NancerAVID (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Does it have to be? Does it? Or does the double plus sign green symbol not show enough support. DW Signature.gif(• USER TALK! •) 22:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't see your point. Because even before this, all we needed to do was put Support for support and Oppose for oppose without still needing to add something else so I don't get it.
 * ALSO also, why does it have to be necessary. We have mascots. Mascots are unnecessary, but guess what, we got them, you know why?, because we wanted them. We didn't need them to be necessary then, and they make a good edition. So what is your point exactly? DW Signature.gif(• USER TALK! •) 23:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What I meant to say is mascots weren't necessary, but they were added because we supported them, made fun messages, and everyone was fine. DW Signature.gif(• USER TALK! •) 23:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

While my vote is leaning closer to an abstain now thanks to Camenati's arguments, I do have something for you in particular, Dante. I know you feel especially strongly about this subject, but you're getting a bit excessive with your arguments - and if anything this feels a bit like an obsession. I get you have a vested stake in this tradition, but could you please tone down your aggressive behavior here? Solarstrike (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I just don't want this to be deprecated and I just wanted to prove why this shouldn't be DW Signature.gif(• USER TALK! •) 23:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, even though I renamed, please still refer to me as Charlie. Thanks DW Signature.gif(• USER TALK! •) 14:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused - I thought you renamed yourself because you didn't want to be called Charlie anymore. But now you're insisting on wanting to being called Charlie again...why go through the whole trouble of renaming your username only to just say "I'd like to be called by my old name"? It's like...which one is it? Solarstrike (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No. I requested the rename about 3 months ago for the reason being I changed my channel name during the era (the whole reason I switched to CharlieFiddlesticks as my name, otherwise I would still probably be referred to as either FreakingGUYman or DHX Cookie Jar Fanatic), but, sometime during the 3 months, I switched my channel name back whilst forgetting I submitted the request. So I still wanna be referred as my old name as that's who I am online. Hopefully that clears it up DW Signature.gif(• USER TALK! •) 20:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

"without it devolving into 'Strongest oppose since the time I went with Vanellope Von Schweetz to watch the Mario movie' or anything like that" Are you specifically targeting me with that example (The Third Place) 19:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * not really, i just saw you use Vanellope in a couple of them and used it as an example NancerAVID (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)