Complaints about johnvertisement #511

 
BlueManedHawk src #5787

<Blue-Maned_Hawk> Is johnvertisement intended to be a satirization of advertising? <manualbotrobot> [xmpp] <c​itrons> yesz

There is no explicit statement as i parse it on the website for johnvertisements that johnvertising is a satirization of advertising, neither in the description before the leaderboard nor in the mandatory-stipulations-that-are-shoulds-instead-of-musts. Many johnvertisements i have stumbled accross do not seem to me to make any attempt to satirize advertising—in some cases, this is because they seem to me to be plain nonsequiteurs (i'm fine with this, but i realize others may not be), but in others they are literal actual advertisements.

Requests for changes are to modify the description before the leaderboard to explicitly state that johnvertisement is a satirization of advertising (i have no suggestions for exact wording, as i cannot personally come up with anything that would fit with the feeling of the current text) and to add to the stipulations that an ad submission must not be an actual literal advertisement (flexibility here is intentional to allow for not-strictly-satirical advertisements which still follow the “spirit of johnvertisment” to be permitted). I'd be okay with old-but-now-stipulation-breaking johnvertisements getting grandfathered in, but i think it would be best if they were explicitly noted as grandfathered johnvertisements when shown and their creators contacted so as to be given the opportunity for replacement; however, i recognize that this would be substantially more difficult, potentially to the point of being infeasible.

ubq323 (bureaucrat) src #5788

could you explain why you want these changes?

citrons (bureaucrat) src #5789

pig elected president

viba src #5790

but in others they are literal actual advertisements.

the difference is that they are advertising fun hobby things instead of evil corporate things.

citrons (bureaucrat) src #5791

thank you for the suggestions.

mandatory-stipulations-that-are-shoulds-instead-of-musts

there is no meaningful distinction here.

this is because they seem to me to be plain nonsequiteurs (i'm fine with this, but i realize others may not be)

the preferences of people who do not like the style of art I make or publish are of no concern to me at all.

but in others they are literal actual advertisements

ok. a link to a webpage I think is cool is also an "advertisement" in this sense. also is a webring. I have started to grow weary of people who just want to link to their websites, but that's a separate concern.

Requests for changes are to modify the description before the leaderboard to explicitly state that johnvertisement is a satirization of advertising

no thank you.

gollark src #5792

It's not funny to explicitly state that you're satirizing things.

quintopia src #5793
Bona vacantia. De bonis asportatis. Writ of certiorari. De minimis. Jus accrescendi. Forum non conveniens. Corpus juris. Ad hominem tu quoque. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Quod est demonstrandum. Actus reus. Scandalum magnatum. Pactum reservati dominii.

--Brief of The Onion as Amicus Curiae to Petitioner in Novak v. City of Parma, Ohio

citrons (bureaucrat) src #5794

I was just thinking about that ^.

quintopia src #5795

As for BMH's petition, I would like to point out the following text from johnvertisements home page:

submissions may also be rejected for any arbitrary reason, regardless of the stipulations

In other words, citrons is already empowered to reject advertisements for being insufficiently satirical or too baldly self-promoting. No further reason need be stated on the page.

BlueManedHawk src #5797

viba:

but in others they are literal actual advertisements.

the difference is that they are advertising fun hobby things instead of evil corporate things.

Irrelevant: it is still advertising.

citrons:

mandatory-stipulations-that-are-shoulds-instead-of-musts

there is no meaningful distinction here.

I think this may be a dialectal difference, as i consider “should” to indicate a guideline and “must” to indicate a hard rule.

but in others they are literal actual advertisements

ok. a link to a webpage I think is cool is also an "advertisement" in this sense. also is a webring.

Why?

gollark:

It's not funny to explicitly state that you're satirizing things.

It's less confusing, and it doesn't affect the satire itself. Besides, there are more reasons for satirization than just comedy anyway.

quintopia:

As for BMH's petition, I would like to point out the following text from johnvertisements home page:

submissions may also be rejected for any arbitrary reason, regardless of the stipulations

In other words, citrons is already empowered to reject advertisements for being insufficiently satirical or too baldly self-promoting. No further reason need be stated on the page.

Having an explicit statement of these hidden stipulations would mean that readers of the site would learn them the easy way instead of through trying and failing.

quintopia src #5798

That's a good point. Another good reason not to make the change is that it denies readers the opportunity of trying and failing.

darxoon src #5854

small question but how is the word "nonsequiteurs" meant to be understood in BMH's original message:

Many johnvertisements i have stumbled accross do not seem to me to make any attempt to satirize advertising—in some cases, this is because they seem to me to be plain nonsequiteurs [...]

am I missing something or does the use of the word make no sense here?

Incoherent src #5855

ah yes, the meta-non sequitur, in which someone uses the phrase non sequitur as a non sequitur.

anyway, in my understanding at least, BMH is using 'non sequitur' to mean something "Illogical" in itself or self-contradictory, instead of something which is only "Illogical" when compared to what came before. I feel this usage makes sense in this context, as you'd have to be pretty lucky to not get a johnvertisement that is "Illogical" when compared to the johnvertisement that you got immediately before.

as a brief aside, I have just learned that one of the plurals of 'sequitur' in English is 'sequuntur.' this warms the cockles of my heart, as I had not previously considered the possibility of a noun being borrowed from an inflected form of a verb in a language that conjugates by person and number having a plural borrowed from the corresponding plural inflection. I have not yet found another word which fulfills the first requirements, regardless of whether its plural is also borrowed.

as a briefer aside,

BlueManedHawk src #5857

darxoon:

small question but how is the word "nonsequiteurs" meant to be understood

Johnvertisements that are neither literal actual ads nor satirizations of advertising.

please log in to reply to this thread