Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    PEEL Vault    Poster of the Month    Poster Of The Month: "Official" Rule Discussion « previous next »
Author Topic: Poster Of The Month: "Official" Rule Discussion  (Read 14874 times)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 ... 10 Print
PEE Poll: Should we revamp POTM?
Put something up on the wiki   -30 (55.6%)
Continue with "no rules POTM"s   -9 (16.7%)
POTM? I don't care.   -15 (27.8%)
Total Voters: 54

Svip

Space Pope
****
« Reply #160 on: 04-24-2011 20:55 »

That seems like an awful lot of work when you can just fix the system!  These are Microsoft solutions!  I need real solutions.
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #161 on: 04-24-2011 20:57 »

But nominating post will only ensure that even less people will take part in nominating at all. Surely a lot are too lazy to quote funny/good posts onto another sub-board over the whole month, and maybe later on in the month you find better quotes than the previous one and don't want that one nominated anymore since it's not as good as later ones.
Thus it would have to be:
1 thread open the whole month for posting quotes (as many as anyone wants)
1 thread for actual nominations out of those quotes (3 as usual for example)
1 thread for voting out of those quotes that made the poll.

That definitely sounds like way too much work for this thing.
And considering how a lot of the posters don't care enough about stuff especially if so much work is involved we'd probably end up with the same handful of posters only nominating and voting every month and we could just scrap POTM all together.
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #162 on: 04-24-2011 20:58 »

We could of course leave a thread open here for people to link to posts that they feel are deserving of consideration for when the noms eventually come. As such there will be something to refer back to and help people remember the truly awesome things that happened in the previous month.

That was one of the reasons I suggested having nominations open all month.
Svip

Space Pope
****
« Reply #163 on: 04-24-2011 21:00 »

Well, I stopped nominating months ago, because I never felt I was being truly honest, because I truly could not remember who deserved to be nominated.  So rather than making up names, I decided not to all together.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #164 on: 04-24-2011 22:29 »

Some elasticity can be good, but it can be seen as unfair (especially the "when are nominations over" thing). At first I thought leaving the poll open all month would be a great way to avoid that, but then the nomination process isn't on people's mind as much anymore and you get things like "I want to change my nominations because someone else turned out to be a better poster in the month after all". So, maybe the first X days of a new months for nominations and then Y days of voting?

For the nominations to poll process: Why not simply place the top Z (for Z some small number > 1) nominated PEELers on the final poll? If there's a tie, don't break the tie by some artificial measure but let the final poll do the breaking (e.g., have more than Z people in the poll in that case).

Summary suggestion with values I like for X,Y,Z:
  • During the first X=4 days of a month, allow everyone to enter 3 nominations (multi-nominations allowed; anyone can open this thread as soon as the new month started and it's X days from thread start time)
  • Put the top Z=5 nominated PEELers on the poll (more if there was a tie; this should probably be done in a new thread; possibly by a mod?)
  • Let everyone vote during the next Y=3 days (results only showing after poll timed out automatically).
  • Have 1-day run-offs if required.

I'm not dictating here though; just making suggestions.

PS: added "discussion" to the thread title. Once something is agreed upon, there should probably a new sticky thread giving the actual rules.
I like this system. I think what you said later might be better, have noms x = 5 days and y = 3 (distinct) noms (or less if you can only come up with say one or two people you thought deserved it). I think Z can't be predetermined for each month. 5 isn't enough variety imo, I have always used 10 but the problem is there may be two many people on there that you won't get a clear winner. An ideal poll to me would have somewhere between 6 and 8 people up, or even 7. We could call it the 5-3-7 rule (or whatever numbers we end up deciding).

I don't think noms should be open all month because posters might make you wanna change your mind of who you nommed at the beginning of the month, and denominating is too confusing.

Having reasons for nominating is always good, but you can't force it. In the past I have not always given public reasons why I nominated, usually because it wasn't one specific thing they did that month but a culmination of their behavior and attitudes that I felt commendable. I don't think that means that my noms should not have been counted. I think if the first people give reasons, others will follow trend, but again you can't force it. 
ShepherdofShark

Space Pope
****
« Reply #165 on: 04-24-2011 22:38 »

I don't think noms should be open all month because posters might make you wanna change your mind of who you nommed at the beginning of the month, and denominating is too confusing.

Certainly with you on the denominating, but a bit of healthy discussion about who gets your noms surely cannot be bad. Personally I very much like this idea.
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #166 on: 04-24-2011 23:38 »

I don't know if it would be reasonable to enforce the giving of reasons absolutely, but I do believe it should be strongly encouraged.
Professor Zoidy

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #167 on: 04-24-2011 23:58 »

I'm still not sure about whether multiple nominations should be counted, but how does this sound for everything else:

  • Nobody can win more than once a year.
  • Nominations are open all month in the proper specified thread.
  • The poll will open on the first of the next month, and stay open for seven days.
  • If there is a tie, the poll will stay open until the tie is broken. (Is this feasible?)
  • Ten noms should normally make the poll, unless more are needed due to an equal number of nominations.
I like the first rule. It would give others here a chance to win. As for your rule on ties, why not have a tie-breaker poll where people re-vote between the finalists? It might seem redundant but it to me sounds bettre than simply leaving open a poll until the tie breaks. We could also be assholes and keep a tally of the users whose names are posted the most times and give them the poll choices. I haven't remembered to nominate for POTM in so long I've forgotten if we do that anyways.
i_c_weiner

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #168 on: 04-25-2011 00:01 »
« Last Edit on: 04-25-2011 00:04 »

Giving a reason seemed to be much more prevalent in ye olde days, although the reasons were usually along the lines of "He deserves it" or "It's about damn time."

Now to throw my two cents into this:
Five days for nominations is definitely enough time. In fact, nominating usually tappers down after three days.

I'd like to keep it at three nominations because it just feels like the right amount. And it's tradition! With three nominations, you have to think more about who deserves it most. Also, sometimes it's hard to come up with five nominees, and I'd rather not allow double-nominating.

Side note, whenever I ran POTM, I would not count double nominations ever, even if it was the case of a tiebreaker. One man, one nom. I feel like allowing double noms would open up a Pandora's box, and would bring a generation of drama queens and noobs who nominate themselves three times and end up on the poll somehow. Also, my tiebreaker system was the first poster to receive their last nomination. Example: if Xanfor and JBERGES were tied at 5 nominations, whoever received the fifth nomination first would make the poll.

On poll length: once again, like with nominations, a week is plenty of time. Poll voting usually tappers off after about 5 days, but if you want the extra two days there's nothing wrong with that.

On how many make the poll: as I stated in the other thread, I feel like 10 is a nice round number and traditional. It just feels like the right number. However, just throwing this idea out there, perhaps we should have a minimum amount of nominations necessary to make the poll. It should be an honor to just get onto the poll, so just having two people agree out of all the nominators isn't really showing how much of an honor getting onto the poll really is. I feel like a good minimum would be three nominations, since in off months this is the murky area. In those less-active-nominating months, you'll have maybe 20 nominators nominating a varied array of posters. What happens is there's a bunching of about five tied for the last two slots at three nominations each. Now hopefully that sort of lack of activity with nominating doesn't happen again, but just in case, maybe a minimum could be considered? In the scenario just stated, there would only be eight posters in the poll. Food for thought.

On "nominations threads being open all month", I'm somewhat concerned about that. As was stated earlier in this thread, there's the risk of somebody wanting to change their mind numerous times throughout the month. Perhaps we could have the suggested "best posts" thread as an always-active one here in the sub-board, where quality posts and other feats are noted, but have nominations starting at the beginning of the month as norm?
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #169 on: 04-25-2011 00:20 »

How about instead of forcing reasons just encourage them by given votes with reasons more power than those without.
Example: tnuk and me are both tied at 3 nominations each for the last open spot on the poll. Now out of the 3 people who nominated tnuk 2 have given a good reason (not just "because I like him) as to why he should win POTM that month. Out of the 3 people nominating me only 1 person actually posted a reason as to why I should be on the poll this month.
Thus tnuk gets on and I am left off.
Obviously if nominations and reasons are on the same number there needs to be an additional factor like "whoever got their last nomination first" as it used to be mostly back in the days.
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #170 on: 04-25-2011 00:36 »

If anybody is interested, for reference purposes I have stickied a few older threads in this sub-board which involved discussion regarding the traditional PotM rules.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #171 on: 04-25-2011 00:46 »

Just because someone didn't give a reason doesn't mean it should be counted less. I don't see why "I like them" is getting such hard criticism as a reason. Of course we like our nominees, that's why we're nominating them. Maybe they did someting personally astounding for you and you want them to be recognized, but don't wish to point out the incident as it was a personal matter. It's your own choice...just because you nom them doesn't mean they'll make the poll, and even if they do that doesn't mean they'll win (hopefully we won't see a rise in fake accounts)...

I think of the last 4 or 5 POTM I only gave reasons once (I will have to look into this now, but I'm pretty sure I don't remember giving reasons every time). And I've been around since the first POTM. Does that mean my noms get less attention because I don't give my reasons? It's my personal choices. If I was forced to give a reason they'd just all be the same, "because they're awesome and deserve to be recognized."

Like with hobbitboy's win. We voted for him because of all his work up until now, not necessarily for last month. He's awesome. I think that's good enough reason.

I agree with what someone said about reasons being strongly encouraged, but definitely not mandatory. We are all equal here. My vote should count as much as someone who joined a month ago. That's all I'm saying smile
totalnerduk

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #172 on: 04-25-2011 01:35 »

I like weiner's idea, whereby a minimum of three nominations would be required for a candidate to make the poll - that does mean that we'd need to run nominations for as long as it took to actually get ten people with three nominations though.

Also, the idea of a single "BEST POSTS EVAR" thread, via which suggestions are made for when nominations open seems like a good idea. Always open, always here, it could be a great tool for reminding people why a particular poster deserves to win.

Obviously I'm in favour of disallowing self-noms, since this is just begging to be abused, but multiple noms does seem to me to have a place. I do think that it's got value - especially coupled with weiner's minimum-nomination scenario.

I agree with what someone said about reasons being strongly encouraged, but definitely not mandatory.

That would be me. I don't think that "definitely not mandatory" sends out the right message though. I was thinking more like "it would be mandatory if we weren't such a forgiving community".

As for ties, I like the idea of starting a second poll as a tiebreaker. We've had tied wins before, and to me, it just doesn't seem like anybody actually won. I demand unequivocal closure! tongue

I've been keeping track, loosely of suggestions that seem to be approved of or not, and I'm actually fairly close to coming up with three distinct "options" for rule-sets. As per [-mArc-]'s statement that he'd like to see PEEL vote in a rule-set that's more-or-less unanimously agreed upon, I'd be willing to submit these to the new POTM mods for review and/or alteration... with the three options then being posted in a poll to receive the vote. There are three distinct systems that would work emerging, and I think I'm close to nailing them into the right sets. Xanfor, faze, SoS, ff, would you like to take a glance at them when done? I can PM them to you.

You'd then have to discuss how well you like the options between yourselves, of course. It might be that each option needs minor adjustments, or even a complete overhaul.
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #173 on: 04-25-2011 02:01 »

I like weiner's idea, whereby a minimum of three nominations would be required for a candidate to make the poll - that does mean that we'd need to run nominations for as long as it took to actually get ten people with three nominations though.

That could be a long time though in some cases.
How about we keep nomination time at one week and only 3+ noms get to the poll. If it's less than 10 than the poll is shorter, don't really see a problem there, since not every month has always 10 distinctive posters who deserve a win anyway.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #174 on: 04-25-2011 03:56 »

TNUK had some excellent notes, thank you so much for laying it all out there so it was easy to pick and choose ideas.

I actually have a planned idea now as opposed to disorganized thought patterns shifty
Spacedal11

Space Pope
****
« Reply #175 on: 04-25-2011 06:08 »

I'm just happy to see that people are deciding to take POTM seriously with some credibility again. I don't know how long it's been since I nominated someone, -two years?- because of how ridiculous the contest became. And yes I am bitter that in the 7 years I've been here I've never won, that does tie into it. Is it selfish, yup. But at the same time I've definitely drifted away from PEEL. I hope things turn out well, like in the old days when winning POTM actually meant something.
i_c_weiner

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #176 on: 04-25-2011 07:40 »

I like weiner's idea, whereby a minimum of three nominations would be required for a candidate to make the poll - that does mean that we'd need to run nominations for as long as it took to actually get ten people with three nominations though.

That could be a long time though in some cases.
How about we keep nomination time at one week and only 3+ noms get to the poll. If it's less than 10 than the poll is shorter, don't really see a problem there, since not every month has always 10 distinctive posters who deserve a win anyway.
That was more what I was getting at. I can't remember how many times that it's a low nominating month and somebody with 2 nominations sneaks into the poll. To take a word from Spacedal, it's about "credibility". If we want being in the poll even to be prestigious and POTM to actually mean something again, then we shouldn't let Bob's uncle in too just because two people agree that he should be there.

Also, I'm still amazed Spacedal has never won.
hobbitboy

Sir Rank-a-Lot
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #177 on: 04-25-2011 11:09 »


   Side note, whenever I ran POTM, I would not count double nominations ever, even if it was the case of a tiebreaker. One man, one nom. I feel like allowing double noms would open up a Pandora's box, and would bring a generation of drama queens and noobs who nominate themselves three times and end up on the poll somehow.


I didn't count multiple nominations either.


   Also, my tiebreaker system was the first poster to receive their last nomination. Example: if Xanfor and JBERGES were tied at 5 nominations, whoever received the fifth nomination first would make the poll.


I found the easiest way to deal with potential ties was for the poll's originator (i.e. me) to hold off voting until the voting had come to a halt. If there was a tie I would use my vote to break the tie and then close the poll. Easy.   big grin

Don't hate me, Trinity.  I'm just the messenger.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #178 on: 04-25-2011 11:51 »
« Last Edit on: 04-25-2011 11:59 »

Based on suggestions by everyone here and data organized by TNUK as well as a chat with Xanfor, I put forth my suggested idea.

Thread is opened first day of the month by a mod. Nominate up to 5
different posters. It is strongly encouraged to indicate reasons why you nommed these posters, though not strictly required. If you nominate the same person more than once it
only counts once. Keep nominations open for 3-5 days at mods
discretion, depending on how quickly a list of ten emerges. If there is a tie for the #10 spot then only include 9 choices (the rule of ten being something we would closely adhere to unless circumstances permitted otherwise). Open poll
and keep open until there is a clearcut winner. I like to see it where
a winner has 30-50% of the total voting populace. If there is a tie
by end of day 3, relaunch poll with only those posters tied on it.

And as a rule, a poster should only be allowed to win once per calendar year to allow other newer posters into the fray. So say Poster A won in December 2011, he/she would be eligible to win in Januray 2012. But then they would not be allowed to win again until the following January at the earliest. If someone noms someone who is ineligible, obviously that nom doesn't count because they didn't read the rules.
ShepherdofShark

Space Pope
****
« Reply #179 on: 04-25-2011 12:04 »

So you're suggesting new year as a cut off point for resetting the winnability (is that a word? It is now!). The alternative is perhaps simpler, just having the previous 12 winners ineligible.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #180 on: 04-25-2011 12:09 »
« Last Edit on: 04-25-2011 12:11 »

I thought it would be easier because I wouldn't remember whether someone won 11 or 10 months ago. I realize (now) you could put it in the first post, but it just seemed easier to compile a list that said "POTM 2011 Winners" for example.

Yes winnability is definitely a word. Eh winna?
[-mArc-]

Administrator
Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #181 on: 04-25-2011 12:25 »
« Last Edit on: 04-25-2011 13:06 »

I don't really like the soft deadlines... It creates ample chance for ties and makes things too arbitrary ("you closed it early; I was gaining", "I was ahead yesterday").

Since the list of the past 12 winners only changes by two entries each month, it should be easy enough to copy & update the list each month.

Since there are several popular options but no clear consensus, how about we just make more polls for the open issues and see what system emerges? I'll make them multi-vote polls so people can vote for everything they support. (BTW: that should maybe also be considered for the POTM poll?)


* Who is eligible:
-everyone
-everyone who wasn't POTM
-everyone who didn't win last month
-everyone who didn't win within 12 months
-everyone who didn't this calendar year


* How long does nominating last:
-all month
-3 days
-5 days
-7 days

* How long does voting last:
-3 days
-5 days
-7 days
-until someone comes out as a clear cut winner

* How many nominations should everyone be able to make:
-1
-3 (no multiples)
-3 (allow multiples)
-5 (no multiples)
-5 (allow multiples)


* Should the POTM poll allow PEELers to vote only for their foremost choice or for all choices they support?
-foremost choice only (1 vote)
-all supported candidates (as many votes as there are candidates; no multi-vote per candidate)
Svip

Space Pope
****
« Reply #182 on: 04-25-2011 15:49 »

Can I suggest a First Past the Post system?  Or should we go with Alternative Vote like in Australia?  Or maybe it's time for Proportional Representation!  Tell them damn Tory MPs that the alternative to FPtP is not AV.
Nutmeg1729

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #183 on: 04-25-2011 16:05 »

Stop overcomplicating things, Svip.

The only thing that I strongly agree with is the "One win per calendar month" thing, instead of "One win per 12 months" It's much easier to compile a list of say "2011 winners" rather than "last 12 wins".

It also gives people a lot more choice in their voting options, which as of now, might be a good thing to encourage people to vote again. Hey look, there's only been three winners so far this year, soon to be four, so you've got tons of choice for who you think is good this year so far.

Then again, the general consensus might be different smile
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #184 on: 04-25-2011 16:08 »

Once every 12 month is better than once every calender year, since that would mean people can win 2 month in a row (december-january) or in a very short time frame at least.

It's not really hard to look at the list of winners and see "ah, I can nominate everyone but the last 12 winners".
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #185 on: 04-25-2011 16:11 »

Just putting this forward... In the past, it was tradition to post a list of all previous winners in the nomination thread, so that one could check one's nominations to see if they had won before. Keep in mind this was an enormous list, yet no one considered it a hassle. Would it perhaps make the "one win per 12 months" rule easier to accept if a list of the last twelve winners was posted each time?
Nutmeg1729

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #186 on: 04-25-2011 16:13 »

That list is true, though I can't say that I often read said list.

Bend-err

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #187 on: 04-25-2011 16:25 »

One could post the whole list in spoilers and a snipped of the "last 12 winners" list too, it's not really much work, just copy-pasting the list from last month and adding last month winner.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #188 on: 04-25-2011 20:33 »

Just putting this forward... In the past, it was tradition to post a list of all previous winners in the nomination thread, so that one could check one's nominations to see if they had won before. Keep in mind this was an enormous list, yet no one considered it a hassle. Would it perhaps make the "one win per 12 months" rule easier to accept if a list of the last twelve winners was posted each time?

I believe that what you propose should/would/could become the normal standard.

As for posting reasons for your nominations... this tradition naturally occurred without a hard-fast rule, and most of the time I enjoyed using it, because it made your nominations more convincing.  The nomination process for PotM isn't just a nomination process; it also doubles over as a campaign process, which generally makes the affair more enjoyable.  I don't think we should have to state reasons, but I like the idea of putting a format showing an appropriate way to do it in the sticky to encourage people to do it.  That being said, my personal format rarely included bullets.

Lastly... awesome idea to put everything to vote in a Democratic way mArc.  I hadn't thought to do that at all... for some strange, insane reason, I was thinking everything would come to terms with a super complex discussion... but as this thread gets longer, it seems clear to me that everyone perceives things in their own personal ways, and although for a majority of things, we can come to some consensus on, we start discussing other tangents and machinations that crop up in our heads.  I appreciate your usage of cold logic to dissemble the chaos of discussion into a distilled solution. smile

Lastly, I think that anyone who has joined PEEL in the last 8 years should be considered a newbie and not allowed to participate in POTM.  Is there any way we could set up PEEL to set statuses on everyone and disallow them from looking at the POTM thread?

i_c_weiner

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #189 on: 04-25-2011 22:18 »

Change that to last 6 years and I think you have something...
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #190 on: 04-25-2011 22:38 »

Glad to know you don't consider me a n00b, winna. smile
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #191 on: 04-25-2011 22:42 »

Hooray, I am not a noob in winna's view!

Weiner is such a nooby little noob wink
i_c_weiner

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #192 on: 04-26-2011 08:12 »

I just wanted to be liked!

* i_c_weiner runs away crying
[-mArc-]

Administrator
Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #193 on: 04-26-2011 13:41 »
« Last Edit on: 04-26-2011 14:19 »

Results are in:


* Who is eligible for nomination:
-everyone who didn't win within 12 months

* How many nominations should everyone be able to make:
-3 (no multiples)

* How long does nominating last:
-5 days

* How long does voting last:
-5 days

* Default number of POTM candidates
- 10

* Should the POTM poll allow PEELers to vote only for their foremost choice or for all choices they support?
-foremost choice only (1 vote)
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #194 on: 04-26-2011 13:52 »

I like the results, the first one was sadly so, but better than the other options.
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #195 on: 04-26-2011 13:57 »

So currently not able to win for April 2011:
Quote
Gorky                         April 2010
Futurama_Freak1         May 2010
km73                         June 2010
Svip                           July 2010
Bend-err                     August 2010
Nutmeg1729               September 2010
Morgan_G19               October 2010
ShepherdofShark         November 2010
Nutmeg1729               December 2010
futurefreak                 January 2010
Xanfor                        February 2010
Hobbitboy                   March 2010
[-mArc-]

Administrator
Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #196 on: 04-26-2011 14:27 »

I maybe have one more question since the polling system allows for several voting modes. There is:
  • intermediate results immediately visible to everyone (allow vote changes)
  • intermediate results immediately visible to everyone (don't allow vote changes)
  • intermediate results immediately visible to everyone who voted  (allow vote changes)
  • intermediate results immediately visible to everyone who voted  (don't allow vote changes)
  • results only visible after the 5 day voting period elapsed (allow vote changes as there is no reason not to allow vote changes in this scenario?)

Any thoughts on these? Make a poll?

I personally think the last one would add some suspense and give more truthful results (i.e., less "i would vote for A, but A doesn't have a chance, so I'm going with B to keep C from winning" and less "I'm going to vote last second").
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #197 on: 04-26-2011 14:44 »

I say make the votes only visible after the 5 days and no changes allowed either. If you can see who's in what place your vote might gets influenced and you are more likely to vote for someone with higher votes already than whoever you were going to vote for in the 1st place.
I also don't like the idea of being able to switch votes. Once you decided to vote you are done, you can't go back and redo your votes in elections etc. either.
hobbitboy

Sir Rank-a-Lot
Urban Legend
***
« Reply #198 on: 04-26-2011 14:56 »


 I agree with Bend-err.

Don't hate me, Trinity.  I'm just the messenger.
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #199 on: 04-26-2011 15:02 »

I like these rules decided upon. These are good rules we've decided upon. They work perfectly, just like the name "Gouda" does for a pet rat.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 ... 10 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.338 seconds with 21 queries.