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 14706 times)
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 [8] 9 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

Solid Gold Bender

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #280 on: 01-21-2012 02:00 »

Thank you! The first actual tip of this day! God (if he exist) bless you! If not, then may the Hypnotoad guide you to Froad Heaven!
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #281 on: 01-21-2012 02:14 »

Don't just write any irrelevent thing that pops into your head.
The above five or so posts are a prime example of that. These are matters left for PM, not a POTM Discussion board (and I wouldn't be surprised if myself or another mod chose to clean this thread up, which I can see has already happened). If someone doesn't like you, then move on. Either try to repair the damage or just forget they exist. Do not constantly spam every thread with words of "why do you hate me?"

IMO, TNUK should have never made the initial post in this thread because you see what it lead to, if I understand him (I by no means am saying I do, totalnerduk tongue) I think he was only half-serious in a sense that, he would like to see you guys improve and give you a wake-up call. Who is to say anyone here can be judge and jury on one individual? No one really, but TNUK has been here a good long while longer than you guys. So has Frisco. So have I. If you want to know what "spamming" is, some individuals like tnuk took a lot of time and effort to make a (though somewhat condescending, but you know, it wouldn't be a posting by tnuk without it heh) new poster's guide to PEEL and how to post.

We are not like any old internet forum. We are special. That's why I chose to start writing an "enthnographic" novel on the place (err been a while should get back to it). We are nerds. We care about grammar. Capitalization. Punctuation. Those who do no employ these rules of language are the highest offenders to us, with irrelevant post content way high up on the list. "Lol" may be a post on another forum, but not here. It is meaningless. We want to read. I think by virtue of being on this board, we are all, for the most part, writers. TNUK wrote a 5000 word post recently. That's like 5 times longer than an school essay. Who does that? Just respect the rules of the playground and everyone will play nice, is my advice.

I have messaged both of you guys in the past concerning different matters, so I know you guys know how to use PM. If something is upsetting you, or you feel like you are being harassed, PM the individual or, if they fail to change their aggression towards you, PM the moderator so a third party can step in. I personally have no hard feelings against either of you and like you both (and I know tnuk supported SGB recently for his actions toward a spammer in Ontopic), but when I see posts like the one above I am not suprised if people, including moderators, get upset. Study the longtime posters' posting habits, learn from the Council of Elders, and we will all appreciate you for it smile   
totalnerduk

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #282 on: 01-21-2012 02:17 »
« Last Edit on: 01-21-2012 02:21 »

If you want to know what "spamming" is, some individuals like tnuk took a lot of time and effort to make a (though somewhat condescending, but you know, it wouldn't be a posting by tnuk without it heh) new poster's guide to PEEL and how to post.

Here it is, just for general education and interest. Lord knows, some people need educating. tongue

You seem to be understanding me fairly well today, futurefreak. smile

I wouldn't be surprised if a moderator decided to clean this thread up a little either. But I can't say I'd be entirely convinced it was the right thing to do, in light of the discussion having become at least somewhat informative. After all, the more quickly people Lrn2PEEL, the sooner they have a crack at winning POTM, which SGB has stated as a personal goal.
i_c_weiner

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #283 on: 01-21-2012 05:49 »
« Last Edit on: 01-21-2012 05:51 »

He's just being crotchety right now.
Isn't that everyday?

Depends on who he's going after.
Pretty much me or SGB..
You guys really are new here, aren't you? As BF1221 said, TNUK goes after whoever he darn well please. If you look deep into the PEELs, you'll find spouts between him and myself, him and Randi, him and ... The point is, don't think he's especially singling you out just because he doesn't like you. He wants to see improvement. We all want to see improvement. As Randi said above, we're nerds and we love the English language. On top of that, we have a large contingent who do not speak English as their first language. As such, we should all be mindful of our grammar and spelling so that all, PEELers and lurkers alike, can fully appreciate all that this board has to offer.


And yeah, I'd side on not deleting these posts. They are chocked full of information that people can take from to know good posting habits and thus good traits of a potential POTM winner. Yay, we got full circle!
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #284 on: 01-21-2012 05:52 »

Okay, simmer down. We've all reviewed some things here, now it's time to let them stand.
i_c_weiner

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #285 on: 02-06-2012 23:01 »

So I counted up the nominations for January, and we have 7 lock into the poll but then 5 posters tied with two nominations each. This is what the POTM Rules say about the poll:

"Up to 10 nominees (with the most nominations) will be included in a poll to be started by a POTM moderator after the nomination process is over."

Is it correct to say that, since you can have up to 10 nominees, you can have fewer than 10 nominees in the poll? In the real-life scenario of right now, would we thus cut the poll off at 7 nominees?
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #286 on: 02-06-2012 23:12 »

Why yes, the November 2011 poll only had 9 options as well.

It's better that way than to go by who got their nominations first.
[-mArc-]

Administrator
Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #287 on: 02-07-2012 03:06 »

I don't care strongly either way, but I originally posted the following

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).
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #288 on: 02-07-2012 03:23 »

January nominations were as follows:

12 people had 2 or more votes;
7 people had 3 or more votes.

I revised the poll down from 10 to 7 based on what other PEELers were telling me, it seems an okay number...I think any less is too few. For future reference, how do we go about that then? Like...if there were only 5 people with 3 or more noms, and 7 people with 2 or more....would we make a poll of 5 people, or a poll of 10 and then include the remaining 5 as the first 5 to receive their second nominations (as I had originally done)?
[-mArc-]

Administrator
Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #289 on: 02-07-2012 03:28 »
« Last Edit on: 02-07-2012 03:30 »

Well, the idea was to sort all nominees by number of nominations and then pick the top ten plus anyone who's tied for rank ten. So in this case, we'd have had 12 nominees for January. Removing everyone tied for 10+ is not a real problem with me either, but the other way around feels more inclusive.

I don't like breaking the tie artificially (say by nomination time) if the actual poll can do the tie breaking.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #290 on: 02-07-2012 03:34 »

Yeah, seems logical. I originally made the poll for 12 people who had 2+ nominations, then PEELers reminded me we had a 10 people max, so I brought it down to 10, then was told to take it down to 7. I was just trying to include more people, like you said.
spira

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #291 on: 02-07-2012 05:00 »

I think it makes sense to keep the poll below 10, unless doing so would reduce the poll to, say, five or less. The past few months about 30-35 people have voted in the poll, and to spread those votes around more than ten candidates just opens up the potential for ties.

I also think that if we have a situation where say only five got 3+ votes but 12 got 2+ votes, we should just put all 12 on the poll and not eliminate based on order of nominations. That seems unnecessarily arbitrary - the order in which people were nominated doesn't really say anything about their post quality.

Just my two cents.
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #292 on: 02-07-2012 05:06 »

Also we should have a rule saying no one with only 1 nomination should make the poll. So if we have only 5 people with 2+ noms, don't fill up the other spots with 1-nom people.

That would just cheapen the whole thing in my opinion.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #293 on: 02-07-2012 07:14 »

Good discussion spira. I agree with that completely Bend-err, luckily we have not run into that problem as far as I am concerned. As long as people keep nominating we will hopefully never run into that issue!
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #294 on: 02-07-2012 09:56 »

I think I agree mostly with [-mArc-] in this matter.  As long as people use their common sense and choose to operate in a well meaning manner, then there should be no reason to get picky about trivial matters.

The difference between choosing 7 or 12 poll options seems non-issue to me; either is fine as long as the person making the poll is using their best judgement.  The only times it really becomes an issue is when multiple want to argue about matters I find most trivial, at which point I could care even less because it's something we do every month anyways.
totalnerduk

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #295 on: 06-06-2012 22:44 »
« Last Edit on: 06-07-2012 00:28 »

Went with Leia because she deserves to win sometime damn it.
Went with Leia because Randi will whip me if I don't.

Somehow neither of these branches of reasoning serve to convince me in particular that this means you're voting for the poster of the month rather than "personal favourite no matter what they've posted this month". roll eyes Not that you're not making a fine choice.

I mean, leia's been okay this month. But she's been no shepherd of sharks (or ShepherdofShark, for that matter). Although, what TMC said is something I (mostly) agree with:

Anyone on this month's list could win and I would have no complaints. A good bunch this time around.

There are two (no, I'm not going to say whom, I don't want them to cry because I hurt their feelings) with whom I would take issue winning this month from that list. Mainly because I haven't seen anything stellar or amazing from them this month and I think people are just nomming them based on their PEELputation and preferences rather than trying to objectively judge their noms based on the month's postings. But also partially because if I disagree with TMC, there is a chance of sparking an excellent response from him. If I'm going to provoke anything, I would prefer to be thought of as a provoker of excellence. tongue
Frisco17

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #296 on: 06-06-2012 22:56 »
« Last Edit on: 06-06-2012 22:58 »

Quote from: totalnerduk link=topic=23064.msg1318564#msg1318564
Somehow neither of these branches of reasoning serve to convince me in particular that this means you're voting for the poster of the month rather than "personal favourite no matter what they've posted this month". roll eyes Not that you're not making a fine choice.

More along the lines of consistently good posting over a long period of time. I might not hold myself to the proper standards but that's probably just a personal shortcoming. In any event, let the vote justification witch hunt begin.

* Frisco grabs his pitchfork and mounts his high horse.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #297 on: 06-06-2012 23:17 »

Can I ride with you?
totalnerduk

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #298 on: 06-06-2012 23:22 »

Quote from: totalnerduk topic=23064.msg1318564#msg1318564 date=1339015463
Somehow neither of these branches of reasoning serve to convince me in particular that this means you're voting for the poster of the month rather than "personal favourite no matter what they've posted this month". roll eyes Not that you're not making a fine choice.

More along the lines of consistently good posting over a long period of time.

Oh, so you're more of the opinion that good posting deserves to be honoured at random intervals that may or may not correspond to the actual period of time during which this was the best posting, rather than during a month in which it can be considered to have definitely and definitively have happened and to have been outstanding.

I guess that's cool. As long as we both agree that you've a fundamanetal misconception of what the title "Poster of the Month" represents.

Hey, next month you should vote for Speli. There was a run of a few months where his posts were just great.

tongue
Nibblonian Leader

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #299 on: 06-07-2012 01:46 »

There are two (no, I'm not going to say whom, I don't want them to cry because I hurt their feelings) with whom I would take issue winning this month from that list. Mainly because I haven't seen anything stellar or amazing from them this month and I think people are just nomming them based on their PEELputation and...

I am not a spam monkey! But I do revel in the fact I'm a huge attention whore.

...LOVE ME Okay this was spam.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #300 on: 06-07-2012 02:54 »

There are two (no, I'm not going to say whom, I don't want them to cry because I hurt their feelings) with whom I would take issue winning this month from that list. Mainly because I haven't seen anything stellar or amazing from them this month and I think people are just nomming them based on their PEELputation and preferences rather than trying to objectively judge their noms based on the month's postings. But also partially because if I disagree with TMC, there is a chance of sparking an excellent response from him. If I'm going to provoke anything, I would prefer to be thought of as a provoker of excellence. tongue
Why does every competition around here lead to mudslinging with you? Support your candidate - yes. Put others down - no. We have been down this road several times before. Maybe you could use another walk or bump in the apology thread tongue
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #301 on: 06-07-2012 02:58 »
« Last Edit on: 06-07-2012 05:14 by futurefreak »

Note by futurefreak: edited out your swears with the word "pony"
Second edit: forgot a pony hehe.


To be honest he was just sharing his thoughts on comments other people made with respect to his opinion of what this POTM thing means to him.  As long as he's willing to concede to the fact that different people have different (probably valid) opinions about POTM (which his posts seem to indicate), then I'd call it fair game.  


It'd be a totally different story if he got angry and said it was pony that <insert peeler> seemed to garnering votes and they were a pony poster and pony them and pony the people that voted for them and pony me and pony everything because of the pony... pony pony POOOOOOOONY.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #302 on: 06-07-2012 03:07 »
« Last Edit on: 06-07-2012 03:15 »

I am not against a healthy discussion of what POTM means to each individual. But veiled criticisms concerning others will not be tolerated (ie. 2 people don't deserve to win, but I won't say who because they might cry). Unacceptable. It is really sad that a few comments can spoil it for the rest of the bunch (remember the comments Danny got when he won?). I think the other mods will agree when I say let's keep this on a positive focus, not negative.

*edit* This seemed more appropriate here.
totalnerduk

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #303 on: 06-07-2012 03:51 »
« Last Edit on: 06-07-2012 04:51 »

There are two (no, I'm not going to say whom, I don't want them to cry because I hurt their feelings) with whom I would take issue winning this month from that list. Mainly because I haven't seen anything stellar or amazing from them this month and I think people are just nomming them based on their PEELputation and preferences rather than trying to objectively judge their noms based on the month's postings. But also partially because if I disagree with TMC, there is a chance of sparking an excellent response from him. If I'm going to provoke anything, I would prefer to be thought of as a provoker of excellence. tongue
Why does every competition around here lead to mudslinging with you? Support your candidate - yes. Put others down - no. We have been down this road several times before. Maybe you could use another walk or bump in the apology thread tongue

Now who's mudslinging? I'm not publically putting anybody else down with that post, just saying that there are people on the poll whose inclusion in a shortlist of the month's best posters I disagree with. I'm not saying they're bad posters. If there were a rating system for them, I'd not be giving them a negative rating. Nor a positive one. It would be neutral. I was born with a heart full of neutrality.

To say that "we've been down this road several times" seems more like mudslinging to me. You're basically saying "tnuk slings mud all the time". Which, I do not.

I don't need to visit the apology thread in this instance. If you see a reason, you're reading a message between the lines that doesn't exist.

I am not against a healthy discussion of what POTM means to each individual. But veiled criticisms concerning others will not be tolerated (ie. 2 people don't deserve to win, but I won't say who because they might cry). Unacceptable.

I'm not "slinging mud "here, and I'm not making any "veiled criticisms". You'll note that I'm quite upfront about being critical. I don't need to type between the lines. In fact, I find that there's not a lot of space between the lines, which is a very good reason not to type (or write) there. Neutrality, overall. Perhaps a lack of positivity. No negativity, and the only reason I didn't name names is because I didn't want anybody to be upset about me not thinking they're the greetest. I mean, both the people I have in mind are posters I like, I just don't think they should win POTM this month.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #304 on: 06-07-2012 04:00 »

There are two (no, I'm not going to say whom, I don't want them to cry because I hurt their feelings) with whom I would take issue winning this month from that list. Mainly because I haven't seen anything stellar or amazing from them this month and I think people are just nomming them based on their PEELputation and preferences rather than trying to objectively judge their noms based on the month's postings. But also partially because if I disagree with TMC, there is a chance of sparking an excellent response from him. If I'm going to provoke anything, I would prefer to be thought of as a provoker of excellence. tongue
Why does every competition around here lead to mudslinging with you? Support your candidate - yes. Put others down - no. We have been down this road several times before. Maybe you could use another walk or bump in the apology thread tongue

Now who's mudslinging? I'm not publically putting anybody else down with that post, just saying that there are people on the poll whose inclusion in a shortlist of the month's best posters I disagree with. I'm not saying they're bad posters. If there were a rating system for them, I'd not be giving them a negative rating. Nor a positive one. It would be neutral. I was born with a heart full of neutrality.

To say that "we've been down this road several times" seems more like mudslinging to me. You're basically saying "tnuk slings mud all the time". Which, I do not. I'll not apologise for my post. I can't help it if you're reading messages which don't actually exist between the lines.

I would like to propose that Solid Gold Bender be declared inelegible to ever win POTM, on account of being unable to make a post that isn't completely and totally without merit on any objective scale.

This is how we have been down this road before. Not neutral. More negative.
totalnerduk

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #305 on: 06-07-2012 04:10 »
« Last Edit on: 06-07-2012 05:08 »

I would like to propose that Solid Gold Bender be declared inelegible to ever win POTM, on account of being unable to make a post that isn't completely and totally without merit on any objective scale.

This is how we have been down this road before. Not neutral. More negative.
I would contend three points:

1. That post is not mudslinging. It wasn't entirely serious, and was born out of exasperation because it was true. Now that he's not posting, he's a much better PEELer. tongue Y'see, I find it hard to be totally serious all the time. There's normally at least one facetious comment in one of my posts. Even if the overall topic is serious. Anyhow, I digress. The point is that the example you have chosen is not mudslinging. If anything, you're mudslinging by using it as an example out of its contextual setting.

2. If it were a valid example, it would still be "once", and not "several".

3. You've shifted the focus from "mudslinging" to "anything negative" in that post. I won't try to argue that that post is not negative. It's about as negative as possible. But that's where you have to ask yourself whether or not I'm being completely serious. I might not type between the lines, but sometimes (quite a lot of the time), I might not exactly mean what I say. There's a subtle difference at work there. I do tend to treat sarcasm as a subliminal spectator sport, after all.

Edit: I see you have removed part of the post above yours. I would like to point out that this part contained no profanity, vulgarity, "mudslinging" or other objectionable content. I have to wonder at your motivation for removing it. I am bloody furious that you did so, by the way. I don't appreciate being edited for no reason.

Subsequent edit: I've changed my post a little. It bothered me that you'd been in and removed part of it, so I changed around what was said so as to make up for the lack of context that your rampant editing (for no reason that I can see) might have given to the parts that remained.

One more edit: I saw the snide comment that you edited into this before I changed it. Most unprofessional.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #306 on: 06-07-2012 04:53 »
« Last Edit on: 06-07-2012 04:57 »

Well... since this discussion become a discussion and got moved, I might as well be a big penis and throw my two cents around.

I agree with you futurefreak, that under most circumstances, trying to be civil is quite reasonable.

This is one of the reasons I made my original comment.  totalnerduk did say that there were two people on the list that he didn't think belonged there; he then stated that he wouldn't name those people out so that they wouldn't cry... maybe making people out to be crybabies seems a little harsh, but it clearly looked like a joke to me, as well as, pointing out that he wasn't trying to be a dick and throw a lot of negativity to a specific person.  

That's why I have no problems with his post up there, because I feel that he restrained himself and acted with civility while still expressing his opinion.  I don't agree with his opinion about PotM, but it isn't an unreasonable one; hell, I'll even admit that his a more logical stance to take than mine is.  PotM has always been about opinions though... and I think most of the time, Peelers should share their opinions whether they're popular or not.  

You give an example, futurefreak, where totalnerduk went out of his way to put down Solid Gold Bender.  I remember that and I didn't like it.  I also didn't like when Danny got treated like trash when he won by some people (not that he helped his case at all, poor guy)... but that's exactly why this is different.  totalnerduk did not specifically target somebody to say an obscene amount of negative things about or necessarily make them feel bad; he may or may not have wanted to, and he may or may not have hinted at it... but at the end of the day his post was civil, and I'd say that's pretty fucking great for totalnerduk.  In fact, because I thought he did such a great job with that post, whether or not people thought he was trying to be a dick, that I thought it was certainly worth my time to make a post defending his post.....fuck I hate meta-talking about posts. roll eyes

Now, everybody can clearly see that the problem here is really that I'm secretly SuperFry in disguise.  I always have been, and I always will be, and everyone should be upset about this super trollin I be doin evry day.

Edit: Lol, loved the pony edits ms. freak. tongue
totalnerduk

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #307 on: 06-07-2012 05:04 »

I also didn't like when Danny got treated like trash when he won by some people (not that he helped his case at all, poor guy).

I remember that. I defended him, I PM'd him with words of encouragement, and I made sure that the entry on the wiki wasn't quite as... insulting... as it had been made to be. The reason I state this is to ensure that nobody becomes muddled and thinks that I'm being accused of treating Danny badly in that instance.

This is one of the reasons I made my original comment.  totalnerduk did say that there were two people on the list that he didn't think belonged there; he then stated that he wouldn't name those people out so that they wouldn't cry... maybe making people out to be crybabies seems a little harsh, but it clearly looked like a joke to me, as well as, pointing out that he wasn't trying to be a dick and throw a lot of negativity to a specific person. 

I feel like I should point out (and also feel that I shouldn't have to, that it should be taken as read), at no point did I have the intention of making anybody "seem like a crybaby". I just didn't want either of the two in question to see me saying that they shouldn't be on the POTM poll and feel that this somehow meant that I hold them in low regard in general. I don't. I just didn't see anything particularly great from them this month.

It's starting to feel more and more like I need to attach lengthy disclaimers to the bottom of my posts so that people don't instantly assume the most complicated, convoluted and tortuously illogical reasoning behind my each and every word, and end up treating perfectly innocent, harmless posts as some sort of personal attack or vendetta (which I really wouldn't have the energy to maintain anyhow). I mean, are people in general that hard-of-thinking that they can't tell when I'm actually not trying to (or even trying not to) be a dick?
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #308 on: 06-07-2012 05:11 »

Yeah, I'm sorry totalnerduk, I didn't intend to make any of those insinuations, but my post was rather vague in those regards; I appreciate you making the clarifications for me, although I hadn't intended to be so vague and make such suggestions.

I sincerely felt your post in question was you honestly sharing your opinion and not trying to bring anybody down in any regard; you just really wish that people nominated/voted for the best poster of the month.  That's what I got from it anyways, and that seems both acceptable and reasonable to me.
totalnerduk

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #309 on: 06-07-2012 05:19 »

I sincerely felt your post in question was you honestly sharing your opinion and not trying to bring anybody down in any regard; you just really wish that people nominated/voted for the best poster of the month.  That's what I got from it anyways, and that seems both acceptable and reasonable to me.

I know you got it. I'm glad that at least one person is skilled enough at reading what's actually there to not have mis-interpreted it. That's it from me for tonight. I'm off to bed.
TheMadCapper

Fluffy
UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #310 on: 06-07-2012 05:20 »

Item the first - I laughed out loud HARD at the comment about "being a better PEELer now that he's not posting". Not because I necessarily agree, but because I found the joke hilarious.

Item the second - I think that winning Poster of the Month should more or less be based on the person's posts that month. That could disqualify me in some people's opinions for this month's contest, and I'd be okay with that. POTM is a monthly contest. Peelies are more for "overall performance", and they are where it makes sense to vote for your long-standing favorites.

Item the third -
Quote
There are two (no, I'm not going to say whom, I don't want them to cry because I hurt their feelings) with whom I would take issue winning this month from that list. Mainly because I haven't seen anything stellar or amazing from them this month and I think people are just nomming them based on their PEELputation  and preferences rather than trying to objectively judge their noms based on the month's postings. But also partially because if I disagree with TMC, there is a chance of sparking an excellent response from him. If I'm going to provoke anything, I would prefer to be thought of as a provoker of excellence. tongue

I personally wouldn't have a problem with any of the current crop winning. There have been nominees before that I disagreed with, but that's because I really don't see how they contributed much of anything special in those months. So no, no well-considered response to your disagreement. If you picked a topic I cared more about, we might get into a proper discussion. As it is, POTM is a fun diversion for me, and an opportunity to learn what the active people think is worthy posting (without intent of emulating said "worthy" posting").
Nibblonian Leader

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #311 on: 06-07-2012 05:52 »

Hey, Danny, SGB, and I take (or took) a lot of crap for being "spammers", or "attention whores", or "furgling cupboards". We try to behave, dang it! Look on the bright side: We're not Super Hans, or Bender_Is_Great.
Spacedal11

Space Pope
****
« Reply #312 on: 06-07-2012 08:01 »

No one's saying that you're a bad poster Nibbs. The common thread between you, danny, and SGB is that you're all young teen boys and you have a reputation of behaving as such on the board. That's not a bad thing but it does grate on people's nerves after a while. (I suspect this happened when I was younger too, and the same goes for many people who have been here for a few years that were teenagers when they joined). The older you get, the more mellow you will get and (probably) the less annoying you will get. Don't get worked up about being called a spammer unless you actually do.

Which reminds me Nibbs: don't spam the fanart threads. It's disrespectful to the few people who are kind enough to share there amazing work with us here on PEEL. I'm not a mod (though I pretend to be), so I can't threaten you with anything so I'm asking nicely: please don't spam on purpose and be respectful.
i_c_weiner

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #313 on: 06-07-2012 09:43 »

Hey, Danny, SGB, and I take (or took) a lot of crap for being "spammers", or "attention whores", or "furgling cupboards". We try to behave, dang it! Look on the bright side: We're not Super Hans, or Bender_Is_Great.

From earlier in this thread:
I am not a spam monkey! But I do revel in the fact I'm a huge attention whore.

...LOVE ME Okay this was spam.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, Nibbs.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #314 on: 06-07-2012 10:51 »

He isn't; it's spam he's after!

Also, we're getting a little sidetracked here. Less attacking Nibbs ( mad ) and more discussion on...uhhh...what the heck is this thread about? Right. Discussion on POTM.
DannyJC13

Space Pope
****
« Reply #315 on: 06-08-2012 19:13 »

Yeah I'm with Nibbs, leave us alone.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #316 on: 07-14-2012 21:39 »

Out of curiosity, do we really have a need to close poll threads anymore?  In the past, a moderator (usually Tweek) would close them randomly after voting died down, usually in an organic manner.  Now that we have more mechanically means to close down the polls, is it still necessary to close the threads themselves?  What if somebody wishes to add another congratulations or commentary?  Just a thought.
ShepherdofShark

Space Pope
****
« Reply #317 on: 07-14-2012 22:57 »

I agree. The natural course of events should be enough. At what point does it become spam though?

But in the magical world of 2020 when we're all posting on Mars (new servers obviously) quesyions like this will be a thing of the past.

(yes they will be called quesyions in the future)
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #318 on: 07-15-2012 04:25 »

My opinion is that we should lock voting threads when the next month's nomination thread starts.
ShepherdofShark

Space Pope
****
« Reply #319 on: 07-16-2012 01:21 »

My opinion is that we should lock voting threads when the next month's nomination thread starts.

I think we should implement that immediately. I'm going to unlock the last thread now, just so it makes my post look silly.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 [8] 9 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 0.433 seconds with 21 queries.