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 16822 times)
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 [10] 11 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

Meerkat54

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #360 on: 04-29-2013 22:25 »
« Last Edit on: 04-29-2013 22:32 »

So... apparently I heard or saw a while ago that you can only win POTM once a year now. Is that true or not? Just wondering.
Gorky

Space Pope
****
« Reply #361 on: 04-29-2013 23:00 »

True indeed, young man. That's why the first post of each month's POTM thread contains that spoilered list of PEELers who have all won the award within the past twelve months, and are therefore ineligible to win for the current month.
Spacedal11

Space Pope
****
« Reply #362 on: 04-29-2013 23:34 »

And my year is up! Nomination bitches!
totalnerduk

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #363 on: 04-29-2013 23:38 »

Nomination bitches!
I dislike the idea of having "nomination bitches". I'm thinking they're people whom you have under some kind of geas or mind control so that they're forced to nominate you during every month you're eligible. Which isn't cool.

Yes. I know that isn't even close to what you were saying.
Tachyon

Space Pope
****
« Reply #364 on: 04-30-2013 00:22 »


As a professional, tenured nomination bitch, I can assure you that it's a very cool job.

Spacedal11

Space Pope
****
« Reply #365 on: 04-30-2013 00:55 »

Nomination bitches!
I dislike the idea of having "nomination bitches". I'm thinking they're people whom you have under some kind of geas or mind control so that they're forced to nominate you during every month you're eligible. Which isn't cool.

Yes. I know that isn't even close to what you were saying.

Oh.

But it was.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #366 on: 10-18-2013 20:48 »

I propose a rule where every post in the potm threads be followed by this emoticon.
sparkybarky

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #367 on: 10-18-2013 22:03 »

What...is that?

*   leans forward and squints

Is that dancing poop?
Mr Snrub

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #368 on: 10-18-2013 22:50 »

I think it's a mole with poop on his head making a wanker gesture.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #369 on: 10-19-2013 04:32 »

Beamer

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #370 on: 10-20-2013 10:26 »

Ewww, that mippy winna is making bears again. frown
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #371 on: 10-23-2013 11:39 »

I propose a new peel law that whenever anyone mentions bears, or the word bear in any context, the next three posters must express their discontent via the phrase, R.I.P. Bear, along with whatever condolences they wish to share.

R.I.P. Bear frown
Mr Snrub

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #372 on: 10-23-2013 22:56 »

RIP BEAR.

HE GROWLED.

A LOT.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #373 on: 04-07-2015 09:54 »

I miss Bear frown (did I do it right?)

So what do you all think of Beamer's suggestion?
Tachyon

Space Pope
****
« Reply #374 on: 04-07-2015 10:47 »


I have no objection, Your Honor.

DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #375 on: 04-07-2015 21:23 »

It's a good idea. I like it.
totalnerduk

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #376 on: 04-08-2015 06:24 »

I object on the grounds that with the reduced activity of late, this will pretty much guarantee that the same six people will win over and over again, which was almost exactly the whole situation that the no-repeat-wins-within-twelve-months rule was created to avoid.

With fewer people eligible to be nominated, the same names will crop up with increasing frequency, and it'll just be the same six people circle-jerking over and over again. POTM will become completely and totally meaningless and valueless. Um. More so than it is already.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #377 on: 04-08-2015 21:28 »

I actually agree with tnuk, but then again I'm not big on people winning more than once to begin with.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #378 on: 04-08-2015 21:30 »

I miss Bear frown (did I do it right?)

You did alright. I don't think you know why you might actually miss Bear, and I am sorry for that.
Beamer

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #379 on: 04-09-2015 05:30 »

That's a very good point, TNUK, though I feel it's worth pointing out that, if one compares the total list of PotM winners in 2013 PotM to that of 2014, there were only two repeats (youself and JoshTheater), so it's not exactly like we are currently just cycling through the same 12 people. smile

The eligibility period doesn't necessarily have to be reduced to 6 months, either - I only went with that number as it made sense within the context of a calendar year. We could instead just make it so that the previous, say, 10 winners are ineligible.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #380 on: 04-09-2015 05:31 »

We could switch to a new PotW format.
totalnerduk

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #381 on: 04-09-2015 11:56 »

That's a very good point, TNUK, though I feel it's worth pointing out that, if one compares the total list of PotM winners in 2013 PotM to that of 2014, there were only two repeats (youself and JoshTheater), so it's not exactly like we are currently just cycling through the same 12 people. smile

I should point out in return that for this period, there were more people active, and there was a much greater variety in nominations at any point where there were more posters active, compared to relatively quiet periods such as around now.

Since the potential pool for POTM winners is now somewhat reduced, and the nominating itself over the last few months appears to have died back somewhat, there are fewer names cropping up for consideration each time, and they're often the same names from one month to another (until one of those names wins and is removed from the pool for twelve months).

Cropping the time for which a poster remains ineligible for re-awarding is not a viable solution for the problem of fewer people being eligible, or at least, not whilst there are so few people eligible as to make it a problem to begin with.

Also, it needn't be seen as "the problem" that there are fewer eligible posters at the moment. This is less of an issue than actually getting people to take the time to nominate people. I think that the real problem lies with people not making nominations (remember, the weekly lists show that there are at least twenty people active each week, and even if all twelve of the most recent POTM winners were included in that number, that would leave eight potential nominees), and this stems from people simply not being quite as active or as invested in what's going on with PEEL at the moment.

For that matter, even if there were only two eligible users and they automatically both made the poll by default, a POTM would still be chosen based on who had been better out of those who met the eligibility criteria that month.

Drag people back to the site, watch the activity climb, and you'll see the POTM candidate pool become fresh again, you'll see more people taking a few moments to nominate (more nomination worthy posts quoted in the appropriate thread, maybe, too), and more people voting (ensuring less chance of a tie). It was never much of an issue in the beginning (when the site was still reasonably active) that the candidate pool was restricted in this way, and it definitely helped to keep the field open so as to keep repeats down (take a look at repeated nominations as opposed to repeated winners, and you'll find a much broader set of people being put forward again and again and again).

Just as an example, there were 17 votes cast in the February poll. There were 31 votes cast in the poll for June 2014. In eight months, the voting population has halved, and there are always more people who vote than who nominate. So I have to say, I think you're looking at the problem from the wrong angle, and the solution proposed is ultimately worse than the problem itself.
AdrenalinDragon

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #382 on: 04-09-2015 14:36 »

Kind of on-topic, but I had no idea I got nominated until today. Thanks Beamer! That means quite alot to me. smile
Beamer

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #383 on: 04-09-2015 19:54 »

So, TNUK, can you honestly say that, out of the small pool of active members posting on the site right now, there are a minimum of 12 people you would deem potentially deserving of the title, based on your own personal opinion of what constitutes someone to be "worthy" of PotM? Because if your answer to this question is no, then you yourself are ultimately conceding that the existing PotM system isn't viable for PEEL in its current state.

I'm all for bringing more people to the forum - be it new or old - but the activity level here has been considerably low for some time now, and frankly, I can't see it changing for the better at this point. If you have some ideas on how we can increase PEEL's active membership, I would love to hear them. I don't mean that in an antagonistic way, either - I truly do believe that would be the most ideal solution, but that ball's in your court - you have far more connections to PEELers of the past than I (and most other people here right now, for that matter). And I honestly wish I could help the site on that front, but I just don't know how I can, unfortunately.

12 months was a very reasonable timeframe back when the forum had a substantial amount of activity. As it is, in its current state, it's just not practical for a forum of such minimal commotion. Even if my suggestion went ahead, the 12 month rule could quite easily be re-implemented should the amount of activity rise again, and remain as such (and I would be all for that), but right now, my only argument is "fewer people posting = fewer people ultimately deserving of PotM = reducing the restrictions for PotM eligibility." It seems very logical to me. You're welcome to disagree with me there, but doing so without offering any practical alternative solutions to the problem at hand is counter-productive for all parties involved.

It's probably also worth pointing out that it is ultimately for an insignificant title on a small forum dedicated towards a cancelled animated tv series, so perhaps we're both taking this too seriously to begin with. tongue
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #384 on: 04-09-2015 20:23 »

Pretty much. We don't have to have PotM at all, but clearly some people still like it, and they're utilizing it the way it is. When only hobbitboy is left, who will argue who he deems worthy of winning PotM every month?

If you want more activity on PEEL, I suggest starting with the destruction of facebook and twitter.
Quantum Neutrino Field

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #385 on: 04-09-2015 20:30 »

I don't think we should reduce the ineligibility period, it wouldn't really help. If anything, PotM could be held every other month (although it wouldn't have the same ring to it). It would have the 6 ineligible people, but it would still be a year in between and also twice the chance somebody said something worthy of a virtual trophy.

Though, it doesn't matter anyway, if less and less people are interested.
Beamer

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #386 on: 04-09-2015 20:41 »

I'd be all for making PotM bi-monthly. smile
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #387 on: 04-09-2015 20:57 »

We can call it wotM.
totalnerduk

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #388 on: 04-09-2015 22:26 »

So, TNUK, can you honestly say that, out of the small pool of active members posting on the site right now, there are a minimum of 12 people you would deem potentially deserving of the title, based on your own personal opinion of what constitutes someone to be "worthy" of PotM? Because if your answer to this question is no, then you yourself are ultimately conceding that the existing PotM system isn't viable for PEEL in its current state.

That's quite the bold assertion. For a start, the minimum pool needed to be able to vote in a "worthy" candidate (and what makes a candidate worthy is entirely subjective) is one. If there is one worthy candidate and there are eleven unworthy candidates the assumption must be made that the worthy candidate will win (or the entire basis of POTM is seriously flawed to begin with).

For that matter, there need only be one eligible individual each month  for POTM to be awarded (and voting only serves to ensure that the worthiest of those nominated receives the award), so your scenario and the conclusion you draw here are not logical or consistent, strictly speaking.

The next month, there will be one more name eligible from the pool of previous candidates - the person who won thirteen months ago. Assuming they post at least once, that is.

When the site gets down below thirteen active members in a single month, that's when the current model becomes "unviable".

I'm all for bringing more people to the forum - be it new or old - but the activity level here has been considerably low for some time now, and frankly, I can't see it changing for the better at this point.

The activity level and the size of the active user base have both been in a steady overall decline for some time now, and I'm not sure that there's any way to reverse this without completely changing the atmosphere and ethos of PEEL. Sure, it could be transformed into and run along the same lines as some of the "competitors" PEEL has had in the past, it could go through another interface/software revamp like the transition from PEEL to PEEL II, or it could even start making an effort to attract more of the collector community by opening a trading platform. But those are decisions at Marc's level. Somehow, I don't think he sees PEEL as much of a priority anymore (and to be fair, he has both bigger and tastier fish to fry).

If you have some ideas on how we can increase PEEL's active membership, I would love to hear them. I don't mean that in an antagonistic way, either - I truly do believe that would be the most ideal solution, but that ball's in your court - you have far more connections to PEELers of the past than I (and most other people here right now, for that matter).

I don't believe that the answer lies in the past. Those PEELers who have vanished have largely moved on and left this place behind. Those PEELers who have faded into the background are mostly pretty disengaged with the place now, and it would be difficult to give them a reason to care again if they don't already feel they have one.

The obvious answers would seem to be active recruitment from other communities that might have some tangential connection to the Futurama fandom, or from the ranks of serious merchandise collectors and fans of the comics, or the sort of passive recruitment which was a large part of PEEL's early exposure across the internet - getting those buttons out there on other people's websites again, and making sure that casual Futurama-related traffic is funnelled towards the board in the way it used to be when the show was still airing.

Non-obvious answers might be a better idea. Rather than trying to entice people away from other places to visit this one, it could be preferable to share some of the better Futurama-related threads from On-Topic in places like Facebook fan groups, subreddits, or youtube video comments. Ultimately though, this will be an effort on the part of a very small number of PEELers and will probably not have much of an impact (unless you manage to get viral exposure on reddit or something and thereby redirect a million new visitors to PEEL, which will probably overload the server and cause all the regular users to get DDoS error messages).

12 months was a very reasonable timeframe back when the forum had a substantial amount of activity. As it is, in its current state, it's just not practical for a forum of such minimal commotion.

In that case, you're suggesting that POTM become the same six people passing the same meaningless baton between them in an infinite loop simply for the sake of having that baton continue to be passed.

Personally, I think that when that becomes an inevitability, POTM ought to be discontinued. Although, as I've pointed out above, it needn't become an inevitability until there are only thirteen members active in any given month. PEEL's not quite that dead yet. If it's a dying animal, it's at least got some wag left in its tail (and if it truly is a dying animal, then it might be best to let it die rather than have it supported via increasingly artificial means until it's just you and winna talking to each other, and then finally just winna endlessly musing about what made PEEL back when it had some life in it).

right now, my only argument is "fewer people posting = fewer people ultimately deserving of PotM = reducing the restrictions for PotM eligibility."
It seems very logical to me.

It seems more logical to me that the approach should be to shut down POTM until either the return of a more active user base which will support the presence of deserving unique winners month-to-month, or the final turning-out of the lights.

You're welcome to disagree with me there, but doing so without offering any practical alternative solutions to the problem at hand is counter-productive for all parties involved.

This only holds true if you really consider either the shallow candidate pool or the eventual demise of POTM to be an actual, serious, problem. In any case, treating it as an actual problem for the sake of argument, I feel that exhorting people to nominate their candidate and then vote in the polls would be the better alternative, and would see a wider pool of individuals named each month as well as helping to give people something to log in to check on.

It's probably also worth pointing out that it is ultimately for an insignificant title on a small forum dedicated towards a cancelled animated tv series, so perhaps we're both taking this too seriously to begin with. tongue

Taking insignificant items seriously is in all seriousness what brought many people to PEEL in the first place, and has been a proud tradition of this place since the days when it had a splash screen with one of several "hilarious" welcome messages.

I'd be all for making PotM bi-monthly. smile

I think that this would ultimately reduce the overall visibility and level of interest in POTM. If you really want to keep it alive, the answer might be to persuade Marc to incorporate a little badge after a person's username, indicating their number of wins and their eligibility status. Maybe some sort of tiny, flashing, star, varying by colours flashed in order to indicate different things.

If the forum software were to be switched/altered/upgraded, then PEEL could add a "like" counter next to each post, and the person with the most overall "likes" within a given month would then automatically be awarded the trophy.

Or the top three could battle it out in a poll.

But honestly, at this point, I think that if there are serious concerns over the "viability" of POTM as a PEELstitution under the current system then it should be retired until these concerns are no longer felt. Personally, I don't feel that this is the case. I think that there is a viable pool of nominees, and that people are simply not nominating or voting at the moment. Folks have stopped caring.

The most effective remedy for this is probably just to increase the visibility of POTM, and remind people to nominate, to vote, and to enjoy the competition whether or not they're the ones to claim the prize (which would be terrible advice for Highlanders, but somehow I don't think that PEELers will face quite the same challenge in being happy to see somebody else win).
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #389 on: 04-09-2015 23:13 »

I am.
totalnerduk

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #390 on: 04-09-2015 23:18 »

I am.

Yes, winna. You are, and you're doing a wonderful job of it. Never stop.
Beamer

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #391 on: 04-10-2015 04:44 »
« Last Edit on: 04-10-2015 04:45 »

Your concerns about the 6 month eligibility suggestion are certainly valid, though I really don't think it would ever literally culminate in the same 6 people winning over and over again. Yes, I'm sure there'd be some repetition, but there are natural factors that would prevent that from happening - we DO still get new members from time to time, along with old members who return, and members who leave. The number of active users on the forum right may be comparable to how it was 6 months ago, but the list of people themselves isn't exactly the same. Not to mention that, if the 6 month ineligibility period were to be employed, I'm sure there'd be a fair amount of self-regulation on the voters' parts to ensure we avoided a "same six winners on loop" scenario.

Again, the 6 month rule doesn't necessarily have to be the solution we go with. We could, say, switch to a rule that prevents one from winning twice within the same calendar year, rather than a 12 month period starting from when that person won. This would mean the number of ineligible people grows from month to month, preventing two wins from being too close together, but also allows us to wipe the slate totally clean after a certain period of time, opening it up so anyone can win again once the new calendar year begins. I'm not personally saying this is the best option (I definitely prefer the 6 month rule here), but it's another example for the solution pile, and worth considering, at least.

I also think that one of the reasons PotM gets so little attention now is that it's just become "the thing we do." I see the nominations thread appear and just think "Oh, right, it's that time of the month" now. So even just switching up the rules in some way or another may be enough to reinvigorate interest in the competition, at least for a little while (hey, I never said my suggestions were permanent fixes tongue). And, I truly do think that switching to a bi-monthly - or even quarterly - PotM would increase interest in the competition rather than reduce it, because it becomes more of a rarity in the process, and would have the sense of being something "special" again. Sort of like how the Olympics gets far more attention than any annual international sporting event, for lack of a better example having just woken up an hour ago.

At the very least, I feel a shake-up in how PotM operates is worth trying before we turn around and cancel PotM altogether. It doesn't necessarily have to be one of my suggestions, but ultimately, what have we really got to lose by giving alternate rules a chance?
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #392 on: 04-10-2015 04:55 »

I guess I lost my dignity a long time ago.  Care to help me dig through this dumpster to see if we can find it?
totalnerduk

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #393 on: 04-10-2015 15:41 »
« Last Edit on: 04-10-2015 15:50 »

Your concerns about the 6 month eligibility suggestion are certainly valid, though I really don't think it would ever literally culminate in the same 6 people winning over and over again.

If the active user base has shrunk to the point where it's necessary to open up the candidate pool by such drastic means, then I think that you're going to find those six people who post most often will be the winners time after time. It'll rapidly become an issue of quantity over quality, which is sort of contrary to the spirit of the award.

Yes, I'm sure there'd be some repetition, but there are natural factors that would prevent that from happening - we DO still get new members from time to time, along with old members who return, and members who leave.

There are roughly 0.5 new members registering per month, for 2015. Of these, none have posted anything yet. As for old regulars returning, there have been less than half a dozen this year who've shown up after a prolonged absence, and none of those have been particularly prolific. But you're right about members leaving - there have been five members who used to make the list every week who've slipped out of it completely towards the end of 2014 and stayed out of it so far this year.

The number of active users on the forum right may be comparable to how it was 6 months ago, but the list of people themselves isn't exactly the same.

No. The active user base has declined somewhat. The list of people in that active user base has changed in that one or two (at the very most) have become active users again after a break, and several times that number have fallen off the face of PEEL or been banned. Six months ago, there were more people using PEEL, although I'll grant you that the level of activity overall was comparable.

Not to mention that, if the 6 month ineligibility period were to be employed, I'm sure there'd be a fair amount of self-regulation on the voters' parts to ensure we avoided a "same six winners on loop" scenario.

Self-regulation? This place? Coming from you? I honestly don't know if this is an ironic statement made on some higher level of self-awareness, or just a hopelessly misguided statement of faith in humanity. Either way, I think that there's only one appropriate response: laff

Again, the 6 month rule doesn't necessarily have to be the solution we go with. We could, say, switch to a rule that prevents one from winning twice within the same calendar year, rather than a 12 month period starting from when that person won.

This is somewhat more reasonable, I think. But it still represents a shift away from the spirit of the award and the rule itself, which was to ensure that the pool of candidates would not be the same people over and over again... ideally, allowing some fresh nominees into the picture.

When POTM was originally begun, you could only win once. At some point, nearly everybody had won already, and it was getting increasingly difficult to award it based on merit (because people who hadn't won at that point were either pretty inactive or ludicrously unworthy). Nominations were opened up to include previous winners, and there was a rash of polls which included the same candidates over and over and over. There were several repeat winners within the same four months of their previous win, including any1else, Nutmeg1829, and km73. In the case of any1else, she set the bar for the shortest time between wins - one month.

The reason that the rule as it exists currently was implemented is because we've seen what happens without it. We know there's no self-regulation, and we know that the longer the state of not having that rule persists, the closer we get to the same set of a few individuals passing the award back and forth between themselves for the sake of keeping it warm.

This would mean the number of ineligible people grows from month to month, preventing two wins from being too close together, but also allows us to wipe the slate totally clean after a certain period of time, opening it up so anyone can win again once the new calendar year begins. I'm not personally saying this is the best option (I definitely prefer the 6 month rule here), but it's another example for the solution pile, and worth considering, at least.

You keep referring to this as a "solution", when I'm not convinced personally that there exists a problem. If PEEL were to experience a sudden spell of near-total inactivity and the only eligible person to post in a given month were winna, then winna would win POTM by default. The polls would not be needed, and the award could be granted directly. This represents the most extreme example possible, short of nobody winning, and I don't see how it's a problem at all.

The most deserving eligible candidate (in theory, this is all that the voting is for) would still win POTM, and the other active users would all still become eligible as they fell out of the monthly rotation cycle.

Until there are no eligible candidates, I feel that you're proposing that POTM become an increasingly worthless accolade for the sake of simply keeping it going. Do you also advocate that people be kept alive artificially with no quality of life, rather than being allowed to die with dignity once a condition becomes terminal?

I also think that one of the reasons PotM gets so little attention now is that it's just become "the thing we do." I see the nominations thread appear and just think "Oh, right, it's that time of the month" now. So even just switching up the rules in some way or another may be enough to reinvigorate interest in the competition, at least for a little while (hey, I never said my suggestions were permanent fixes tongue).

Well, yes. You do have a point there. It's become something that's a standard fixture and people care increasingly less about it due to it having been around for so long. But I don't think that making it less worthy of people's attention is going to make them pay more attention to it (unless you're suggesting that the majority of the active user base are total idiots, in which case you might have another point, and I can sort of see where you're coming from tongue ).

I truly do think that switching to a bi-monthly - or even quarterly - PotM would increase interest in the competition rather than reduce it, because it becomes more of a rarity in the process, and would have the sense of being something "special" again.

You could call it the Quarterly Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence, or QAOAFE (good luck pronouncing that). But it wouldn't be POTM. Poster of the month is an award that's bestowed monthly. I'm actually in favour of scrapping it and bringing in QAOAFE more than I am of changing the eligibility requirements, but I still think that this is a poor idea. Mainly because there's less impetus for already-less-active users to log in and check things quite so often, if there's nothing really going on for a whole three months at a time. Of course, making it more regular would also be detrimental.

I think that once a month is already in the sweet spot for balance, and that there's very little point futzing with the parameters of the eligibility requirements or the timing for the sake of trying to keep it fresh or interesting.

Sort of like how the Olympics gets far more attention than any annual international sporting event, for lack of a better example having just woken up an hour ago.

The PEEL Olympics isn't a bad idea for an event. I could have far more enthusiasm for this than for POTM, the PEELies, or the Mr/Ms. PEELified contest. Although it's hard to figure out what the events would consist of. Downhill shitposting? Horseback thread necro'ing? Gay rights or abortion debates judged by an independent panel? A triathlon composed of all three?

Still, it's an intriguing thought and one that could help to revive some interest in the board from those who have vanished.

At the very least, I feel a shake-up in how PotM operates is worth trying before we turn around and cancel PotM altogether.

That's the difference between us on this issue, I think. I've seen POTM go through more than one shakeup, and every time it does, it eventually goes back to being something that people just don't care about anymore. The most recent shakeup was the codifying of official rules and the granting of its own subforum, and this was by far the best thing that happened to it, and the thing that's had the longest effect in terms of keeping people interested and engaged.

Each time that POTM has been changed, there have been more people active on a regular bases, more activity on the board in general, and more engagement from people like Marc, who is ultimately the person with the final say on the matter.

At the moment, I feel like it's probably not worth the effort, because it's not going to have any long term effect other than the one I've mentioned - passing a baton back and forth around a handful of people for the sake of passing it on. I'm sure that if I were to post more frequently than I have been doing, and provide some of the "advice" or pictures, or various scanned nonsense that I've done relatively regularly in the past at the opportune moment every six months, I could become one of those people passing the baton.

I really don't care enough about it to think that this is worth doing, and I have enough objectivity to recognise that this would be a bad thing, and more of a death knell for the board as a whole than would cancelling POTM (and I don't think that the time is right for that either).

It doesn't necessarily have to be one of my suggestions, but ultimately, what have we really got to lose by giving alternate rules a chance?

We stand to lose any and all joy or meaning that was left in the process. We stand to lose the little will to nominate that's still present among the user base, and we stand to lose further members of the voting population as they look at the increasingly pointless (and it was pretty pointless to begin with) farce that it becomes and refuse to engage with it as a PEELstitution.

Ultimately, it could even drive down the overall activity of the board. I've taken one of your suggestions though, and I've invited several past PEELers to come and engage with the discussion. Hopefully at least one of them will take the opportunity to come and weigh in, with what could be a vital fresh perspective or idea.

We'll have to wait and see, I suppose.
Nasty Pasty

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #394 on: 04-10-2015 16:22 »

It doesn't make sense to keep doing PoTM with this small of a user base. Time to put it out to pasture.

Unless of you were planning on voting for me, in which case you should keep it going for one more month.
totalnerduk

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #395 on: 04-10-2015 16:26 »
« Last Edit on: 04-10-2015 16:35 »

I honestly thought that you weren't going to bother posting, and had just finished preparing this screenshot:



Thanks for making the effort and giving some input though. That's the most helpful and detailed anybody's been so far, so you can consider yourself the person who has contributed the most to this discussion outside of myself or Beamer. For whatever that's worth.

Another poster answered via Facebook as well:



And another:

Beamer

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #396 on: 04-10-2015 17:01 »

Are these posts from ex-PEELers? Because, frankly, I'm not sure if members who are no longer awareness of the forum's current state to be able to weigh in objectively here. And if they're active members, I'd invite them to share their two cents in this thread themselves.
totalnerduk

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #397 on: 04-10-2015 17:09 »
« Last Edit on: 04-10-2015 17:14 »

They're PEELers (the majority of them wouldn't consider themselves "ex", I think), and they've been invited to post their thoughts in this thread themselves. But for one reason or another, they don't want to or don't care enough to.

I'm not sure if members who are no longer awareness of the forum's current state to be able to weigh in objectively here.

That's the thing, though. The ones who lurk but don't post are aware of the current state of the forum, and as can be seen from at least one of the above messages it's a huge part of the reason they haven't posted in a while. The decline in the active user base (and in particular, those actually posting) has a lot to do with the fact that the noise-to-signal ratio has risen dramatically and as a self-reinforcing mechanism.

If you'll recall, I did try to warn people that this was happening, some time ago. For which I was pilloried, persecuted, vilified, and lambasted heavily by certain parties instead of any serious note being taken. roll eyes

Now you're seeing that particular tree bearing fruit. Bitter, nasty, fruit.

And if they're active members, I'd invite them to share their two cents in this thread themselves.

You asked me to reach out to the community-at-large, and I have. I wasn't going to go to the effort of screenshotting more messages, but this one seems to sum up the prevailing attitude quite nicely among the vanished giants:



futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #398 on: 04-10-2015 17:16 »

Are these posts from ex-PEELers? Because, frankly, I'm not sure if members who are no longer awareness of the forum's current state to be able to weigh in objectively here. And if they're active members, I'd invite them to share their two cents in this thread themselves.

Actually, that's exactly what I was thinking. I don't think change should be instituted by a bunch of inactive posters. Most of the ones you were talking to don't even lurk here anymore.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #399 on: 04-10-2015 17:18 »

As someone who still posts regularly, I personally could not give two shits about POTM these days. I can't think of any change to the rules that would really result in increased participation, and with that level as it currently is, I don't really think it's that worth doing anymore.

But honestly? It's not important beyond itself in any way, shape or form. Whether POTM continues as is, has a rule change, or is discontinued, I don't see what effect that has on the rest of PEEL whatsoever. So I'm not sure I can see why any ex-PEELers who don't participate have any real reason to care or why their opinions should matter. In other words, fuck them. tongue
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 [10] 11 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 0.308 seconds with 21 queries.