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 22027 times)
Pages: 1 ... 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

futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #400 on: 04-10-2015 17:23 »

totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #401 on: 04-10-2015 17:25 »
« Last Edit on: 04-10-2015 17:30 by totalnerduk »

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.

I think you might be surprised by the number that do. I specifically chose people who still take a look at certain areas of the board, and who have been known to vote in polls within the last few months, as well as a smattering of those who haven't visited PEEL for a long while. Most of them will still reply to PMs. They're mainly not as inactive as appearances might suggest (and they're not the ones advocating any changes to the POTM rules).

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.

Things going downhill in general was a major part of drifting away for many of those who don't post much anymore, or who are lurkers or PM-only participants in the site. Things going further downhill won't do much to bring them back, now will it?

These people miss PEEL as it was. They're all still enticable back under the right conditions, which is why they still have a reason to care and why their opinions in this case are specifically quite valuable to this discussion.

But what do I know? I've only been here since 2001. I've only spent weeks at a time not posting but voting in polls and talking to people via PM. I've only spent a year or so away from the site (at one time, anyway) before coming back. I've only made and kept friendships with dozens of people from PEEL, meeting dozens more. Ultimately, I've no real basis for thinking that I've got a pretty good handle on the less-visible-on-PEEL portion of the community's overall personal investment in the state of the place.

[Insert image macro with no actual contribution to the discussion]

Really helpful there, Ms. Mod. Really helpful.  roll eyes
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #402 on: 04-10-2015 17:34 »

big grin

Don't deny your love for the "not sure" fry meme image!

We haven't quite gotten to the point yet where PEELple are making the poll with one nomination only. When it reaches that point then yes, I agree, it's not worthwhile. But people still care enough to open threads first of the month, even when no mods are around.
Beamer

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #403 on: 04-10-2015 17:41 »

For the record, I never asked what former PEELees thought of the PotM rule proposal. I mentioned former PEELers in the context of "let's try and get some back" - a sentiment echoed in the final Facebook quoted shared. Not that I can put much credence into how former PEELers weigh in on any of these issues. And there's no way to know extent that the self-proclaimed "lurkers" read the forum, either.

As for the claim that changing PotM's rules will cause the forum to go downhill, that's subjective at best and presumptuous at worst, regardless of your history on the forum. The contest has survived rule changes before with pretty much no impact on the rest of the forum. Admitting that you've gone and taken the discussion to external social media suggests that you're taking this far more seriously than truly necessary, and it's difficult not to ascertain that your response stems more from your distaste with the person making the suggestions rather than the suggestions themselves. The fact that you lobbed a personal attack at me in your response (in regards to your opinion on my self regulation as a poster) would also suggest this - which is a shame, as I thought we were on relatively civil terms these days. I didn't say anything insulting about you while making my arguments in favour of PotM rule changes - I don't see why the same courtesy couldn't have been extended in return. frown

Maybe the best course of action at this point would be to put this to a poll, before this thread inevitably descends into a pissing match. I've pitched a few ideas and given reasons as to why I think they'rthey're worth trying - I have nothing more to say on the matter.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #404 on: 04-10-2015 17:51 »
« Last Edit on: 04-10-2015 18:04 »

I said they don't lurk anymore because that's pretty much the gist I got from that conversation on facebook. I don't know, I don't put much thought into what people say who may or may not think this forum exists for people to "kiss each other's asses" (part of what tnuk didn't screenshot).
Jezzem

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #405 on: 04-10-2015 18:21 »

As someone who was added to that conversation on Facebook I feel I should weigh in and say that any drop in my activity on PEEL has more to do with life events than the forum "going downhill" or people not nominating me every single month for my art.

As for POTM, I don't really care if the rules change or whatever. I pretty much agree with what Joshyboo said about it.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #406 on: 04-10-2015 19:09 »
« Last Edit on: 04-10-2015 22:41 »

Randi- Re: Fry img: The point I was making was genuine, but obviously I was being intentionally cheeky at the end. I was hoping the tongue would get that across well enough, but I should have known it might not.

Things going downhill in general was a major part of drifting away for many of those who don't post much anymore, or who are lurkers or PM-only participants in the site. Things going further downhill won't do much to bring them back, now will it?

These people miss PEEL as it was. They're all still enticable back under the right conditions

Uh, okay, sure, but I'm not at all buying that the rules of POTM specifically have anything to do with that. If the ex-PEELers you speak of really want to come back to PEEL with it being "as it was", why are most of them arguing for discontinuing POTM? That seems to imply something different, like that they aren't really invested much in POTM at all anymore.

Like I said, I personally think stopping POTM at least for a while would be fine. But if enough people who still actually participate disagree, why should I care if it goes on, even if it turns into a nightmarish circle jerk? It's not a matter of the whole forum going downhill, it's a matter of one easily-avoidable subforum that I already don't pay much attention to functioning slightly differently than I might personally like. I can just choose to ignore it like I mostly already am and not have any other aspect of my PEEL experience affected in any way.

If the rules for POTM are really acting as a barrier to someone's desire to post on the forum altogether, despite the fact that they weren't interested in participating anyway, then they're just being an irrational control freak. It's the equivalent of a child going "I don't want to play that game, so nobody else can either!"  Besides, I don't think any of the people on Facebook who suggested stopping POTM actually fit that description anyway. I would guess for the most part that they're like me and don't actually care that much, contrary to your assertions. I really, really don't believe it's a factor in their decision to post on the forum, and if it is, who needs 'em? Not me.
any1else

Space Pope
****
« Reply #407 on: 04-11-2015 01:49 »

Um. Yeah. I never really cared about POTM in the first place, maybe because I wasn't an "original member" and didn't "get it" or because I'm an introvert and things like that scare the crap out if me, even online tongue

I think it would be fine to let it rest for a while. There doesn't seem any point in enticing old members back. Tnuk, you said they remember it as it was, and that's fine, they should. I remember old forums I was on with fondness because I slowly stopped posting as others did when a lot of spammers took over and we just moved on to greener pastures. That doesn't mean PEEL can't still be the greener pasture for those here now, or those yet to come, it just isn't everyone's (hi Everyone, if you're still here, btw). It's a bit intimidating and exclusive when you go to a website and all that's happening is people wishing other people were there. They might think something is wrong with the website if people keep leaving it and we keep whinging about it. It's fine to miss people, but it seems like that's all anybody does anymore. Case in point, asking the opinion of people who have mostly moved on from the forum.

We do have facebook nowadays so you already have that older PEEL generation in a new forum, why not revamp this PEEL to reflect today, and include...uh... Internet candy and shit. I don't know. Forums seem like old news, everyone just uses Facebook and twitter for everything, I know I've fallen into that habit. I do still like the old forum format, even though we're not quite so anonymous as we once were, it's a place to talk about different things with different people who aren't from Real Life (although a few people from here are Real Life now. They know aaaalll my secreeets).

Maybe it's good that there are fewer active members now. Get to know this group of people, make this group of people the new old PEEL that you long for the days of. Make this look appealing to new people who are looking for a close knit community to be a part of. Make it look appealing to young people who need a place to talk to like-minded people because they feel alone in Real Life. Make it inclusive to budding creative people. Maybe add a tagline on the front page "You have to like Futurama to be here, but you don't have to talk about it if it hurts too much." Petition to have Off-topic discussion moved to the top and Futurama disscussion to the bottom, because who are we kidding? Start a kickstarter to have Futurama merchandise or commissioned fanart sent to the New New POTM winner. Ask George Takei to become a member. Go crazy! Those are things the kids are into these days, right?
Tachyon

Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #408 on: 04-11-2015 01:51 »


"These *are* the 'good old days'."

totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #409 on: 04-11-2015 03:15 »
« Last Edit on: 04-11-2015 04:15 by totalnerduk »

For the record, I never asked what former PEELees thought of the PotM rule proposal. I mentioned former PEELers in the context of "let's try and get some back" - a sentiment echoed in the final Facebook quoted shared.

Honestly, I thought it might be a decent "hook" with which to lure people into the discussion. As well as serving as a reminder of why some people don't post any more, which as it turns out matches up with the reasons I outlined for the current lack of both activity and enthusiasm for making nominations.

Not that I can put much credence into how former PEELers weigh in on any of these issues.

Why not? Is it because you don't trust people who no longer post here to have any idea of what the state of the board is? Anybody who lurks knows what the state of the board is, and I can promise you that there are people you're dismissing as "former PEELers" who fit into that category.

And there's no way to know extent that the self-proclaimed "lurkers" read the forum, either.

Not if they don't interact with you, I suppose. So I guess that you'll either have to trust me when I say that there are a fair few who do this, or call BS simply because it's convenient and you figure it'll be too much effort for me to go to, to convince them to air their views in public. Which would be nice and easy for you to do.

As for the claim that changing PotM's rules will cause the forum to go downhill, that's subjective at best and presumptuous at worst, regardless of your history on the forum.

Since you had no problem being subjective and presumptuous a few posts ago, I don't really see why you feel that this matters. It's also not quite what I claimed. I firstly said that it could wind up driving activity down with respect to POTM (ie: causing fewer people to feel it worth making a nomination or voting), and then implying that the rule change itself would be a step downhill.

Ultimately, it could even drive down the overall activity of the board.

From the context of the original quote, it should be obvious that "the board" here refers to the subforum for POTM rather than PEEL itself.

Things going further downhill won't do much to bring them back, now will it?

From the context of this, it should be obvious that "things going further downhill" refers to the proposed rule change.

These observations are both based on a depth of experience that my allusion to my own history here was intended to convey a sense of. I've been around this mulberry bush a few times, and I know the way the weasel pops* (if you'll pardon the torture of this metaphor).

Admitting that you've gone and taken the discussion to external social media suggests that you're taking this far more seriously than truly necessary, and it's difficult not to ascertain that your response stems more from your distaste with the person making the suggestions rather than the suggestions themselves.

Firstly, I took it outside of PEEL so as to reach some of the people who you thought it would be a great idea to re-engage with the community. It certainly seemed like you were suggesting I make an effort to bring them not just back onto the board but into this discussion when you said this:

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.

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.

Secondly, this is an idea I would oppose no matter who it came from. It could have been Marc himself who suggested it, and I'd still have given the same arguments against it, because they're still true. It's a poor solution to something that's not actually a problem, and I think it represents a step towards POTM becoming even less of a thing that people give a large rodent's alimentary terminus about.

The fact that you suggested it is neither here nor there - the fact that you care about POTM and PEEL, and keeping them both going, and want to help to keep both of them as fresh as possible is something that I can respect. If you'd come up with something that wasn't essentially the removal of one of the things keeping POTM properly balanced between a forum-wide popularity contest and a cliquey circlejerks, I'd have probably been in favour of trying it out.

You're welcome to feel that I disagree with you because you don't like me. That's fine. But your belief on the matter doesn't necessarily define the truth. I could respect a great idea, and I could get behind a great idea no matter who delivered it. Although, if I really didn't get on with them, I'd be likely to remain silent until somebody else agreed with it, and then agree with them.

The fact that you lobbed a personal attack at me in your response (in regards to your opinion on my self regulation as a poster) would also suggest this - which is a shame, as I thought we were on relatively civil terms these days.

Hey, hey, hey. Do you really want to take offence at that? It wasn't intended as an insult - I'd rather discuss the issue on the table than trade barbs. Believe it or not, I do actually prefer that sort of a discussion, since there are only so many times and ways I can intentionally insult a person before I start to get tired of it. Really.

What I said was mainly a reference to your habit of posting things like "Do you use a [word beginning with W]", and "Fry becomes a [thing]", and other one-line posts, and your post volume in general. Although, I'll be the first to admit that this seems to have tapered off in recent weeks, and you're actually posting a lot more things which are of substance in general - which is one reason I've been interacting with you on good terms. I enjoy having a proper talk about things, and I'd have a good old-fashioned chinwag with my bitterest enemy or Satan himself if I didn't have a book with which to pass the time instead (no, neither of those people are you. My bitterest enemy is not a PEELer, and Satan probably wouldn't show up for a chat with me because my soul isn't worth a torn Yu-Gi-Oh card).

If I offended you, well, I won't apologise. As per usual, if I offended you or anybody else with something that wasn't meant to be an insult, I think that's entirely your own issue to deal with, and you've got the right to go off in a huff if you like. But that's hardly constructive whilst we're each trying to convince the other of something. That can wait until after.

I didn't say anything insulting about you while making my arguments in favour of PotM rule changes - I don't see why the same courtesy couldn't have been extended in return. frown

No, you didn't. But neither did I. I contend that if you perceived a slight, it has more to do with your perception than my intent, and that if I'd wanted to insult you it should be obvious that I'd say something directly and unmistakably horrible rather than maligning your ability or lack thereof to self-regulate. Something insinuating enfeebled mental capacities and a corresponding lack of sexual prowess, wrapped up in a direct comparison to some disgusting creature and containing a smattering of profanity, perhaps. On that basis, I request that you cease to view my statement as an insult, and furthermore I'll allow you to say something disparaging about my own intellect, sexual prowess, or resemblance to some disgusting creature in order that you may feel justice has been done.

I'm a big girl. I can take it.

Maybe the best course of action at this point would be to put this to a poll, before this thread inevitably descends into a pissing match.

Now that is a good idea. We should vote on it.

I've pitched a few ideas and given reasons as to why I think they'rthey're worth trying - I have nothing more to say on the matter.

Like I said, I think that the fact you pitched them is admirable in its own way, but I also think that you're proposing something which would ultimately be deleterious. Perhaps the best way to demonstrate that I'm right would be for your changes to be adopted, and to lead to exactly the scenario I've described.

I mean, I'm pretty confident that what I'm saying will be borne out.

There doesn't seem any point in enticing old members back. Tnuk, you said they remember it as it was, and that's fine, they should.

Well, it would up the voting population for POTM, and the potential pool of not just nominees, but people to make nominations. That was sort of the point of trying. But... ... ... as much as I hate to admit this, there really isn't any point to bringing back people who've "mostly moved on" as you say, since they're obviously less invested in the place, and it's the passion of this community that's always been its most cohesive and unifying strength.

Uh, okay, sure, but I'm not at all buying that the rules of POTM specifically have anything to do with that. If the ex-PEELers you speak of really want to come back to PEEL with it being "as it was", why are most of them arguing for discontinuing POTM? That seems to imply something different, like that they aren't really invested much in POTM at all anymore.

No, the rules of POTM weren't a factor in driving anybody away. I was positing that making POTM less worth caring about by turning it into a backslapping dance between the half dozen people who post most frequently was not the way to bring them back. But the point has been made (and initially by myself, before I went and sent that message), that looking to the past is not the way forward. So I guess that obviates the whole thing.

Besides, I don't think any of the people on Facebook who suggested stopping POTM actually fit that description anyway. I would guess for the most part that they're like me and don't actually care that much, contrary to your assertions. I really, really don't believe it's a factor in their decision to post on the forum, and if it is, who needs 'em? Not me.

My assertions were not that they do not participate due to POTM, but that they do not participate because of the general increase in the signal-to-noise ratio here, and their overall level of disengagement as a result. Which was borne out by what was said in response to the original message.

I don't know, I don't put much thought into what people say who may or may not think this forum exists for people to "kiss each other's asses" (part of what tnuk didn't screenshot).

Yes, well. I streamlined it because that really wasn't relevant. I tried to present the information which related directly to people's lack of engagement with or enthusiasm for posting, rather than their complaints about the current user base. I didn't set out to make anybody feel insulted - just to highlight that many of the famous faces of times gone by neither felt that POTM would benefit from the proposed rule change, nor wished to return to public posting for the sake of improving the current state of POTM.



Maybe the best course of action at this point would be to put this to a poll, before this thread inevitably descends into a pissing match.

Now, this is a really good idea, and rather than lose it under a snowball of other posts, I think that somebody (not me or Beamer) should make this poll. It should ask whether the proposed rule change, some other rule change, or no change for the time being should be implemented. If the proposed rule change is to be implemented following the results, another poll should be created after that one to outline the options (six months' ineligiblity, one calender year, no ineligibility, etc), and then the implementation of the most popular option should go into place.

Since I have every confidence that my predictions as to the consequences of making such a rule change will not be far off the mark, I'm sure that any change is going to be relatively short-lived, but I think that having polls about it is an excellent idea - it's how we've decided on all the other changes which have occurred to the ruleset, and it effectively demonstrates what appeals to the majority.

So, futurefreak, I think that you (as a moderator, and as neither the proposer of the idea or a vocal detractor) would be the best person to open the poll (time limit of one week, perhaps?), and any secondary polls which may or may not be needed in order to further examine the options. If you'd care to do the honours?


*I'm saying I know a little of how the community "works" here, not necessarily that I've studied or thought about the best way to pop a weasel. Although, if I had to do so, I'd be inclined to say that putting it in a sealed chamber and evacuating the air as quickly as possible would probably have the desired effect. Why you'd want to literally pop a weasel is quite beyond me, you monster.
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #410 on: 04-11-2015 04:51 »

I vote we don't change POTM. There's still a decent pool of people to choose from, even with PEEL in such a barely-active state, and I'd prefer new people to be winning occasionally rather than a few people nabbing the prestigious award over and over.

Even so... I'm surprised there's such a heated discussion about this. It's just a random e-award given on some random forum in the dark depths of the internet. POTM rules change? Fine. They don't? Also fine. This isn't a serious problem, and it never should be.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #411 on: 04-11-2015 05:56 »
« Last Edit on: 04-11-2015 05:58 by totalnerduk »

Even so... I'm surprised there's such a heated discussion about this. It's just a random e-award given on some random forum in the dark depths of the internet. POTM rules change? Fine. They don't? Also fine.

I think it's partially due to there not having been anything to get heated about on PEEL for a while, and this is a convenient enough excuse to post about something as though it matters. Or at least, that's how it works for me. In the absence of anything else to explore in depth, or become passionate about, a trivial change to the rules governing a meaningless circle-jerk will do nicely.

This isn't a serious problem, and it never should be.

If taking things more seriously than they deserve was a crime, then everybody who's ever posted in General Discussion would be a fugitive from justice. We take things seriously not because they deserve to be taken so, but because we have nothing better to do. Therefore this is a serious topic meriting serious discussion and the poll will be a serious poll with serious outcomes which will seriously be taken seriously seriously. Seriously.

But seriously, I'm not serious about that.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #412 on: 04-11-2015 06:42 »

URL, this is what PEEL used to be about, remember? We'd argue over a tattered rag of a newspaper if we could wink

Actually I commend tnuk, this is probably the most civil I've ever seen him in one of these types of debates. Getting a little soft on us, eh ol' chap? wink Jk. I like this new side of you smile

Ok, I'll open up a poll to see how the public responds to Beamer's suggestion. I disagree with a proposal to discontinue POTM altogether. What I meant by my earlier comment, about people not actively participating on here via posts, all I meant to say was that I don't think it's fair that those who used to post but for whatever reason don't (and a few who actually refuse, as you noted in your convo posts from fb), anyways I don't think it's fair that those active participants here who may enjoy the tradition be denied it because a few inactive posters of our past don't see the point of it. I don't consider lurking active participation either, anyone can lurk, as most of us did before we were even members. That doesn't mean we were handed the golden key to decide the board's fate.

And if anyone thinks I'm biased, it would actually be better for myself to get rid of it altogether because I don't hardly ever come by here anymore. But maybe that's because I'm being a lousy moderator and is no fault of the POTM dealings or the PEELple involved who still consistently open the nomination threads every month.
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #413 on: 04-11-2015 06:43 »

I'm not saying people shouldn't have an opinion on it, I'm just pointing out that whatever solution we come up with doesn't ultimately change much here.

Seriously. This seriousness is seriously serious business. I can barely remember what I was originally trying to say, now.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #414 on: 04-11-2015 07:06 »

I disagree with a proposal to discontinue POTM altogether.

I don't personally think that it's at the stage where it's meaningless enough that it's best to shelve it. Yet. But I do think that the proposed change is going to lead to that situation developing sooner than it otherwise would.

Then again, it's been noted before that I'm a pretty harsh critic, and that I hold people and things to standards that might be higher than would be strictly fair. It could very well be that modifying POTM and scrapping POTM altogether are two equally valid ideas and I dislike them both simply because I'm grumpy.

I'm just pointing out that whatever solution we come up with doesn't ultimately change much here.

Nothing ultimately changes much anywhere. The universe will still eventually suffer heat death, and all that was or will ever be shall eventually decay to the point where it exists only as the most diffuse possible energy signature in a formless void.

Which gives us all immense freedom, when you think about it. Nothing we do matters very much, so we might as well do whatever it is that fulfils us the most. Right now, I think I'd find sleeping to be immensely fulfilling.

Actually I commend tnuk, this is probably the most civil I've ever seen him in one of these types of debates.

You take that back right now. I'm not civil, and I never have been. Also, you've never seen me. When we met, I projected a carefully chosen illusion to prevent you from noticing that I am in fact not a person but a collection of cats.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #415 on: 04-13-2015 04:36 »

Perhaps it is that I am the cancer which gorges itself on the passing flesh that is peel.at.gsc

As for I, I took the road less traveled by, and when, when I had blamed my faults, then it was the hook in me, the facebook which pierced our society.
tyraniak

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #416 on: 09-10-2015 17:25 »

Considering it took us into September to finish the July POTM and we've had nominations open for August for over a week with almost no entries, I think we should either pull the plug or switch to an annual or quarterly method
Scrappylive

Professor
*
« Reply #417 on: 09-10-2015 17:41 »

Or poke and prod us lazy non-PEELers who don't vote until they get involved in the democratic process.

Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #418 on: 09-10-2015 17:42 »

Or institute a minimum number of nominations required in special circumstances such as this. If there's no one who's posted in such a way as to be distinguished as the poster of the Month, then it is fitting that there be no Poster of that Month. This should be a rarity, however.
Tachyon

Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #419 on: 09-10-2015 22:12 »


How about we seek out and harass those despicable Peelers who have abandoned us?  Or tempt them with cake.

Meerkat54

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #420 on: 02-02-2016 04:52 »
« Last Edit on: 02-02-2016 04:55 »

May I propose that, at least for the duration that PEEL is in its 'dark days', the number of posters ineligible for a nomination is reduced rather proportionally? I mean at this rate, all the ineligible PEELers are only going to be those who are actually active on this forum, leaving little to no one else to the worthiness of nominating.

12 in itself is a pretty big number anyway. Whilst I understand it's traditionally 12 because that's how many are in a year (duh), what say we drop down two or four spots for the sake of efficiency?
I mean yes, it is very likely that a pattern of winning specific PEELers will continue to cycle endlessly, but at least it won't result in a dead/repetitive POTM.

OR, we could change it to be a quarterly POTM or something similar. So every three months for example we could announce the POTM for those three in particular.

Edit: OR, we could revisit what was discussed on Page 1 of this thread.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #421 on: 02-02-2016 19:19 »

Your suggestion is bad, and you should feel bad.

If there are not enough people present to make it worthwhile having a POTM, then it's better just to let it pass by. If the only people posting are ineligible, then there will be no POTM. What's wrong with that?

I appreciate that you're giving CPR to a dead horse rather than flogging it, but it amounts to the same thing.

I mean yes, it is very likely that a pattern of winning specific PEELers will continue to cycle endlessly, but at least it won't result in a dead/repetitive POTM.

Yes, that's exactly what it will result in. The nomination and candidate pool being so sorely reduced will only ever result in a dead or endlessly repetitive POTM, as the same people win over and over again by virtue of being the only few posting, and voting in an endless circlejerk.

We've seen it before. You're proposing essentially that we see it again.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #422 on: 02-02-2016 19:54 »
« Last Edit on: 02-02-2016 19:57 »

Ya, I have to agree. Why exactly is seeing a POTM where the same people keep winning over and over necessarily better than just seeing the tradition get put to bed? I'm not sure I can see the process of POTM still giving people here so much joy that it's worth preserving at all costs. If there aren't enough posters to have a big pool of nominees, it seems like the whole thing will have become a bit moot. Are we so desperate to cling onto the last vestiges of every little thing?
Meerkat54

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #423 on: 02-03-2016 04:25 »
« Last Edit on: 02-03-2016 04:28 »

It was just a suggeshtion guysh, sheesh, don't be so like, gay and all that.[/gay voice]

But seriously, whether it was a bad idea or not I thought it'd be worth bringing up some sort of discussion in regards to what we should do about it, as obviously (as you've both clearly indicated) the whole thing is currently in shambles. No one else was going to.

With that being said, diminishing the whole thing is logically a lot more, er, logical. So I agree with tnuk. If there's not enough people actually eligible for it, then it would indeed be best to let it just slip by naturally. (There's a sexual joke in there somewhere...)

RIP in peace, POTM. Thou shallt be missed.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #424 on: 02-03-2016 17:20 »

I didn't say anything about it being wrong of you to bring up the discussion or voice your suggestion. I just responded with my own opinion.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #425 on: 02-03-2016 20:33 »

But seriously, whether it was a bad idea or not I thought it'd be worth bringing up some sort of discussion in regards to what we should do about it, as obviously (as you've both clearly indicated) the whole thing is currently in shambles.

Your suggestion had already been made before. Take a look at the previous two or three pages of this thread, and you'll see that it was brought up not too many moons ago.

I'm not sure I can see the process of POTM still giving people here so much joy that it's worth preserving at all costs.

Some people want to be patted on the head over and over again and told that they're a good boy, because a life without external validation holds no meaning for them. I suppose that for those people, POTM does indeed give them so much joy as to be worth preserving at all costs. But I agree with you; it really isn't.
Meerkat54

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #426 on: 02-04-2016 05:01 »
« Last Edit on: 02-04-2016 05:09 »

Josh:

Anyway, I must say that reading the past two pages of this thread warmed my cockles, but did indeed reference a previous discussion in regards to this current one. Either way, I think we should continue.
That being said I think we should ultimately do something about this now. POTM isn't going to get any better over the next few months, and with an inevitable repeat of certain winning PEELers it would literally be beating a dead horse with a giant dildo.

As tnuk states POTM has been reduced to the crumbs and splinters of what it once was, and now people only really participate in it for their own personal joy of victory (correct me if I'm sounding evil, biased, or just wrong in general). Not that I intend to sound like an ass, but ever since Futurama died PEEL itself became a distraction, since there's now little to nothing actually on-topic to talk about. What is talked about in Off-Topic today can literally be discussed with your fellow train traveler, or even those sitting on the bench next to you.
With that being said, POTM is only just an additional distraction. So in regards to that, I'll ask you two questions; what was POTM initially designed to do? And how does that compare to what it's like today?

If you managed to become aware of the circumstances related to how POTM was 'meant' to run, then we're left with two options:
1. We can continue attempting to keep PEEL attached to a heart-monitor and make the most of what's left of POTM. (I'll leave the decision of what 'making the most of it' should be up to anyone)
2. Or, we can just let POTM naturally slip away into the dark abyss that inevitably lies before it.

If preserving something just to remind people that they are loved is indeed what it's come down to, then I believe it's time for some changes that may require certain mods to visit this thread.

Discuss.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #427 on: 02-04-2016 06:23 »
« Last Edit on: 02-04-2016 06:29 »

Just let it go the way of the PEELies. Let it keep happening until inevitably a mod just can't be bothered to start a thread for it anymore, and then don't ask any questions.

There's a big difference between simply not desperately trying to resuscitate something and actually actively pulling the plug on it, it's not just either or. The fact is there doesn't have to be a big deal made about it at all. Just...let things happen, and don't fool yourself into thinking you have to always do something about it. Most things will just play themselves out. Nothing wrong with that.
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #428 on: 02-04-2016 08:29 »

Just let it go the way of the PEELies.

Oh shit. You made me just realize that we haven't had PEELies for like, two years now.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #429 on: 02-04-2016 21:20 »

I think we should ultimately do something about this now.

I disagree.
Just let it go the way of the PEELies. Let it keep happening until inevitably a mod just can't be bothered to start a thread for it anymore, and then don't ask any questions.

There's a big difference between simply not desperately trying to resuscitate something and actually actively pulling the plug on it, it's not just either or. The fact is there doesn't have to be a big deal made about it at all. Just...let things happen, and don't fool yourself into thinking you have to always do something about it. Most things will just play themselves out. Nothing wrong with that.

I agree completely. With Josh.

POTM isn't going to get any better over the next few months, and with an inevitable repeat of certain winning PEELers it would literally be beating a dead horse with a giant dildo.

You literally misused the word literally. That being said, if POTM were to literally transition into a ceremony where we all beat a dead horse with a giant dildo, that might actually be an amusing monthly diversion. Sign me up for that one.

So in regards to that, I'll ask you two questions; what was POTM initially designed to do? And how does that compare to what it's like today?

POTM was initially intended as a joke. It was never meant to be more than a one-off, but somebody picked up the joke and ran with it.

Today, POTM is a PEELstitution with its own subforum, official rules, and moderators. The joke has grown up. Perhaps it has even lived a full life, and now deserves to die with dignity.

If preserving something just to remind people that they are loved is indeed what it's come down to, then I believe it's time for some changes that may require certain mods to visit this thread.

Nah. What Josh said. Just let it happen. If it's time for it to go the way of the poodle and your primitive notions of modesty, so be it.
Meerkat54

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #430 on: 02-05-2016 11:06 »

The fact is there doesn't have to be a big deal made about it at all. Just...let things happen, and don't fool yourself into thinking you have to always do something about it. Most things will just play themselves out. Nothing wrong with that.

You have a good point and I must agree, however I wanted to see what other people's takes on this would be so I bought it up like so. Not necessarily trying to make a big deal about it, at least not intentionally, but considering some certain people's opinions on POTM (both in the past and the present) have been negative, some sort of discussion was valid just to get an idea of where to take it.

Therefore I agree with tnuk, whom agrees with Josh. Letting it go 'by itself' ultimately seems like the best idea, in this scenario.

Although I do take interest in turning it into a ceremony where we beat dead horses with dildos. Or something that's dead, anyway. All in favor? tongue
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #431 on: 02-05-2016 11:11 »

Although I do take interest in turning it into a ceremony where we beat dead horses with dildos. Or something that's dead, anyway. All in favor? tongue

Let POTM henceforth be called Dildo of the Horse (DOTH), and let PEEL rejoice in the monthly beating of a dead horse with a dildo. The only thing I'll need that I don't currently have access to is a dead horse. I'm reasonably certain I can find somebody to lend me a dildo though.
Pages: 1 ... 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 0.551 seconds with 21 queries.