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    Length of time between PEEL winnings « previous next »
Author Topic: Length of time between PEEL winnings  (Read 708 times)
Pages: [1] Print
PEE Poll: How long should we have the time period between being eligible for a POTM nomination?
6-8 months
9-11 months
12 months (stays the same)
Even longer??
I like POTS (less winners per calendar year)

futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« on: 04-11-2015 06:58 »
« Last Edit on: 04-11-2015 07:01 »

As was brought up in the PEEL discussion thread, do you think we should change the 12 month rule of POTM list of eligible nominees? And if so, what length should we have it at? The smallest I did was 6 months because, really kinda defeats the purpose if it's less than that (which I think we can all agree upon). I put brackets in some so if those lead then we can have a runoff poll to narrow those down.

Here is another suggestion too. Revamp POTM to POTS (Poster of the Season), so essentially you change the number of winners each calendar year from 12 to 4. Would this be a more meaningful a win, or not affect anything any differently? I guess the question essentially becomes, how far gone are we? I will say, altering the rules so that there are less winners per year pretty much is just delaying the inevitable, imo. But for the time might be a good compromise to have between there not being a different number of nominees and abolishing the tradition altogether.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #1 on: 04-11-2015 07:20 »

Way to skip a step and entirely ignore the idea that any other rule could or should be changed as an alternative, futurefreak.

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.

But I guess that asking the simpler, more straightforward question first was just an unreasonable expectation.  roll eyes

That'll teach you to call me civil and say I've gone soft.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #2 on: 04-11-2015 10:19 »
« Last Edit on: 04-11-2015 10:20 »

Nah I just don't like to waste time making unworthy polls wink

And that's essentially what this poll is, just with specifics involved. Like...exactly.
Beamer

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #3 on: 04-11-2015 10:29 »

Well, my vote goes to 6 months as I feel the current system isn't practical for the amount of activity on the forum now, and that idea seemed worth trying, though honestly, after the discussion in the previous thread, I was leaning more towards turning it into Poster of the Bi-Month and just doing 6 a year.

Way to blow the poll, Randi! tongue

Woah, did TNUK and I just agree on something? eek
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #4 on: 04-11-2015 10:34 »

Well if you wanna still do it, but less times per year, vote for the POTS option. That's essentially what I meant by that, anyway.

Ok I edited it so anyone can change their vote. These are persuasive arguments after all wink
* futurefreak has flashback to English class *shudders*
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #5 on: 04-11-2015 16:07 »

Woah, did TNUK and I just agree on something? eek

These are the end times, dude. There will be signs and portents in the days to come. I'm talking real wrath-of-God type stuff.  Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
tyraniak

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #6 on: 04-11-2015 18:36 »

I went for POTS
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #7 on: 04-11-2015 20:17 »

So. Since this idea is being polled at the moment, does that mean that we're also going to see about putting Beamer's other idea into practice?

I have to say, it's one I could get much more excited about, depending on how it's implemented.

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?
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #8 on: 04-12-2015 05:11 »

I hereby dub PEELympics to be added to the PEELexicon.

Also I don't know if it would gather more attention here, but it sure is a neat idea! Kinda like a virtual scavenger hunt, but not really! big grin
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #9 on: 04-12-2015 17:46 »

If you're actually going to update the wiki and add that to the PEELexicon category, I honestly feel it works better as two words. "PEEL Olympics". "PEELympics" just tastes kinda wrong. Perhaps because it sounds more like it refers to photographs of urination via a flaccid phallus than anything else.

Also, if you're actually going to update the wiki, PEELstitution (A PEEL institution such as POTM) and PEELexicobsession (the rampant desire to add new words to the PEELexicon) aren't on there yet either.
Gorky

Space Pope
****
« Reply #10 on: 04-15-2015 04:12 »

I voted for things to stay the same, on account of I am nothing if not an immovable traditionalist.

I do have a question, though: Is it still a rule that we must nominate three PEELers for each month, lest none of our noms be counted? If so, wouldn't changing that rule - allowing us to nominate anywhere between one and thee people - also help offset the problem of running out of worthy nominees? I mean, in those months where I do make nominations, I oftentimes can only think of one or two people whose posts were all that great; half the time I have to add a third person who's done little to impress me simply to ensure that nominees one and two have a chance to make the poll.

If I was only obligated to nominate one person instead of three, that would be a greater incentive for me to nominate in the first place; it might also serve to re-legitimize the whole POTM affair, because we'd theoretically be selecting our winners from a smaller and more exclusive group of nominees. And if other lurkers like myself are similarly inclined, knowing they can nominate as few people as they want might encourage them to nominate in the first place - instead of just vote in the eventual polls, which is what appears to be happening.

I apologize if this suggestion makes no sense and/or is irrelevant, but I figured I'd share it - and besides, if I limited myself to only posting things that were logical or apropos, I'd post even less than I already do.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #11 on: 04-15-2015 04:36 »

I do have a question, though: Is it still a rule that we must nominate three PEELers for each month, lest none of our noms be counted?

The official wording says "up to 3".

In effect, your total number of nominations in a single month must be a positive integer of one to three. This integer should not be made up of fractions, but discrete sets of one.

It's been that way since the rules were codified by Marc and the subforum opened. A full three nominations is encouraged but not mandatory.
Gorky

Space Pope
****
« Reply #12 on: 04-15-2015 05:02 »

Ah, that answers that, then! I don't know why I thought it was a mandatory three nominations; maybe I'm just trying to rationalize my own shoddy participation in POTM proceedings of late.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #13 on: 04-15-2015 05:49 »

There's actually a stipulation when you created your peel account where you have to nominate and vote in all peelficial competitions.  It's not very strictly enforced, but failure to comply with the agreements outlined when you signed up is actually a bannable offense. I've banned a few people for similar infractions myself, also new users who pick my avatar out of the pool.
Pages: [1] 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 0.176 seconds with 21 queries.