POTM Needs Rules.

[Reply #40 on:]

 

Originally posted by CyberKnight:
You could do both : in the event in which the removal of the tied members results in a poll with fewer than 5 choices, the original rule applies?

Or unless there are a clear 10 nominees.  I really don't understand what is wrong with how we've done it, except that the one person who didn't make it to the poll (quite fairly, I might add) is demanding we change it.

I suggest that we change to whatever rule will result in SB being excluded from the final poll every time.  As this is beyond ridiculous.

[Reply #41 on:]

 

I suggest that we change to whatever rule will result in SB being excluded from the final poll every time.  As this is beyond ridiculous.

Ok, be like that, but I still say the time rule is unfair, as we all live all over the globe.

[Reply #42 on:]

The thread has to be closed sometime - in that case leave the nomination thread open three days instead of two.  48 hours is more than enough time for those who are nominating anyway, but stretch it to 72 instead.

The tied vote rule is totally and completely fair.

Funny how this isn't working now isn't it?  I might add that this was debated before because of a geniune mistake in the final count.  Even then, they weren't that bothered by the outcome.

EDIT: and Ricky was excluded last time because of a geniune mistake.  I didn't see him complain this much.

[Reply #43 on:]

   

Originally posted by Melllvar:
The thread has to be closed sometime - in that case leave the nomination thread open three days instead of two.  48 hours is more than enough time for those who are nominating anyway, but stretch it to 72 instead.

The tied vote rule is totally and completely fair.

Funny how this isn't working now isn't it?  I might add that this was debated before because of a geniune mistake in the final count.  Even then, they weren't that bothered by the outcome.

EDIT: and Ricky was excluded last time because of a geniune mistake.  I didn't see him complain this much.

The subsquent suggested changes to the tied rule make it fairer still, then I wouldn't be arguing the point over and over.  I got done 2 months on the run, due to that rule, so I don't see it as fair.

In respect, I'm only asking for the rule change to be given a chance (i.e. May), if it doesn't work, then I'll admit I was wrong all the time.

[Reply #44 on:]

Sean, you just need to persuade the people who nominate you not to hang around but vote for you on day one, email them, IM them or remind them some other way that the nomination process has started, don't blame the system, blame the laziness of some of your supporters 

[Reply #45 on:]

And not only that but also had the rule been changed you STILL wouldn't have made it into the poll anyway. You would've simply deprived others of getting their chance.

[Reply #46 on:]

 

Originally posted by Tweek:
Sean, you just need to persuade the people who nominate you not to hang around but vote for you on day one, email them, IM them or remind them some other way that the nomination process has started, don't blame the system, blame the laziness of some of your supporters   

Until this month, I didn't realise I had supporters.  Might try that.

[Reply #47 on:]

 

Originally posted by Archie2K:
And not only that but also had the rule been changed you STILL wouldn't have made it into the poll anyway. You would've simply deprived others of getting their chance.

Then this thread, my grievance etc etc would never have started.

[Reply #48 on:]

And you'll continue to argue the point UNTIL you get in.  Jesus, let's let the kiddie have his lolly.

What you fail to realise is that you were not included in the final poll for the past two months because we applied the rule FAIRLY.  There was no miscount (well, there was, but not to your detriment - and if that was applied correctly for Ricky, you wouldn't have got in anyway, so you can discount that).

Therefore, it seems to me that this it come to this because you've taken it personally.  Which is why I'm pointing out the ridiculousness of it.

Right now, I agree with Ben.  Let's scrap it.

[Reply #49 on:]

It's only a poll...it's not like there's any monetary award at the end of it...and Ben's right - everyone's entitled to their opinion, but you don't see me moaning about the POTM award, because I was under the impression that having only joined the board in January (the same time as SB), it would seem pretty rude...I like the system the way it is at the moment.

[Reply #50 on:]

Jeez, that's a bit drastic, just because one person has problem with the rules.  I don't like that  rule either, and made my point last month, then left it at that, until I saw what I thought was an agreement not being used, apparently I was wrong, so sorry to all.

Let POTM keep going, just no-one nominate SB, then maybe this problem won't happen again.  I never get nominated, and I just accept it. 

One last thing, is POTM based on posting or popularity.  If it's posting, I've no hope, popularity, a smidgen maybe, but don't scrap the thing and ruin every one else who enjoys it over one person, that's giving in to the minority, big time.

End of possibly my longest ever post.

[Reply #51 on:]

You're all depriving my chance of snu-snu   
Ah but Paul, you have your custom title... [Ben]some of us don't even have that to inflate our egos, so we're left with SUVs...[/Ben] 

[Reply #52 on:]

I fail to see why this is such an issue.  It's not liek you actually win anything, or get some special status.  Within a week everyone's forgotten anyway.  It's nothing personal, it's nothing important, it's nothing at all.  It's a stupid little "contest" run by the posters of PEEL for the posters of PEEL.  What rules are in place have been decided by popular vote.  Just because some random newbie feels sleeighted by something that would not have changed the outcome anyway.  It does not need overhauling, it does not need changing.  As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing to discuss.  You didn't get in.  Deal with it.  If you think otherwise, my email's in my profile.