|
|
|
|
Nixorbo
UberMod
DOOP Secretary
|
|
The better question is WHY did this thread become a debate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
transgender nerd under canada
DOOP Ubersecretary
|
|
Originally posted by Col. Klink: I also wanna call TNUK on his hypocracy over trying to make up new rules to kill the prank nominations while breaking the old ones to post a running count in the nominations thread. I was waiting for that. It's pretty much the reason this thread exists. Also, POTM is flawed and should be ditched entirely. No, that's not bitterness talking, I really hate popularity contests. Nerd-o-rama was more or less right, except that I wasn't posting this for attention, I just wanted to get people stirred up enough to get things changed. Because POTM is... well, crap. That's my two cents. Somebody close this thread already, it's old.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nerd-o-rama
Urban Legend
|
|
Originally posted by totalnerduk: Oh, I never said I'd stop participating. I do it because I can at least help steer it in a more fulfilling direction.
Next month, I'll be nominating the three most idiotic posters I can find. You're trying to destroy the system by simply abusing it? Quite mature, mate. I've come to the conclusion that PotM doesn't really need any changes. Trying to make people vote intelligently instead of like six-year-old fadmongers goes against the very principle of democracy. What we really need is stricter enforcement of the no-multiple-account rule to prevent voting abuse. I'm looking at you, Pasty. Note: just so we're completely clear, that last sentence was a joke. Mostly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Melllvar
DOOP Secretary
|
|
I think we should give it a try and see. The pool of quality posters is so diluted now anyway, the thing is undervalued to the point of farce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Col. Klink
Professor
|
|
Originally posted by totalnerduk: Next month, I'll be nominating the three most idiotic posters I can find. WOO HOO! And nerd-o I hope your aware of the irony of what you just said. Besides, POTM is not democracy. Its mobrule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
David A
Space Pope
|
|
Originally posted by totalnerduk: 1. You get to nominate ONE person, and SECOND a previous nomination (at a later time if necessary). POTM nomination threads will be started three days before the end of the month, and closed at the end of the third day. I don't see the point of this change. The way it's done now is simpler. Also, three days before the end of the month is too early. Nominations shouldn't start until the last day of the month at the earliest. 2. You can't nominate yourself, fake accounts, or anybody who is less than a Starship Captain in rank. I think it's already an unwritten rule that you can't nominate yourself. Fake accounts shouldn't get nominated, but then, fake accounts aren't supposed to exist in the first place. I completely disagree with the last part. If someone new makes enough of a contribution to PEEL that people want to nominate him, then he should be eligible for POTM. POTM should be about quality of posts, not quantity. 3. You are allowed to nominate past winners - if they deserve a nomination, then they deserve recognition. Having already won doesn't mean that they can no longer be honoured for being fantastic. No. It's hard enough to win POTM as it is. If it had been that way from the start, maybe that would have been okay, but changing it now would just be unfair to the people that haven't won one yet. 4. POTM polls must be created by the moderator who closes the POTM thread, in order to prevent "fake" polls. Nice idea, but I doubt that any of the mods want to be bothered with doing it. 5. POTM winners are required to give a short acceptance speech. If they are unable to deliver this speech to PEEL, then their immediate runner-up will be crowned POTM in their place. Acceptance speeches are nice, but shouldn't be required. I certainly don't think that anyone should lose POTM just because he doesn't happen to be on PEEL at the time. Some people do have lives, you know. 6. Moderators, Administrators, and custom-rank holders cannot be POTM's. Most of those people have already won anyway, so this would be largely irrelevant without your third suggestion, which I oppose.
|
|
|
|
|
Nixorbo
UberMod
DOOP Secretary
|
|
Originally posted by David A: Some people do have lives, you know.
Apparently not.
|
|
|
|
|
GreyThinkyWhale
Professor
|
|
1. You get to nominate ONE person, and SECOND a previous nomination (at a later time if necessary). -Disagree
POTM nomination threads will be started three days before the end of the month, and closed at the end of the third day. -Whatever...
2. You can't nominate yourself, fake accounts, -Agree
or anybody who is less than a Starship Captain in rank. -Disagree
3. You are allowed to nominate past winners - if they deserve a nomination, then they deserve recognition. Having already won doesn't mean that they can no longer be honoured for being fantastic. -Disagree
4. POTM polls must be created by the moderator who closes the POTM thread, in order to prevent "fake" polls. -Agree
5. POTM winners are required to give a short acceptance speech. If they are unable to deliver this speech to PEEL, then their immediate runner-up will be crowned POTM in their place. -Disagree
6. Moderators, Administrators, and custom-rank holders cannot be POTM's. -Disagree
*scrolls up* Basically the exact same thing David A said...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nixorbo
UberMod
DOOP Secretary
|
|
I wouldn't call a 3-vote difference "emphatic."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Juliet
DOOP Secretary
|
|
I say leave the POTM the way it is although I do like the idea where the winner give out a speech in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teral
Helpy McHelphelp
DOOP Secretary
|
|
Originally posted by SORF: i think only mods should be able to post the finales. we usually have several If by "usually" you mean "for October 2005" then you are correct. And I think you missed the part where the moderators said they have no intention of wasting even 5 seconds of their time on POTM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
zoidyzoid
Professor
|
|
Originally posted by totalnerduk: 1. You get to nominate ONE person, and SECOND a previous nomination (at a later time if necessary). POTM nomination threads will be started three days before the end of the month, and closed at the end of the third day.
2. You can't nominate yourself, fake accounts, or anybody who is less than a Starship Captain in rank.
3. You are allowed to nominate past winners - if they deserve a nomination, then they deserve recognition. Having already won doesn't mean that they can no longer be honoured for being fantastic.
4. POTM polls must be created by the moderator who closes the POTM thread, in order to prevent "fake" polls.
5. POTM winners are required to give a short acceptance speech. If they are unable to deliver this speech to PEEL, then their immediate runner-up will be crowned POTM in their place.
6. Moderators, Administrators, and custom-rank holders cannot be POTM's.
My thoughts: 1. Sounds fine, but 3 days may be a bit brief? 2. The Starship Captain restriction is just silly. Quality doesn't depend on post count. I doubt you'll find many potential nominees that are lower than SC (due to the whole becoming-established thing you mentioned), but those that do exist deserve a chance. After all, it is supposed to be POT Month. 3. Having said that, it usually ends up being more of a general popularity contest that a true search for the month's best poster, so allowing multiple victories doesn't seem like a good idea. 4. Sounds reasonable. 5. The 'acceptance speech' thing is fine, but don't strip people of their title if they can't post one in time due to life/ work/ school or whatever. Unfair. 6. Why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SeanStud
Crustacean
|
|
Dear Ms. Segal my name is Sean Solomon and I was wondering if you are singal ? If so would you be interested in being friends my e-mail address is BigSexxxyNash@aol.com. I also think you are very pretty and have a good since of humor and I also think a women that can fight and act sasy and pretty at the same time is very sexy
|
|
|
|
|
Nixorbo
UberMod
DOOP Secretary
|
|
... ... ... ... ... ::blinks::
Normally I'd delete idiotic posts. I can't bring myself to with this one.
|
|
|
|
|