Proposed changes to the POTM "contest"

[Reply #80 on:]

 

Originally posted by SeanStud:
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

It's Zapp Brannigan incarnate!

[Reply #81 on:]

My first awareness of "POTM" was TNUK's sig block. Only later did I find out what POTM was. I gotta say, my impression is that TNUK seems to feel that, if the POTM system were fair and reasonable, he would win. He's just pissed off because he recognizes it as a popularity contest, like every vote on any subject in history, and this reminds him of his unplesant experiences in school and life in general as the unpopular guy.

Having never won a popularity contest in my life either, I can somewhat relate to this, but unlike TNUK I got over it a long time ago, and if I were going to campaign against the "unfairness" of it (say, if I were having a psychotic break or a nervous breakdown), I'd certainly pick an arena more signifigant than PEEL's POTM, like being one of those nuts that runs self-funded independent campaigns for president every election year.

My personal feelings about POTM are identical to my feelings about TOTPDs: I find it a bit silly, but as long as somebody else has fun with it, more power to 'em. I remember when I was a young whelp, jockeying with online friends for Botspot (bottom spot) on MUSHes and Topspot on IRC. It was fun at the time, so I honestly don't begrudge any of you who are fans of it.

If you really want to mae it FAIR you would have to take all a user's posts that month, have everyone else rate them (should be a 0-centered scale, like -5 to 5), and tally some kind of average score, perhaps weighted to the number of posts made that month . If this sounds too complicated to you, you're right! It's absurd! And even if you implemented it, it might be more "fair" but it would still be a popularity contest, and unpopular people would still lose, no matte how clever, insiteful, or humorous they find themselves! (some forum software has something like this built in. I find it annoying there, too, and find it just encourages abuse of the forums by people who care more about their ratings than they do about the forums) And you know what? even then, people would still protest the results!!

In conclusion, get over it!

[Reply #82 on:]

 

Originally posted by Gopher:
My first awareness of "POTM" was TNUK's sig block. Only later did I find out what POTM was. I gotta say, my impression is that TNUK seems to feel that, if the POTM system were fair and reasonable, he would win.

He's just pissed off because he recognizes it as a popularity contest, like every vote on any subject in history, and this reminds him of his unplesant experiences in school and life in general as the unpopular guy.

Actually, if the system were fair and reasonable, I reckon that the title POTM would circulate between SJM, Nix, Arch, and DrT every four  months. I'd not even get a look-in. But the point is... wait. Nix is a mod. OK, SJM, Arch, DrT, and Winna. Yeah. Right. The point is that idiots like me who don't deserve it are getting POTM's and fucking crowing about it.

Furthermore, this thread was more or less a joke. I knew I wouldn't accomplish anything, otherwise I wouldn't have put a button up there for people to vote "I hate these proposed changes".

You're right about one thing though. I'm generally not a popular guy. With idiots.

[Reply #83 on:]

  :points at your sig: 'nuff said.

[edit]
And in general, sorry for the inflamitory nature of the original post, particurlarly the first paragraph. Not meaning to make enemies or pick fights here, just having an irritating week.

[edit2] Thanks for finding and bumping one of my PEEL high-points here, winna. Also, with sigs being retroactivelly updated in old posts,  this post makes little sense.

[Reply #84 on:]

Hey, no problem. I don't particularly mind,on account of how you're one hell of a nerd, and if there's one thing we like here, it's nerds.

Yes, I saw the top ten words thing, and was blown away by the nerdiness. It's a good thing.

[Reply #85 on:]

i like the idea of only 1 nomination per member

[Reply #86 on:]

I like that idea too,CrapBag.

[Reply #87 on:]

Yea crapbag...

[Reply #88 on:]

i can't even get it down to 3 let alone 1...if you guys wanna suggest only one, you don't[/b] have to suggest more than 1 person...but nice thought...

[Reply #89 on:]

 

Originally posted by Ben:
Why don't we just forgo the nomination side of it and establish an unrepresentative clique to decide on a short list of monthly candidates and pass it down from on high for us plebs to vote on.

You know, like the PEELies.

We changed that. I'm aware you made that post like 3 years ago, but I assumed it necessary to let you know just in case you didn't already know Ben. 

Also, I like tnuk... I think a lot of people like tnuk. 

[Reply #90 on:]

I agree.

[Reply #91 on:]

I agree with winna but not with no.9 man and when it comes to totalnerduk I could go either way.

[Reply #92 on:]

Also, I like tnuk... I think a lot of people like tnuk. 

I like him too but his hat, his hat must die!

[Reply #93 on:]

I agree with hobbitboy. I could go either way also.

Wait, are we still talking about tnuk?

[Reply #94 on:]

Are we still talking about changes to POTM?

As noticed, POTM was kind of rebooted last month. Although there wasn't a certain consensus on the issue, it has been proposed and supported to make the rule no back-to-back repeat winners. For example, last month's winner, DrThunder88, would not be allowed to win this month. However, he could win again next month. A compromise between the two fronts. Thoughts?

[Reply #95 on:]

I really can't see what's wrong with letting the person with the most votes be the winner.

1) Having one individual win repeatedly because they can repeatedly garner enough support from enough other PEELicans seems fair enough to me (and no doubt people will get sick of the same winner eventually).

2) Having a select few who (between them) always seem to monopolize the title month in and month out because they can repeatedly garner enough support from enough other PEELicans also seems okay given that popularity and/or influence waxes and wanes unpredictably enough over longish periods.

3) Having one individual win repeatedly because a few dedicated individuals conspire to rig the votes is, of course, much less agreeable.

4) Having a select few who (between them) always seem to monopolize the title month in and month out again because of a few dedicated vote riggers is also bad.

But, at present, the democracy fan-boy in me is still confident that PEEL can (and indeed ought to) accept either of the first two cases, should they ever occur. And of the last two cases I'd say that #4 is much more likely than #3 and having a "no consecutive wins" rule in place would do nothing to prevent it.

That's my 2c anyhow.