Poster of the Month Nominations - September 2008

[Reply #40 on:]

FishyJoe - C'mon everybody.  Let's wipe the pseudo off of his title!

You make a valid point. Since this is "no rules POTM", I'm going to nominate Jeff. To make room, I'm unnominating... um... Chay..

[Reply #41 on:]

that's not true DrT i don't have a fake account. just many, many real ones.

[Reply #42 on:]

Wait wait, really... is this "no rules POTM"? Why? We're having uber-POTM in the fall madness... this will need to be continued on as per usual so that the next uber-POTM in 4 years time can have this month included... right?

@Ralph: Aw, Mr Kramer liked that.

[Reply #43 on:]

Okay, then I seriously nominate "None of the above."

[Reply #44 on:]

FYI, every time I read where an Australian has written "No rules," (twice, I guess) I mentally insert, "Just right."

[Reply #45 on:]

FYI, every time I read where an Australian has written "No rules," (twice, I guess) I mentally insert, "Just right."

[Reply #46 on:]

@Ralph: Aw, Mr Kramer liked that.

Anytime.  He appears to be a very intelligent lad.

So what is the "No Rules"  POTM?  If anything goes, then I'll nominate myself again.  Ralph's ego demands no less.

[Reply #47 on:]

Okay, then I seriously nominate "None of the above."

If it is truly "no rules" POTM then Birthdayclown's nomination is valid. And so are my three (revised) nominations:

None of the above
None of the above
None of the above

[Reply #48 on:]

Multiple Noms

Km73 (9)
Bear (8)
Frisco17 (7)
Sinewave (5)
~FazeShift~ (4)
soylentOrange (4)
Javier Lopez (2)
Ben (2)
MrBlonde (2)
Any1else (2)
Mookie427 (2)
AlequalsGREAT (2)
hobbitboy (2)
Archonix (2)
Ralph  Snart (2)
DoctorThunder (2)
M0le (2)

We need more votes before we can make a poll, as tere are too many on 2 noms. And the end of the month has come! Argh!

Okay, then I seriously nominate "None of the above."

If it is truly "no rules" POTM then Birthdayclown's nomination is valid. And so are my three (revised) nominations:

None of the above
None of the above
None of the above

No, that's not valid. That's fucking stupid. Either nominate somebody or don't.

[Reply #49 on:]

Shall we just add 2 extra spots to the poll this month for those tied with 2? PEEL 2 allows us to do that now...

Here's what I have:

Bear 10
km73 9
Frisco17 8
Sine Wave 6
soylentOrange 4
Faze 4
Javier Lopez 2
mookie427 2
ALequalsGREAT 2
hobbitboy 2

Any1else 2
M0le 2
Squeaky 2
MrBlonde 2
DrThunder88 2
Ben 2
Ralph Snart 2
YLB 1
leelaholic 1
kip 1
tylers0421 1
Seattlejohn 1
edel 1
suss6052 1
Jeremy 1
Cinnamod 1
i_c_weiner 1
Archonix 1
Gopher 1
Nixorbo 1
wu_konguk 1
Corvus 1
David A 1
The NDP Party 1
Espon 1
Your Standard Bending Unit 1
Unown-J 1
Zerg 1
FishyJoe 1
bankrupt 1

[Reply #50 on:]

Shall we just add 2 extra spots to the poll this month for those tied with 2? PEEL 2 allows us to do that now...

Tied spots result in arguments. It would be better if we could get a few of those with two votes up to three to remove potential ambiguity.

[Reply #51 on:]

No, I'm saying we have 12 spots in the poll this month. All those with 2 noms make it in.

[Reply #52 on:]

That would require a 17-option poll, according to your numbers.

1. Bear 10
2. km73 9
3. Frisco17 8
4. Sine Wave 6
5. soylentOrange 4
6. Faze 4
7. Javier Lopez 2
8. mookie427 2
9. ALequalsGREAT 2
10. hobbitboy 2
11. Any1else 2
12. M0le 2
13. Squeaky 2
14. MrBlonde 2
15. DrThunder88 2
16. Ben 2
17. Ralph Snart 2

[Reply #53 on:]

Wow, look at the mighty tnuk trying to enforce rules in a supposedly rules-free POTM. Big shocker....

[Reply #54 on:]

BC, please show me where it "Officially" states it's "Rules Free".

I have no problem with it, I just want confirmation.

[Reply #55 on:]

Wow, look at the mighty tnuk trying to enforce rules in a supposedly rules-free POTM. Big shocker....

I'm making suggestions. If you care, and you're only making a legitimate observation (rather than trying to stir up shit, which I presume is your actual intention) then why don't you just go ahead and create the fucking poll?

If it's totally rule-free, why not create a poll with twelve options to vote for you?

What I was trying to do is hasten the nominations process to a conclusion that made sense. I wasn't trying to pin rules up, or to enforce them. You're just trying to start an argument. If you want to be a douchebag, then I'm not going to interfere, it's obviously the only way you can get any pleasure out of life. But don;t drag me or anybody I like into it.

[Reply #56 on:]

Your listing of previous winners in the nominations tally suggests that you agree to the fact that this isn't a normal POTM. With every "we can nominate previous winners?" and "Sweet, there are no rules this month?!" post, the further we got from a traditional POTM contest and no one stepped in to stop it, so now, yes, everyone believes that it is rules free. Therefore, "None of the above" is a valid nomination.

Anyway, I think most of us can agree that this is a good thing. POTM sucks now. Doing something "wacky" can only help it and make it more interesting. This can be the start of getting rid of the old system where we could only nominate non-winners, which clearly sucked clown balls.

[Reply #57 on:]

Actually I agree with BC (God, I feel unclean).  But it would be nice if the header of the first post with the names of the past winners would have something like,

"RULES FREE POTM"

just to make it "official".

Because I want to nominate Ninky's cat.

[Reply #58 on:]

Your listing of previous winners in the nominations tally suggests that you agree to the fact that this isn't a normal POTM. With every "we can nominate previous winners?" and "Sweet, there are no rules this month?!" post, the further we got from a traditional POTM contest and no one stepped in to stop it, so now, yes, everyone believes that it is rules free. Therefore, "None of the above" is a valid nomination.

That's... wow. That's just... I can't believe that you... Oh my God. That. Is. So. Retarded. Just as I begin to think that you could not be more of an asinine idiot with no further agenda than to be as much of a dick as possible purely for the sake of being a dick, you surprise me and swing one notch further out on the scale.

Nominating "none of the above" does not tell anybody who your nomination is actually for. It doesn't actually add anything of note or value to the nominations process, it just shows your disdain for everybody who has posted, who has been nominated, and for the process and contest themselves, in which case, why the fuck would you even bother to come and post in the thread unless you're just trying to stir up shit?

A "rules-free" POTM might keep things interesting, but a totally nominations-free POTM is just a huge waste of time. It's a meta-gag with no punchline, and it's funny for about six femtoseconds.

You are totally despicable. You're spoiling the internet. Get the hell off of it.

[Reply #59 on:]

Yeah, I'm certainly the one who looks like the dick here. Good job, mate.

[Reply #60 on:]

Yeah, I'm certainly the one who looks like the dick here. Good job, mate.

Stop goading me. I swear, if this was real life I would have already begun punching you in the face. If you think you've made me look like a dick, then go giggle to yourself maniacally in the corner. But stop harping on about it, because that's not going to do anything except wind me up a little more.

I really don't care if I do seem like a dick to you. But I find it deeply offensive that you have come waltzing into this thread, picked a fight, and now you're acting like the injured party. You're not.

You're a disgusting little troll, and I want to set you on fire. Were I within acheivable range, I would attempt to do so.

In hindsight, I shouldn't have responded to you at all, I should have just clicked on "report to moderator" underneath your original tnuk-baiting post. I guess that's another thing for you to snigger about in your corner.

Go to your corner.

[Reply #61 on:]

lol at "report to moderator"
You're attempting to get your way and run everything, just like you always do. I called you out on it. That's hardly worthy of a report to moderator.  You didn't agree with ShepardofShark's nominations, so you call it fucking stupid and leave it out of your nominations tally. Unfortunately for you, you're not King of PEEL.

And before you say, "I thought you were done with me and Ralph," this is far different than just popping in a thread and calling your girlfriend fat. This is me being sick of you thinking there's only the TNUK way and nothing else.

[Reply #62 on:]

lol at "report to moderator"
You're attempting to get your way and run everything, just like you always do. I called you out on it.

Actually, I wasn't. I was making a suggestion, which the general population of PEEL are free to ignore if they so wish. You didn't call anybody out on anything. You made a post that was clearly intended to be inflammatory, and was just shit-stirring.

That's hardly worthy of a report to moderator.

It's the sort of thing that's already gotten you banned.

You didn't agree with ShepardofShark's nominations, so you call it fucking stupid and leave it out of your nominations tally.

Well, duh. The sky is blue. Trees grow upwards. Special is special. Today's special is $6.95. Any other pearls of wisdom for us? How in the hell am I supposed to tally a nomination that is effectively for nobody, smart guy?

Unfortunately for you, you're not King of PEEL.

Fortunately for you, you mean. It's not really my misfortune that I don;t have to pay the bills or deal with "internal server fehler" messages.

And before you say, "I thought you were done with me and Ralph," this is far different than just popping in a thread and calling your girlfriend fat.

No, it's not. Clearly you're not done with me. Which is very much my misfortune.

This is me being sick of you thinking there's only the TNUK way and nothing else.

There's always another way. It's quite often the wrong way.

Why on earth is it acceptable for you to be sick of me thinking that I've got a decent idea for herding this particular field of cats, and sharing it, but it's not OK for me to report you to a moderator for being an ass because only being an ass brings any meaning to your life? Huh?

I didn't notice you attempting to tally votes because there might be some kind of problem thanks to the dearth of nominations this close to the end of the month. Until you decide to become helpful, stop lumping criticism on those who actually try to take a positive step. "Calling somebody out", for the record, is not being helpful. Especially not "calling them out" on doing something that was done with the best of intentions. You can't read my mind. You don't have a clue what my intentions might be, so don't try to second-guess them Clown.

As for reporting you to a moderator, that's exactly what I'm going to do.

[Reply #63 on:]

Serious business.

[Reply #64 on:]

WAH shut up you two.

I am in the "what the hell is going on" pool with Ralph right now. I haven't even MADE a vote because I'm still fucking confused. It was only kinda mentioned halfway through last page that this was "no rules" POTM so, like it has been said, I have been waiting for official confirmation.
And yes, it would have been nice if it could have been mentioned in the first post that this is how the voting was going to be cast. (I personally think I new & fresh thread should be made so we can cast our votes properly -  I think alot of people are confused right now)

I don't need to read about you two bickering about other crap. Honestly tnuk, why did you even BITE with the "none of the above" post?? Clearly you could easily ignore the suggestion because it was a non-vote. You really know better than that.

Can we just get back to the voting? Please make a final decision and announcement about what the fuck is going on in regards to WHO we can/can't vote for because that's all the rest of us care about. tnuk & BC - just stop stirring eachother up already.

Rahh..

[Reply #65 on:]

Ninaka pooh, anybody/anything would/should be eligible, whether it be your cat or "none of the above." Placing restrictions on a rules-free competition simply because you don't like someone's suggestion is really, really gay.

So's your cat.

*hugs*

[Reply #66 on:]

Okay... (why couldn't this just have been said at the start of this insanity in the first place?? doesn't matter, we can't change that now..)

Thankyou regardless. (*ignores your remark about my cat!*)

Will consider my votes now.. 

[Reply #67 on:]

I believe that "rules-free" means "you can nominate previous winners," not that it is totally "rules-free" (as in no previous rules apply period).

Jean-Michael Vincent was never a poster. None of the Above isn't a poster. However, Jean-Michael Vincent has appeared in the poll before. It depends on the spirit of the nomination, but, since there's no actual way to measure the spirit of the nomination, count it unless there's a tie, inwhich case it would be dumped in favor the the real poster.

[Reply #68 on:]

Yes, but that denies us the opportunity to see Velour Fog battle it out with Asian Porn. Which is better? The world may never know.

[Reply #69 on:]

ME

[Reply #70 on:]

So what say we close this poll as it is, start a new one with the "Rules Free" rules.  That will plastered in the header so there is no confusion.

I agree with i.c. w. - we should at least have the rule that it has to be actual posters (or their fake accounts).  Otherwise we'll be getting inane shit like "Lassie", "Chay's Cock" and other off-the-wall crap.

So, what do others think?

[Reply #71 on:]

If we can renominate people, and that person wins, how long until we can nominate them again?  There should be at least a year limit I would say.

[Reply #72 on:]

Chay's cock

[Reply #73 on:]

WAH shut up you two.

I am in the "what the hell is going on" pool with Ralph right now. I haven't even MADE a vote because I'm still fucking confused. It was only kinda mentioned halfway through last page that this was "no rules" POTM so, like it has been said, I have been waiting for official confirmation.
And yes, it would have been nice if it could have been mentioned in the first post that this is how the voting was going to be cast. (I personally think I new & fresh thread should be made so we can cast our votes properly -  I think alot of people are confused right now)

I don't need to read about you two bickering about other crap. Honestly tnuk, why did you even BITE with the "none of the above" post?? Clearly you could easily ignore the suggestion because it was a non-vote. You really know better than that.

Where did I "bite" on that topic? BirthdayCunt accused me of trying to run the show.

Can we just get back to the voting? Please make a final decision and announcement about what the fuck is going on in regards to WHO we can/can't vote for because that's all the rest of us care about.

Nominations have to come before voting. Which would be nice.

tnuk & BC - just stop stirring eachother up already.

Let's make one thing clear. This jackass stirred me up. I'm not in the business of stirring. I'm responding to this douche purely because he's raised my blood pressure so fucking high that if I don't find some form of vent, I'll have a goddamned aneurysm.

Rahh..

That's exactly how I feel.

[/quote]

Ninaka pooh, anybody/anything would/should be eligible, whether it be your cat or "none of the above." Placing restrictions on a rules-free competition simply because you don't like someone's suggestion is really, really gay.

Friggin' retard. How is "none of the above" even remotely close to a valid suggestion? It's a wonderfully postmodernist suggestion for you, I'm sure. But it's so dreadfully 1992 for the rest of us.

I never made any rules, or placed any fucking restrictions. I made a tally of nominations given so far, and ignored your suggestions because they were made of shit with shit frosting, wrapped in a glaze of shit, and baked over a fire of dried shit.

I have no authority over POTM. I don't want any. I'm not making a bid to seize meaningless power here. This is not Munich, and I'm not leading a putsch. Get the fuck over me, Clown. All I did was suggest that perhaps we ought to have a definitive selection for the poll, and that we ought to ignore your own worthless "contribution".

If somebody wants to ignore me and write "None of the above" as having had four nominations, that's fine and fucking dandy. I'm not, as you have so keenly pointed out, you master of cutting insight, the "King of PEEL". I'm not making the POTM poll because there's so much confusion I don;t want to be the one who adds to it.

However, I *am* making a new nominations thread. And I'm going to set out a few "rules" that people are free to follow or ignore as they damn well please. Because Ninaka suggested it, and it is not without merit.

New Thread