Poster Of The Month: "Official" Rule Discussion

[Reply #120 on:]

I think we should either set a small, hard limit like three, and let multiple nominations be counted, or, allow a larger number like five and ignore multiple nominations. The old way of doing things only allowed three, but I can't remember whether multiple nominations were counted. I think it depended on who made the poll.

TOTPMB!

[Reply #121 on:]

Back in the days it was 3 noms, no multiple.

[Reply #122 on:]

I never counted multiples. Except once I think in a tie break situation for who got on the poll.

But in essence I like the multiple idea. If someone thinks a PEELer deserves all of their noms then who are we to say no.

[Reply #123 on:]

Afair most tie breakers were decided by whoever got their nomination first by most people back when rules were still followed.

[Reply #124 on:]

The time factor "rule" seems a bit unfair to me. Are people not allowed to take a PEEL hiatus without penalty?

[Reply #125 on:]

That's just how it was done back in the days. First come wins

[Reply #126 on:]

The time factor "rule" seems a bit unfair to me. Are people not allowed to take a PEEL hiatus without penalty?

As much as it would amuse me to say yes, it would also be hypocritical.

[Reply #127 on:]

Questions to consider before this next month's POTM, considering previous suggestions:

Are multiple wins allowed? If so, are they limited to one per year?

How long will noms be open? When does poll come up?

How many noms make it to the poll? How many days until you need a runoff poll if there's a tie?

I'm asking this now because I've neard a lot of suggestions but no consensus on how this should be revamped and I'm a little confused.

[Reply #128 on:]

I'm still not sure about whether multiple nominations should be counted, but how does this sound for everything else:

• Nobody can win more than once a year.
• Nominations are open all month in the proper specified thread.
• The poll will open on the first of the next month, and stay open for seven days.
• If there is a tie, the poll will stay open until the tie is broken. (Is this feasible?)
• Ten noms should normally make the poll, unless more are needed due to an equal number of nominations.

[Reply #129 on:]

I like the 10 noms make the poll (+ leeway) rule. It's flexible, like my woman.

But we have time to get input from PEELers other than Booze before the next one, surely.

How does the PEELpulous want this to work?

[Reply #130 on:]

Ten noms to a poll? Keep it in the Currency Exchange thread, Xanfor.

[Reply #131 on:]

So wait...nominations are open all month? I am perplexed. Does that mean nominations for April should have already started?

I think it should be either 3 or 5 noms per poster, really. And if someone is nommed repeatedly in the same post it won't be counted more than once.

[Reply #132 on:]

I feel like capping the noms at three or five won't accomplish much, since people are fond of double- or triple- (or quadruple-) nomming the same person each month. But I think, as long as you clarify that a poster is allowed three (or five) distinct nominations, you should be good.

And I'm thinking Xanfor meant that nominations should be open for the current month at the beginning of said month (so, yeah, we should have been nominating for this month since April 1st). I guess the thinking is that, if the nominations thread stays open for a whole month, we're more likely to get a lot of PEELers contributing to the nomination/voting process. You can advertise all month in the test thread, and maybe a few people will actually wander over here and make their nominations.

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding him, which is also possible.

[Reply #133 on:]

I think 3 noms allowing multiple noms for the same person.  Very few people actually utilize the multiple noms, so my guess is that it rarely affects the outcome.

I'd just let whomever wants to start the next potm thread start a new potm thread... probably somwhere between the end of the month we're currently in, to the first week possibly of the next month.... then whenever it's been open for awhile, somebody counts the noms and we make a poll.  The way that it's been working lately though, is that whoever opens the original thread has to stick around to open the poll...  Although I guess the moderators could edit the thread to include a poll too... and in the past multiple people would count the nominations to cross-reference each other's numbers. 

Basically, I think the thread creation for each PotM should be elastic, and that it will natural work itself out.  You probably need a rule about there only being one PotM open at the same time though.  Poll creator can decide if the poll has a time limit, possibly?

[Reply #134 on:]

Some elasticity can be good, but it can be seen as unfair (especially the "when are nominations over" thing). At first I thought leaving the poll open all month would be a great way to avoid that, but then the nomination process isn't on people's mind as much anymore and you get things like "I want to change my nominations because someone else turned out to be a better poster in the month after all". So, maybe the first X days of a new months for nominations and then Y days of voting?

For the nominations to poll process: Why not simply place the top Z (for Z some small number > 1) nominated PEELers on the final poll? If there's a tie, don't break the tie by some artificial measure but let the final poll do the breaking (e.g., have more than Z people in the poll in that case).

Summary suggestion with values I like for X,Y,Z:

• During the first X=4 days of a month, allow everyone to enter 3 nominations (multi-nominations allowed; anyone can open this thread as soon as the new month started and it's X days from thread start time)
• Put the top Z=5 nominated PEELers on the poll (more if there was a tie; this should probably be done in a new thread; possibly by a mod?)
• Let everyone vote during the next Y=3 days (results only showing after poll timed out automatically).
• Have 1-day run-offs if required.

I'm not dictating here though; just making suggestions.

PS: added "discussion" to the thread title. Once something is agreed upon, there should probably a new sticky thread giving the actual rules.

[Reply #135 on:]

I'm okay with [-mArc-]'s suggestion but personally I'd prefer it if…

• X and Y were longer (e.g. seven days), perhaps with that proviso that they can be closed early if, say, 48 hours pass with no new nominations/votes.
• multi-nominations didn't count. (I don't know why but they really bug me for some reason.)

As I've said before, if PotM was actually about the PEELer contributions from that month I would have no problem with consecutive wins but as it is not I suppose a 12 month limit between wins is an acceptable compromise.

[Reply #136 on:]

As long as it won't end in the same 12 people winning again and again it's okay, but if that would happen the rules should definitely be changing again

[Reply #137 on:]

I'm okay with [-mArc-]'s suggestion but personally I'd prefer it if…

• X and Y were longer (e.g. seven days), perhaps with that proviso that they can be closed early if, say, 48 hours pass with no new nominations/votes.
• multi-nominations didn't count. (I don't know why but they really bug me for some reason.)

As I've said before, if PotM was actually about the PEELer contributions from that month I would have no problem with consecutive wins but as it is not I suppose a 12 month limit between wins is an acceptable compromise.

I like the idea of X,Y and Z all being equal to seven. Not entirely sure why. But it seems like a good number. A week of nominating, a week of voting, and one choice for each day of the week. There's a certain symmetry to it.

I'd like to see multiple nominations being allowed if we're having less than 10 on the poll though. Again, not entirely sure why, it just seems fitting.

Hm. Something mentioned in one of the other stickies was a "nominate and second" system, in which somebody would be nominated, then seconded. Once seconded, their place in the poll would be secure. Worth considering maybe?

[Reply #138 on:]

The only thing I think should be inplemented for sure is a reason for nominating each person. That would generally assure that the person being nominated is because they're a good poster, and not because everyone loves them and wants their babies.

I'm guilty of nominating people I like in the past, just because I couldn't think of anyone else, and I'm almost certain other people are as well.

But if we're going to be implementing this "once a year" rule, would we be starting it from the beginning of this year, say the three people who've won this year can't win until 2012, or are we saying say, myself for example, who last won in December 2010 (or was it November?) can't win again until December this year?

I like the seven day thing as well, though. That makes it a little easier for the people who maybe only log in once or twice a week. If they wanted to nominate people but the noms were only open for 3/4 days, they might miss their window and it could discourage them from then voting, if people they wanted to nominate didn't make the poll and they didn't make the poll by one vote.

I dunno if any of this is clear

[Reply #139 on:]

The only thing I think should be inplemented for sure is a reason for nominating each person.

Yes. I like this. We used to do it. I think we've all gotten too lazy. I know I have.

As I've said before, if PotM was actually about the PEELer contributions from that month

Nutmeg's suggestion brings this a shade closer to reality. I think that if we have to have a reason for nominating somebody, then perhaps we could simply say that consecutive wins should be disallowed. That way somebody who wins April would be ineligible for May's poll, but would be allowed to have their awesomeness recognised again in June. Of course, this might mean that DrThunder wins every other month, and that we get two or three other candidates racking up wins in between.

I do like the idea of not being able to win more than once within a twelve month period, from the perspective of getting more variety in there, but at some point we do need to recognise that maybe there are people who do genuinely deserve to win all the time. Perhaps. I mean, I'm not entirely sure about any of this to be honest. I'm just throwing out random thoughts and hoping that one of them either makes sense or is worth listening to.

I do think that it should be a moderator who opens the poll each month. I really do think that. Nominations, meh, I think that should be anybody who sees that there's no nomination thread open yet. But mods should be making the polls.

Incidentally, I heartily approve of the moderator choices for the subforum.

[Reply #140 on:]

But how valid does the reason for nomination have to be?
Would "because he/she made me laugh" be enough? Or "because he/she is awesome"?

If you have to give a reason like "because of this post/photo/action" it could discourage some people from nominating since not everyone wants to save posts they liked until they can nominate.

[Reply #141 on:]

I wouldn't say they have to link to each post that made them want to nominate this person, but if they can remember the reason that they did, simply saying "I nominate X because they posted the cool picture of/the awesome pun about/the amazing argument against/ etc... Y.

That would at least give a little bit of credability to the whole thing. Instead of saying "Oh, I nominate X because he/she is my BFF on PEEL and they deserve all the high fives"

If a particular post made you laugh, then of course that's a valid reason. I know I've nominated Xanfor because he's made me spit out food/drink with some of the things he's said.

[Reply #142 on:]

Well, I am all for it, just saying it shouldn't be too complicated reasons.

[Reply #143 on:]

Well no, it's not gonna be because they posted several awesome things, I for instance think that nominating tnuk because he's so good at driving people down through long contrived arguments is okay. Because it's awesome and it usually makes me laugh.

But liking a picture or something is reason enough I'd say, it just means that people are actually giving some thought to the reason why.

I'd even say that nominating someone because they have an awesomeness that has not yet been recognised would be a good enough reason e.g. El Man, who I think should have won, and I'm saddened that I haven't nominated him many times before.

[Reply #144 on:]

I for instance think that nominating tnuk because he's so... awesome... would be a good enough reason.

This should be at the top of every nominations thread.

[Reply #145 on:]

I denominated tnuk for being to full of himself... and food



And I agree with your points there, Nutty. Very well thought through.

[Reply #146 on:]

I for instance think that nominating tnuk because he's so... awesome... would be a good enough reason.

This should be at the top of every nominations thread.

Can you also denominate people for twisting words

e: failquote.

[Reply #147 on:]

That is actually a good question, can you denominate people if you have a valid reason?

Like say "I de-nominate xyz for starting a flame war"

[Reply #148 on:]

I like the idea of X,Y and Z all being equal to seven.

Definitely fine with me, too. Just remember that this means no POTM April until May is half over. Don't know if people's attention span is that long around here
X=Y=Z=5?

Hm. Something mentioned in one of the other stickies was a "nominate and second" system, in which somebody would be nominated, then seconded. Once seconded, their place in the poll would be secure. Worth considering maybe?

That sounds like it neither makes things more fair nor more easy...

Re: reasons: Has a plus and a minus to it. It might cause people to not bother to nominate anyone.

Re: denominating: That would get ugly pretty quickly... Having a popularity contest is bad enough

[Reply #149 on:]

Yeah, that would probably hurt peoples feelings. Not the best idea to have denominations.

I agree with reasons probably causing people not to nominate, and I wouldn't say that you have to have a reason for every single person, every single month, but for the sake of keeping this what it's meant to be - i.e. not a popularity contest - then it might be a good idea to encourage people to have a reason to nominate someone.

[Reply #150 on:]

X=Y=Z= 5 sounds... well, I dunno. I like having ten options to choose from in a poll, personally. I don't know how satisfying a five-option poll would be. X and Y could be as short as a day and I'd be fine with it, as long as I get ten options to choose from when casting my vote.

Yes, I know, I'm... unusual.

That sounds like it neither makes things more fair nor more easy...

I disagree. Whilst it's certainly not fairer, it's definitely easier. For example, Poster 1 nominates Tweek. Poster 2 seconds this, securing Tweek's place in the poll and nominates Xanfor. Poster 3 disagrees and does not second this, but nominates Bend-err. Poster 4 seconds Xanfor, securing his place in the poll, and nominates svip. Poster 5 nominates Nutmeg. Poster 6 seconds Bend-err and nominates SpaceCase. Poster 7 nominates DrThunder and seconds SpaceCase. Bam. Four poll slots filled within seven posts. Nominations would be finished with nice and quickly, and when the moderators create the poll, they've got a much easier job of seeing who's got the ten available slots (yeah, I'm not going to drop this ten options thing ).

Obviously, you wouldn't be able to self-nominate or second yourself, but it would be a fast and easy way to fill up the poll - also if you only had one nomination and one second to give, you'd (hopefully) be giving some consideration as to why you're nominating or seconding this person.

Re: denominations, I agree that's a bad idea. Not so much because it would hurt people's feelings, but it would quickly make the production of a poll slightly more difficult.

I agree with Nutmeg's suggestion per encouraging people to have a reason, rather than making this a hard-and-fast rule.

I think it'd also be good to set a format. For example... if you've got three nominations, they could be strongly encouraged to be laid out like this:

• winna for contributing to the POTM rules discussion,
  
• [-mArc-] for fixing the indicator "lights" in the vault,
  
• and futurefreak for bringing the tragic loss of a PEELer to everybody's attention.
  
  
• Lists are awesome. Also, not adding this extra bullet point breaks my post for some reason. 

That's three nominations laid out in a bulleted list, with the usernames in bold - not the most mentally taxing use of UBB tags, but still good practice for newbies, and each one of them has a short reason attached. It's simple, it's something that could include links to posts if the poster can be arsed to look them up, and it's easy enough for somebody scanning the thread to tally up the nominations by just looking for the stuff in bold.
Of course, it's not something massively important, but if we're revamping things and setting stuff down in stone, I feel that it merits consideration. Even if it's only to say "no, this is stupid", it merits some consideration.

[Reply #151 on:]

Really not convinced by the seconding and don't see the point of 10 options (but the latter I don't see any real problem either; as this question is somewhat independent of all the other variables, let's have a poll ).

Regarding the encouraged reasons: Sounds good. How about putting a template like this into the sticky-to-be:

Code: [Select]

[*] [b]NAME1[/b] - Reason1
[*] [b]NAME2[/b] - Reason2
[*] [b]NAME3[/b] - Reason3


[Reply #152 on:]

I like. As for the poll to decide how many poll slots there will be in POTM, how many options will it have?

[Reply #153 on:]

I just made an option for everything between 2 and 12. Maybe that wasn't good... But there's no real good way to do this. Both taking the mode of the poll (i.e., what's normally done: the most frequent answer) and taking the weighted mean have problems. Let's just hope the mode doesn't look unfair.

If there is more than 1 obviously roughly equal frequent "spike area", we can do a quick run-off.

[Reply #154 on:]

Are those your real nominations for this month, tnuk? Because I might have to "borrow" them...

I support [-mArc-]'s nomination template idea, but do not support the concept of denominations. That just seems overly complex and subject to potential abuse.

[Reply #155 on:]

Reasons?  Isn't that just going to discourage participation?  I certainly won't be participating if I have to remember why.  Unless bogus reasons are permitted.

[Reply #156 on:]

Are those your real nominations for this month, tnuk? Because I might have to "borrow" them...

They will be unless something happens to change them in the next six days. Feel free to borrow them though.

Reasons?  Isn't that just going to discourage participation?  I certainly won't be participating if I have to remember why.  Unless bogus reasons are permitted.

And that sort of attitude is precisely why I won't be nominating you this month, svip. Seriously, is it that taxing to put a short statement after your nomination to give some clue as to why you've picked them? Is it? No. It's really not.  If you're unable to come up with a reason, then the person you're nominating is clearly not deserving of the award you're nominating them for, are they? You'd just be throwing out names at random.

I would say that the giving of reasons should be strongly encouraged, and that anybody taking svip's stated POV should be made to feel like perhaps they've made poor life choices to be brought to that point.



But seriously. Reasons. Should be encouraged.

[Reply #157 on:]

Until the first people start with "I nominate him/her because I like him/her". Then the whole point of reasons are gone

[Reply #158 on:]

Poor life choices?  Such as spending my time nominating on an Internet forum?  Sure thing, pal.

If you want reasons, stop making it Poster of the Month, make it Post of the Month.  The real problem with PotM around here is that we are first allowed to nominate (and thus think about it) at the end of each month (most times some time into the next month), which makes it hard to remember who said the good stuff and who didn't in the past month.

Most nominations are thus from stuff that had previously just been said.  And thus people are nominated often for the wrong month.  You could argue that we should be allowed to plan our nominations, but I think there is a far better way to ensure a fair judgement.

Rather than saying which guy you like, instead post a quotation of the post you feel is particularly good in a thread (that opens at the beginning of the month), then as the thread gets filled with nominations of posts (not posters), a poll will be posted as the new month arrives.

This means we are basing people on actual posts.  Sure, some will argue that aren't posters supposed to be judged on all their posts rather than one post?  Perhaps, but then again, no one really have the capability to capture all that among the people around here.

And as it turns out, most of you basically nominate people based on a single thing they did within the last 31 days (though mostly 1 or 2).

[Reply #159 on:]

We could of course leave a thread open here for people to link to posts that they feel are deserving of consideration for when the noms eventually come. As such there will be something to refer back to and help people remember the truly awesome things that happened in the previous month.