Poster Of The Month: "Official" Rule Discussion

[Reply #320 on:]

Can we have a poll about this? I like polls. I'm not bothered about the outcome, I just want to vote for something.

[Reply #321 on:]

Why isn't m0le or Bear or DaveMason on this? This is bullshitBooks.

[Reply #322 on:]

Why isn't m0le or Bear or DaveMason on this? This is bullshit.

Cause they didn't get any nominations.

[Reply #323 on:]

They got two each.  Try reading.

Wow SOS, way to be an asshole.  We are allowed to nominate who we want.  You are clearly over reaching with your mod status in here by deleting our noms because you didn't agree with them.

Oh, and I just reread the rules from Marc, and our nominations are clearly acceptable.  Better redo the fucking poll.

[Reply #324 on:]

Yeah,add me!

And give me modship! I will do literally anything for modship.

Show spoiler

Except that, TMC.

[Reply #325 on:]

Oh, and I just reread the rules from Marc, and our nominations are clearly acceptable.  Better redo the fucking poll.

The name of the award "Poster of the Month" can be interpreted as "best person who is a poster of the month", in which case whether that person posted or not is irrelevant, or as "person who posted best during the month", in which case M0le, Bear, and DaveMason would be ineligible for this July.

Fortunately, this disagreement can be easily settled by consulting the proper authorities. Where's one of those PotM mods that are supposed to be making decisions around here?

[Reply #326 on:]

Xanfor, though the title implies it should be someone from the month, the rules do not explicitly say the potm must be a peeler that posted in the past month.  Therefore the nomination process can be left up to interpretation. 

Considering that 90% of peel is spam nowadays, a person making nominations has a right to nominate others from the past - based on the simple fact that their previous contributions were better than any current contributions.  Looking at the potm forum, we see a thread were people are able to quote statements they see worthy of a nomination.  That thread does not even outwardly state that the posts must be from this current year. 

Even though this thread may say July 2012, that could be seen as just the month the person is "winning" and does not have to be a post from that period.

[Reply #327 on:]

Yeah,add me!

And give me modship! I will do literally anything for modship.

Show spoiler

Except that, TMC.

Hey, I was just asking on tallywhacker's behalf. You DO realize he's higher up the totem pole than I am, right?

[Reply #328 on:]

Xanfor, though the title implies it should be someone from the month, the rules do not explicitly say the potm must be a peeler that posted in the past month.

True. Therefore, the question is, is the implication of the title merely that -- an implication -- and not required because the broadest interpretation of the rules permits it, or is the broadest interpretation of the rules invalid because the rules have historically served to support said implication.

Considering that 90% of peel is spam nowadays [...]

I can't consider this in any way but hypothetically.

[Reply #329 on:]

Yeah,add me!

And give me modship! I will do literally anything for modship.

Show spoiler

Except that, TMC.

Hey, I was just asking on tallywhacker's behalf. You DO realize he's higher up the totem pole than I am, right?

First up - you don't speak for me.

Second - watch your ass. Plenty of posters out there could fill your shoes.

[Reply #330 on:]

Just a joke. No need to throw your weight around. Sorry.

[Reply #331 on:]

The rules do not explicitly state whether or not posting in the month is a requirement of being included in the poll. Here are the only points in the formalized rules at which it mentions who can be in the poll:

No POTM of the last 12 months is eligible to be become POTM in the current poll. So don't nominate them. A list of recent POTM winners will be posted in the nomination thread.

Up to 10 nominees (with the most nominations) will be included in a poll to be started by a POTM moderator after the nomination process is over.

Hell, the rules don't even explicitly state that one must be a poster to appear in the poll! I won't say my personal opinion one way or the other on this current subject, but I will say that we should certainly decide in this upcoming month how the community feels on this issue. For the current month, I would favor just going with what has been posted/decided on by the mods (not that I really have a "vote" in the matter).


Edit: And, as far as the deleting nominations, per the rules (in fact, the first rule) we all do indeed have the right to nominate whomever we want, as long as that individual is a PEELer. I guess that by proxy clears up the issue of if one must be a poster to appear in the poll, since one must be a PEELer to receive a nomination and only the at most top ten can get into the poll.

Also, perhaps this discussion should be moved to the POTM Rules thread?

[Reply #332 on:]

And weiner brings back my point.  SOS is over reaching with his modding, cutting out those he personally feels should not be nominated.

Seriously dude, not cool.

[Reply #333 on:]

I think it's in poor taste to nominate posters who have been MIA in the month the award is held in. Just my opinion.

I also think it's in poor taste to go after a moderator in the public forum. 

[Reply #334 on:]

Looking at the potm forum, we see a thread were people are able to quote statements they see worthy of a nomination.  That thread does not even outwardly state that the posts must be from this current year. 

Yes it does.

• Make sure your link/quote is for the relevant month
  

Try reading.

PS - anyone who thinks the editing of the nom and voting threads was motivated by anything other than humour is mistaken and needs to seriously lighten up (oxymoron intended).

[Reply #335 on:]

Eh, regardless of the humorous motivation, it's usually best to consider the end perception of such actions before doing it unannounced. I usually think myself someone to notice when things are done in jest, and I thought the nomination deletions seemed a bit odd. You know what I mean, Sharky Bean?

I think it's in poor taste to nominate posters who have been MIA in the month the award is held in. Just my opinion.

Sure, I think the winner of the month should have posted in that month (even if I want Jan-Michael Vincent to win someday...), but the current issue is there is nothing in the rules that explicitly prohibits this from happening. I would propose opening a poll with the options of either allow or not allowing those who have not posted in the month from appearing in the poll to settle this discussion openly, fairly, and once and for all.

[Reply #336 on:]

Considering that 90% of peel is spam nowadays

That's what the fuck I'm talkin' about!

On topic though, why be a douche and nominate people who haven't posted for monthS.  You only wanted to stir up shit, which you now accomplished.  Resolve it peacefully or fuck off.

[Reply #337 on:]

Ask and you shall receive, weiner me old salt.

Very much with you on that SpamMaN.

That was actually a Freudian typo but I'll keep it.

[Reply #338 on:]

SOS, if you read what you posted, it says relevant month.  Again, not year.  So I could nominate anyone who has ever posted in the month of July.  Just saying.

Randi, where exactly should I point out that a mod is abusing their power?  The current rules say I can nominate who ever the hell I want.  Doesn't matter if hes trying to be "funny" by deleting posts (which makes no sense at all) he deleted the posts because he didn't agree with them.  Bottom line.  I think you would feel a little differently if he deleted your nominations to frisco because he didn't like him.

And finally, this is a freaking online forum.  Do people really give this much of a shit who wins?  I don't give a crap about if the rules change, my whole point is SOS needs to think about who he is insulting when he deletes posts that aren't filled with spam or porn.

[Reply #339 on:]

SOS, if you read what you posted, it says relevant month.  Again, not year.  So I could nominate anyone who has ever posted in the month of July.  Just saying.

Now you're just being contrary and pedantic. How on earth do posts from previous years fall into the category of 'relevant'? Secondly, you'll notice that there are sparkly gifs dotted around that thread which clearly state which month we are in.

Doesn't matter if hes trying to be "funny" by deleting posts (which makes no sense at all) he deleted the posts because he didn't agree with them.  Bottom line.

I got rid of them cause they were bloody stupid and contrary to the established "rules" that most sensible PEELers don't need a step-by-step instruction booklet to follow. Your DVD player manual doesn't say "Ensure you don't chop up your DVD player with an axe and flush the bits down the toilet", it assumes a modicum of common sense.

[Reply #340 on:]

And common sense and past practices shows that we could nominate who ever the hell we wanted whenever we wanted.

You wouldn't be so angry and defensive if I wasn't right. 

[Reply #341 on:]

Believe me, it would take a lot more than this nonsense to get me angry. Just because people don't acquiesce to your opinion doesn't make them "angry".

Having said that, I actually would have grounds to be angry since you have declared without evidence or justification my motives and attitude. And now you've resorted to the pathetic debate tactic of:

You wouldn't be so angry and defensive if I wasn't right. 

Pitiable.

[Reply #342 on:]

Your DVD player manual doesn't say "Ensure you don't chop up your DVD player with an axe and flush the bits down the toilet", it assumes a modicum of common sense.

You're talking to somebody from a country where warning labels often come with new clothing, advising them not to iron the item whilst wearing it. I wouldn't be surprised if that phrase (along with a number of other suggestions) makes it into the next set of DVD instructions manuals printed for that region.

Hm. "99 things not to do with a DVD Player" might make an interesting thread for if/when test threads go out of style again.

Just because people don't acquiesce to your opinion doesn't make them "angry".

What if they're not acquiescing to the opinion that they're not angry?

[Reply #343 on:]

Believe me, it would take a lot more than this nonsense to get me angry. Just because people don't acquiesce to your opinion doesn't make them "angry".

Having said that, I actually would have grounds to be angry since you have declared without evidence or justification my motives and attitude. And now you've resorted to the pathetic debate tactic of:

You wouldn't be so angry and defensive if I wasn't right.  

Pitiable.

I dont know how you can state there is a lack of evidence.  Do you want to tell me you deleted/edited posts for reasons other than you didn't agree with them?  As already established by multiple peelers the rules are left up to interpretation.  

Its pretty pathetic that you would call it pitiable that I was trying to be a bit lighthearted about the darn thing.  You say you aren't angry, but your posts present differently.

You can go ahead and make jokes about people being too stupid to follow common sense, but generally speaking companies when challenged have to go by past practices.  Past practices indicate that we can do whatever we like.    Its not about what is common sense anyways.  If you didn't want it to be any peelers ever, then that should have been specified, especially considering we could make nominations based on past peelers having overall better posts than current peelers.  

TNUK, I don't know where you buy your clothes when in the states, but I've never seen that statement.  Though, I wouldn't want to argue with you about it because you've "spent more time in the US than Americans have spent in other states"  Clearly, you must be the expert.

Oh, and should some clothing come with warnings as such, I would find it a good thing.  There are, as you've met tnuk, plenty of people in the US that would need those specific instructions because they are mentally unable to realize things that we would consider to be common sense.  I certainly would rather have a label telling my students not to iron while in the clothes than to have them hurt themselves over something that you think is retarded.

Anyways, since I've made my point that SOS deleted posts that he shouldn't have (which you've only since proven again and again) I'm out. 

[Reply #344 on:]

TNUK, I don't know where you buy your clothes when in the states, but I've never seen that statement.  Though, I wouldn't want to argue with you about it because you've "spent more time in the US than Americans have spent in other states"  Clearly, you must be the expert.

Wow, sarcasm. That's original! I take it that you're referring to this:

I'm willing to bet that I've spent more time in America by now than most Americans will ever spend outside their own state.

You will note that what I said was that I'd be willing to bet on having spent more time in the US than most Americans will spend outside their own states. This was said to illustrate that when somebody else said I didn't know what I was talking about when commenting on America, they weren't entirely in possession of all the facts. Here's a tip: if you're going to misquote somebody out of context for the purposes of trying to mock them, make sure they're not able to bring up both the words they actually used and the proper context.

Anyhow, to get back on topic, the deleted posts were spam, made for the purposes of being foolish, and therefore rightfully deleted. The ensuing discussion was moved, and it has been established that the nominations were not (as has been incorrectly attested) valid according to the rules, were therefore not something that should have been posted or taken seriously, and were not valuable content that should have been preserved as wisdom for the ages, I can't see why anybody would get bent out of shape over their removal (unless, I suppose, they were simply enjoying the attention generated by the argument over nothing).

The reasoning that you've presented for the way you nominated was spotty, at best. I can't fathom how you think it's worth arguing with the moderators over the issue, given that you were trolling in the first place (in collusion with Books, posting as Bianca).

Oh, before you respond angrily to my horrible, slanderous accusations of trolling, I should point out that this seems to be your defense:

TMC, as far as 3 goes - I havent posted on peel in nearly 2 years, long before you re-did any of this shit.  Therefore it could be simply stated that I saw Bianca's post and quoted it (as I did) because that is how things used to be.

Hm. Let's take a look at how true that is, shall we?

First up, a quick glance through your post history reveals that several posts were made in April 2012 with you having been regularly active up until that point, and you officially re-surfaced at the end of June 2012. That's not supporting your statement. The discussion over POTM's rebranding occurred during March/April 2011, with changes being implemented in May 2011. You were active on the website in May, June, July and August of 2011, with several posts being made in each of those months.

This is pretty strong evidence in favour of the supposition that you knew full well your nominations would not be acceptable. In addition, you said above that you "reread the rules". Here's the quote:

Oh, and I just reread the rules from Marc, and our nominations are clearly acceptable.  Better redo the fucking poll.

Here they are, for reference.

The very second paragraph is as follows:

At the start of each month, the very best PEELer of the previous month is established in a two-phase nomination and polling process.

I think it's been established beyond doubt here that you just wanted to have an argument. You made posts that were very obviously nonsense, you were then warned (in terms that I assume you understood. You've probably had to read 1984 at some point) that continued nonsense would result in the cleaning of the thread to prevent the nonsense from gaining a foothold, and have proceeded to spew nonsense in the aftermath.

Now that I've helped to clear that up, I'm out.

[Reply #345 on:]

This whole argument is fucking stupid. It should be pretty damn obvious that the poster of the month should be someone from the previous month of that year. If that isn't obvious then what the hell are you doing here. The whole point of this is to choose someone who has been exceptional for the previous month. Not for nominating old spammers from years ago who are no longer on here.

SOS, if you read what you posted, it says relevant month.  Again, not year.  So I could nominate anyone who has ever posted in the month of July.  Just saying.

Now you're just being contrary and pedantic. How on earth do posts from previous years fall into the category of 'relevant'? Secondly, you'll notice that there are sparkly gifs dotted around that thread which clearly state which month we are in.

As for this I would like to point out the following:

[Reply #346 on:]

Uh, BF?  that quote was really from Sharky, thx. 

[Reply #347 on:]

I know it was but it was in your post. I wasn't sure how to show an edit in a quote.

[Reply #348 on:]

If you don't how to edit a post then what the hell are you doing here!

[Reply #349 on:]

Clarification: The post was by Tachyon, the edit was by SoS. To quote the edit is nigh impossible, since no ubbcode meta-tag is generated by PEEL 2 to show what has occured. Bf1221 is basically telling us that she wasn't sure how to quote a post but show that the quoted content was added as an edit by another user. There is in fact no standard way to do this, although there are several possibilities for the representation of this. It's something that I believe most users would have some trouble with, and does not represent "not knowing how to edit a post".

Basic information on how to play with the ubbcode meta-tags that PEEL 2 generates can be found here, but nothing really exists at the moment as a definitive guide to advanced PEELing using ubbcode in a way that will adequately represent the virginity (for lack of a better word) of the source of quotes.

[Reply #350 on:]

This took me approx 10 seconds to do.

[Reply #351 on:]

There, I fixed Bendersfan's quote in a manner superior to all available suggestions.

Can we have a little less arguing where the intent is obvious -- and where the intent isn't obvious, a little more good faith in each other?

[Reply #352 on:]

Thank you Xanny. Now I know What to do if I need to do that again.

[Reply #353 on:]

So I just decided to be a rule-breaking dummy and open the poll for this month's POTM contest. Granted, I did not realize I was breaking the rules, because I had not checked out the rule overview, and had stupidly assumed any old nobody could open the poll each month, as long as they waited at least five days for nominations to more or less wind down.

So, yeah, I'm an asshole. But that's not my (only) point here. It now occurs to me that there's a sort of logic to the previous month's POTM winner (in this case, that's me--a fact that continues to perplex me, but whatever) being in charge of the current month's POTM nomination and voting threads. It's kind of like how the best actor Oscar winner from one year presents the best actress Oscar the following year. Except it's not really anything like that.

Anyway, I feel like this way winning POTM would not just allow a person a modicum of geeky glory and an overinflated sense of self-worth--it would also saddle them with responsibilities. And I'm a huge proponent of winning something, and then being punished in some way for that success. It builds character.

Of course, there are numerous flaws to my reasoning here--can you spot them all?--and I'm mostly just saying all this so as to retroactively justify my own silly and selfish disregard for the well-established rules governing POTM. Still, I'm being at least 30% serious here: I say it's time we stop simply honoring our POTM winners with congratulatory posts on PEEL and a cheeky write-up on the main page of the wiki. We must expect more of them--namely, that for one month they run the very popularity contest that one month prior had honored them.

[Reply #354 on:]

It now occurs to me that there's a sort of logic to the previous month's POTM winner (in this case, that's me--a fact that continues to perplex me, but whatever) being in charge of the current month's POTM nomination and voting threads. It's kind of like how the best actor Oscar winner from one year presents the best actress Oscar the following year. Except it's not really anything like that.

Anyway, I feel like this way winning POTM would not just allow a person a modicum of geeky glory and an overinflated sense of self-worth--it would also saddle them with responsibilities. And I'm a huge proponent of winning something, and then being punished in some way for that success.

Whilst I like this idea, I can see problems with it. Firstly, not everybody who wins POTM is going to be arsed about doing this - we'd end up with several winners per year either not quite understanding what they're supposed to do, making a hash of it despite being told clearly what to do, doing something different because they feel entitled to, and are a humongous fuckbag, or simply deciding not to do any of it. In which case, moderators would have to step in and there might very well be people who get annoyed about it. On the internet.

Your poll is broken, by the way. It should hide the results until it's over, in five days time. Then it should display them for all the world to see. Y'see? You're not some kind of humongous fuckbag and you still managed to get a small detail wrong. Not that yours wasn't a good attempt, but this is why we have people whose job it is to operate and orchestrate things properly.

I'm not saying you should feel bad or anything, but in order that a precedent is not set whereby people are allowed to get away with being idiots or with breaking the rules on purpose (and I must stress that I'm not accusing you of either of those things here) I think that your poll thread should be deleted, and a new one begun by a POTM moderator. Not that I expect my opinion to carry any weight. I fully expect that your poll will be allowed to stand, because it would seem that once a rule is established around here, it is immediately never enforced.

I do think that it would be a good idea to make the winner of POTM do the write-up for the next winner though. If that could possibly be enforced. Which would mean that this time around, you'll be writing one for Tastes Like Fry. So get on with it.

[Reply #355 on:]

You're not some kind of humongous fuckbag

I was agreeing with everything you were saying up until this point, sir.

But yeah, I realize that my poll's messed up. I forgot to set a five-day limit (or whatever it is, though I'm pretty sure it's five days?) for voting, which means I was unable to click the neat little bubble beside the "Only show the results after the poll has expired" option. I'm assuming that's something that can be fixed by an all-powerful mod. But if it's not something that can be fixed, then I'm all for deleting my poll and starting a new one.

Otherwise, though, I don't think it would be necessary to delete the poll. As you allude to, I don't wish to be the poster child for some new rule-breaking precedent--but deleting the current poll, in which people have already voted, might just inspire confusion, chaos, or curmudgeonly comments. And I fear these comments would be directed at whoever (rightfully) closes the poll, as opposed to the idiot (me) who opened the poll in the first place. So that's no good.

Basically, I only endorse the deletion of my original poll if everyone promises to rag on me, and not on SoS or Randi or Xanfor or whoever. I mean, have some decency, people!

I do think that it would be a good idea to make the winner of POTM do the write-up for the next winner though. If that could possibly be enforced. Which would mean that this time around, you'll be writing one for Tastes Like Fry.

I like that idea, too; it's more in-keeping with the spirit of my silly best actor/actress Oscar analogy. I hereby volunteer to do the write-up for the winner of the August POTM contest.

[Reply #356 on:]

The Ms. Peelified poll had the same issue when it was created, but it was promptly corrected.  Give it a few hours for a mod to tweak it.

[Reply #357 on:]

Basically, I only endorse the deletion of my original poll if everyone promises to rag on me, and not on SoS or Randi or Xanfor or whoever. I mean, have some decency, people!

I'm starting to think that either you actually do really hate yourself for no good reason, or you're training to become a world-class masochist. I hereby pledge to complain arbitrarily at you, at any mods who do anything about the poll, and at any who don't do anything about it. I think that's fairer. I mean, I wouldn't want to make anybody feel left out.

Give it a few hours

Not good enough! I demand that it be fixed before it were broken!

[Reply #358 on:]

I'm starting to think that either you actually do really hate yourself for no good reason

Oh, I have my reasons. They're stupid, no doubt, but they're there. In any event, I find PEEL's continued support of me as a human being both flattering and befuddling.

or you're training to become a world-class masochist

Hah, that would be one hell of a training regimen. "Thursday: Stare at yourself in the mirror for a half-hour, hurling as many self-denigrating remarks at your visage, and in as snide a tone, as possible. Naturally, you won't be able to think of many good ones, moron."

[Reply #359 on:]

Quit being befuddled.

Nah, don't do that, it's part of your charm.