Let's Settle This - A Vote To Establish How POTM Nominations Should Work

[on:]

So we seem to have a rather strange debate on our hands with regards to what makes someone eligible for POTM. Some people are of the opinion that the content or even existence of someone's posts is irrelevant and that any of the 12,311 PEELers (minus the last 12 winners) should be allowed to be nominated. It has also been suggested that even being a PEELer is an unnecessary criterion.

I would like to remind everyone that the purpose of this contest is to credit

the very best PEELer of the previous month

and I think the rules for nominees should reflect that. However, let's go with the majority.

It should at least make tnuk happy cause he'll get to vote for something again.

Poll runs for 3 days during which time the thread will be stickied, I'll extend that if anyone feels it needs more time.

[Reply #1 on:]

Poster of the Month = Person who posted best that month. Simple.

[Reply #2 on:]

I would like to remind everyone that the purpose of this contest is to credit

the very best PEELer of the previous month

I've always thought POTM meant Poster Of The Month, not PEELer Of The Month. Am I wrong?

Besides, for someone to be the very best PEELer, posting is pretty much a given.

[Reply #3 on:]

Anybody who doesn't vote for the last option just plain sucks

[Reply #4 on:]

Just to reiterate, my point wasn't about changing or specifying rules, it was about getting SOS to see he was wrong deleting multiple posts.

[Reply #5 on:]

Good luck with that.

[Reply #6 on:]

Poster of the Month = Person who posted best that month. Simple.

This. I'm amazed that we're even questioning it.

[Reply #7 on:]

Good luck with that.

I already won that argument.  The simple fact that you made this poll shows that.

[Reply #8 on:]

Wrong, this poll is about

changing or specifying rules

[Reply #9 on:]

I would like to remind everyone that the purpose of this contest is to credit

the very best PEELer of the previous month

I think that this says it all, right there. I voted for the first option (and yes, it made me happy). To be frank (though I'm usually tnuk), I think it's pretty much common sense that Poster of the Month should reflect the posts made during that specific month. So if somebody is nominated for July 2012, they should have posted during July 2012 for that nomination to be legit.

Since the rules are based on common sense, since the rules are quite clearly laid out, and since the moderators are tasked with keeping order I don't see it as being above and beyond their authority to delete posts that were clearly made by people who have not read the rules and/or were just trying to make some sort of (fairly retarded) "point" by making stupid nominations. I also think that it's absolutely the right call for a moderator to make when producing the poll to leave such nominations off it if they were somehow not deleted.

The poll's existence highlights the willful stupidity of certain people and the lengths that they will go to in order to be willfully stupid, since it shows the lengths that the moderators need to go to in order to show these people that they're being stupid. It in no way shows that the original deletion of the spam/trolling that lead to the argument was wrong. It was, in fact, one of the things that the moderators are here to do. It's their job. It's why they get to be moderators and to wear fancy hats and eat their meals from gold-plated serving wenches and so forth.

Poster of the Month = Person who posted best that month. Simple.

This is the response of a smart person to the question - which I feel that SOS/[-mArc-]'s reminder answers for us anyhow.

Anybody who doesn't vote for the last option just plain sucks

This is the response of somebody who is determined to be an idiot about whatever they can, regardless of whatever common sense and reason have to say on the matter. This is the response of somebody who really adds no value to the human race whatsoever (and since it's clear that Books is now using Bianca's account again, it's the response of somebody who ought to be banned).

I'm amazed that we're even questioning it.

This pretty much sums up my initial feeling, until I remembered that this board has a small but dedicated contingent of people who seem to feel the need to remind us why people suck, and why having nice things is so fucking difficult.

[Reply #10 on:]

Poster of the Month = Person who posted best that month. Simple.

That's what I always thought.

[Reply #11 on:]

1 - This is silly. Obviously, nominees should be people who posted on PEEL in the month for which they are being nominated. And not for something they posted that month in a different year (excepting POTM taking place in January to determine the best poster of December, which was the end of the calendar year preceding). edit - and the poll results do show that this is obvious to the majority of us.

2 - Making arguments about how one could be nominating for someone's performance 3 years ago (or anticipated performance 2 years in the future for that matter) is plainly contrary and intended as an insult to the nominees/community in general.

3 - Perhaps SoS would have been better off going the route of making this PEE Poll first, rather than deleting nominations. Or opening a dialogue about why certain nominations are ineligible, as is usually done when the nominator is assumed to have made an honest error, such as nominating someone who has won recently enough to be ineligible. This probably didn't happen because of point #2 on this list, in which we establish the behavior as being obvious trolling rather than a mistake made in good faith.

[Reply #12 on:]

Wrong, this poll is about

changing or specifying rules

Right, which shows that you must be wrong about the obvious interpretations of the rules, and therefore deleted posts that should not have been deleted.

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.

[Reply #13 on:]

Wrong, this poll is about

changing or specifying rules

Right, which shows that you must be wrong about the obvious interpretations of the rules, and therefore deleted posts that should not have been deleted.

Clearly we have very different ideas about what "obvious interpretation" means. And from the poll results it seems you are in the minority in your interpretation. Also let me give you an example that shows just how wrong you are:

A non-specified British government has an adamant policy against going into a single European currency which they will not change. However, in the light of public outcry, they choose to call a referendum to get a mandate from the public on the issue. Does calling this referendum make their policy 'wrong'?

The reasons for making this poll were twofold. First, to ensure that the rules are made explicit enough to prevent numptish behaviour in the future. Second, to highlight just how numptish the behaviour was in the first place.

[Reply #14 on:]

I thought we had already discussed this...

We never made a poll though, because this is the first time this issue has come up (where nominations made the poll for posters who were absent that month).

[Reply #15 on:]

Being in the minority doesn't mean that my interpretation is wrong.

[Reply #16 on:]

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.

The Poster of the Month competition went through a complete remodeling after a period of extensive chaos following a particularly rambunctious Fall Madness. It works differently now.

Being in the minority doesn't mean that my interpretation is wrong.

No, just unenforceable. Ch-ch-ch-changes!

[Reply #17 on:]

There you go.  Now Xanfor, that was so much less offensive then deleting multiple posts and not stating what was wrong with them. 

[Reply #18 on:]

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.

The Poster of the Month competition went through a complete remodeling after a period of extensive chaos following a particularly rambunctious Fall Madness. It works differently now.

I think it's quite simple to establish that this was complete hogwash.

Being in the minority doesn't mean that my interpretation is wrong.

Nobody said that being in the minority made you wrong. ShepherdofShark merely pointed out that you are in the minority, then proceeded to give you an example that illustrated that you are also wrong. Nowhere did anybody say that the one was derived from the other.

There you go.  Now Xanfor, that was so much less offensive then deleting multiple posts and not stating what was wrong with them. 

You quite clearly knew what was wrong with your posts, and were told as well, before all references were expunged. Which you had been warned would happen if you persisted with foolishness for the sake of foolishness.

Trolling (it's been said) is an art, and like all art, you must occasionally suffer for it. If the deletion of shitposting can be said to be a form of inflicting suffering, ShepherdofShark must therefore be seen as the necessary instrument of your eventual improvement.

[Reply #19 on:]

Wrong, this poll is about

changing or specifying rules

Right, which shows that you must be wrong about the obvious interpretations of the rules, and therefore deleted posts that should not have been deleted.

Clearly we have very different ideas about what "obvious interpretation" means. And from the poll results it seems you are in the minority in your interpretation. Also let me give you an example that shows just how wrong you are:

A non-specified British government has an adamant policy against going into a single European currency which they will not change. However, in the light of public outcry, they choose to call a referendum to get a mandate from the public on the issue. Does calling this referendum make their policy 'wrong'?

The reasons for making this poll were twofold. First, to ensure that the rules are made explicit enough to prevent numptish behaviour in the future. Second, to highlight just how numptish the behaviour was in the first place.

And this is why I thank you very much for making this poll! There are those who are acting (and some perhaps continuing to act...) in a trolling manner towards this, but there are some who honestly disagree. Personally, I just wanted clarification for all and to prevent arguments in the future. I think it's good to get solid clarification so everybody is on the same page to prevent confusion in the future, so cheers to thee!

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.

The Poster of the Month competition went through a complete remodeling after a period of extensive chaos following a particularly rambunctious Fall Madness. It works differently now.

That was me! I fucked up everything! WOOHOO!
Well, I was part of the groundswell to establish these new rules and forum in the self-induced post-FM apocalyptic world, so I guess I can't say I wanted to watch the world burn...

Being in the minority doesn't mean that my interpretation is wrong.

No, just unenforceable. Ch-ch-ch-changes!

[Reply #20 on:]

I generally disagree with many of these sentiments.  It's highly doubtful that either x.Bianca.x or Slackit02 were trolling in any manner, or that this debate is foolishness for the sake of foolishness on their behalves.  It seems clear that they nominated whom they liked best for that month, for whatever reason.

Although common sense would generally dictate that we'd nominate individuals who were relevant in some way for that month, the fact that people would have reasons to make other people relevant with their nominations should not be regarded in its fashion as a deterioration of reason as an action.  I may or may not have been a huge supporter of Jan-Michael Vincent winning PotM or Scarecrow, or <insert peeler> winning multiple times, but at the same time, I never tried to make people unable to post such things if they desired.  They're just relegating their thoughts, and occasionally attempting to have a bit of fun while they're at it.

The thing here is that by making up lots of rules to define this thing we have, we are unnecessarily invoking the right to censor other people's opinions.  Debates themselves are fun, and the results don't matter; long before there were rules for PotM, anybody could make any of the threads in how they saw fit, and apply whatever ruling they wanted in the end; it never did serve that a person not posting that month won anything, because most people would use the common sense I described at the beginning of this post to vote for who they liked.

This PotM became a tradition because somebody wanted to have it and made it, not because we had a poll to determine whether such a tradition should be started.  It was guided by social norms, most of which have been thrown out in favor of rules; granted those rules were come to under a general consensus of peelers themselves, but the same could be said true for the 17th amendment of the US Constitution; a rule/law that sounds good at first on paper, but which would ultimately undermine a society built towards freedoms and common sense.

Lastly, I'm sure SoS originally intended his deletions as a joke of some sorts about the draconian establishment of PotM.  I don't think it's necessarily a very good joke, especially since I believe x.Bianca.x and Slackit02 were sincere about their nominations, or rather a post in which they suggested they liked peelers better that hadn't posted last month.  I think everyone here can equally agree that they would be offended if their thoughts were removed from public view.  I'm not suggesting that SoS is a big meanie, but rather to establish that x.Bianca.x and Slackit02's complaints on this matter were reasonably founded in this matter of discourse.

Lastly, for all the people suggesting what common sense is, you'd think you'd all have the common sense to realize that if Slackit02 and x.Bianca.x decide to nominate M0le, Bear, or DaveMason for PotM that it doesn't matter, even if all three of those people get on the poll.  It wouldn't change anything, but instead we choose to tell the minority they are wrong repeatedly, tell them they are offensive, delete and edit their posts.  To which offense is greater out of these two?  From this poll, I think you could clearly see that even if DaveMason, Bear, or M0le made the poll, they probably wouldn't win, so what real harm have either of these two individuals actually caused that would justify creating more rules when reasonableness would prevail anyways?

[Reply #21 on:]

I like how people were so threatened by the idea that others would want to nominate MIA PEELers for funsies that those posts were deleted. Go on, ruin the internet why don't you! Nothing is safe! RIOT!

[Reply #22 on:]

I like how people were so threatened by the idea that others would want to nominate MIA PEELers for funsies that those posts were deleted.

I don't think it's that people felt threatened so much as that when moderating a subforum you just occasionally despair of obvious foolishness to the point where you consign it to the blackest depths of the darkest pit in the hopes that it will be effectively quashed. Because a little bit of tomfoolery is fun. But when people persist in being idiots, order must be restored. There's a fine line.

Basically, I'm saying I can see the rationale, having been in the position of needing to moderate posts before. Sometimes there's nothing you can do with people's jackassery other than set fire to it and lock it in a room where nobody can access it.

There's fun, and there's derping for the sake of derping, then arguing about one's right to derp for the sake of that, and look where it all leads! The "fun" was always intended to become the bones of a srs argument from the POV of the people having it. That much seems obvious.

That said, I do think that perhaps the best response to any of the complaints raised by the trolls ought to have been for one of the moderators to simply post this:

[Reply #23 on:]

[Reply #24 on:]

Congratulations, winna. You figured out where I keep the red bouncy text.

[Reply #25 on:]

I voted Pat Buchanan.

This is by far the biggest waste of trolling on PEEL yet.

[Reply #26 on:]

Happy to see common sense prevail. There was never any doubt in my mind. The final tally is 20 to 6 (I totalled up the votes for options 2-5 so I don't get accused of trying trying to split the dissenting vote).

Locking, de-stickying and making a subtle change to the rule thread.

[Reply #27 on:]

I'm glad we settled this, the uncertainty was keeping me up at night...

[Reply #28 on:]