POTM Needs Rules.

[on:]

I know this qualifies as bitching over something that is meant to be fun, but after missing out for the second month in a row, after having the same score as those at the bottom end of the poll, something needs to be done in the interests of fairness.

Paul suggested an idea, that if any nominations were on the same score and went below the maximum 10 allowed, then all votes and that score got ignored, meaning a small poll, but those on the same score wouldn't miss out, based on the time their last vote was posted.

I don't know what you guys think, but I see it as a fairer option, than basing it on time of last vote, or in this month's case, alphabetical order.

[Reply #1 on:]

 

Originally posted by Melllvar:

 

by CyberKnight: The following people all have 7, so I'm not sure how you pick the 4 of the 5:homerjaysimpson - 7
Impossible - 7
Juliet - 7
Ricky - 7
SB - 7

The general concensus is that the first 4 of those 5 to reach their total of 7 nominations goes in.
The remaining one is left to complain.

[Reply #2 on:]

Melllvar agreed that all of us on 7 should have been discounted this month, after me, Ricky and Zed missed out last month under this rule.  So I accept he's forgotten the change he agreed to, but I still stick with the rule change come into next months and be written down somewhere.

[Reply #3 on:]

I didn't mean to offend you, SB, but as Margarita's post shows, I was just doing as told. (It's not alphabetical order, it just coincidentally happened that way).

You're right, though, the "first-to-nomination-count" rule is flawed. It's not really fair when we all live in different time-zones and are thus awake at different times to post our nominations.

[Reply #4 on:]

 

Originally posted by CyberKnight:
I didn't mean to offend you, SB, but as Margarita's post shows, I was just doing as told. (It's not alphabetical order, it just coincidentally happened that way).

You're right, though, the "first-to-nomination-count" rule is flawed. It's not really fair when we all live in different time-zones and are thus awake at different times to post our nominations.

that's OK, none taken, just a bit put-out having missed out twice in as many months.  Bue anyway there's always May.

[Reply #5 on:]

*sighs* I've been trying to get a thread about this topic too, once...  http://www.peelified.com/cgi-bin/Futurama/12-000135/
but sadly it got spammed and closed after some time.  Maybe you'll find what you wanted to know in it though...

[Reply #6 on:]

Maybe we should formalize the rules. Thus far, I believe we have:

1) Each poster gets three nominations.
2) Previous winners of POTM are not eligible for nomination.
3) A maximum of ten people are eligible for the final vote. In the event of a tie, all those with the tied score are discounted from that month's poll.

Any more that are known? For example, what is the time/date when the nominations are opened, polls opened, etc?

Anyway, I'll remember to at least nominate you next month, to make up for my heinous mistake    .

[Reply #7 on:]

 

Originally posted by CyberKnight:
I didn't mean to offend you, SB, but as Margarita's post shows...

I didnt want to offend anyone neither and there was nothing offending in  your post that I quoted.

[Reply #8 on:]

 

Originally posted by CyberKnight:
Maybe we should formalize the rules. Thus far, I believe we have:

1) Each poster gets three nominations.
2) Previous winners of POTM are not eligible for nomination.
3) A maximum of ten people are eligible for the final vote. In the event of a tie, all those with the tied score are discounted from that month's poll.

Any more that are known? For example, what is the time/date when the nominations are opened, polls opened, etc?

Anyway, I'll remember to at least nominate you next month, to make up for my heinous mistake     .

You don't have to as it was an honest mistake by you and forgetfullness by Melllvar (which we all suffer from).  I just wanted to air my views on the subject, plus your proposed rule changes make it as fair as it will possibly get.

[Reply #9 on:]

I do agree. There should be rules but wouldn't rules be smoling the fun? Or will rules help things to be kept under control? Rules aren't alsways the answer. It better to go with rules though.

[Reply #10 on:]

'But rules control the fun!'

[Reply #11 on:]

 

Originally posted by CyberKnight:
Maybe we should formalize the rules. Thus far, I believe we have:

1) Each poster gets three nominations.
2) Previous winners of POTM are not eligible for nomination.
3) A maximum of ten people are eligible for the final vote. In the event of a tie, all those with the tied score are discounted from that month's poll.

4) Don't open the nominations thread until the 1st day of the following month (sorry, but it seems pointless to start niminating on MAy 24th, or something).

[Reply #12 on:]

The first two are usually followed anyway (and when not, it's usually honest mistakes). The third one is just a way of balancing the votes so that it becomes fairer. You're right, though - if the rules get too stringent, it starts crimping on the free-ness of the poll.

[Reply #13 on:]

 

Originally posted by MelBee:
'But rules control the fun!'

You aren't wrong there 
 

[Reply #14 on:]

Should there be a poll for rules in the POTM. If there is I think that SB should start it. For Rules, No rules.

[Reply #15 on:]

 

Originally posted by Lee Roberts:
Should there be a poll for rules in the POTM. If there is I think that SB should start it. For Rules, No rules.

There already were rules, the first 2 Cybernight listed.  The third was sort of agreed on last month, and Teral came up with a good one for the fourth.

[Reply #16 on:]

Can this thread be closed?

[Reply #17 on:]

I wondered if someone would start a thread like this.  I know my chances of ever winning are something between 0 and .01, so I'm just arbiter for fair play.   

I like the look of the 2 new rules, if they can be enforced and tried out next month, then we'll have a better idea, if my proposal after last months spat, has any merit.

[Reply #18 on:]

 

Originally posted by SB:


Melllvar agreed that all of us on 7 should have been discounted this month, after me, Ricky and Zed missed out last month under this rule.  So I accept he's forgotten the change he agreed to, but I still stick with the rule change come into next months and be written down somewhere.

I didn't miss out because of that rule, I missed out because someone couldn't count    I think we debated a rule saying something like "In the event of a tie, the first nominee who reached (7) nominations, is included in the poll. And then the second one to reach that number of nominations is included in the poll and so on until the final poll is complete".
Instead of sorting the posters alphabetically, you would sort them chronologically - thus making the selection a little more 'random' and fair when deciding who gets the final spot(s) in the poll.

[Reply #19 on:]

And a quick comment to the time question.
I think the nomination process should start a few days BEFORE the month is over, and the poll itself opens the first day of the next month.
I really don't believe posts made between the 28th and the 30th of April could change the outcome of the nomination process - and besides, all the decent awards' nominations work that way. Even though the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize isn't decided until the end of the year, the nomination of candidates ends in February! ...And, I hasten to add, I think the Nobel Peace Prize is the best comparison to POTM 

[Reply #20 on:]

We decided that it was the first to be nominated out of the tied last places gets in, not like they're gonna win anyway, but still.

We also agreed that there should be 3 counters each time to confirm the results were correct, that didn't happen when it screwed up.

As mentioned, we already debated this in the other thread, and this is what was agreed.

[Reply #21 on:]

Hahaha, that's rich...

*sits back and watches as all the newbies govern the functioning of Poster of the Month*

PEEL has reached a new era.

[Reply #22 on:]

If you don't like how we do things, you can always just leave.

[Reply #23 on:]

 

Originally posted by Ben:
If you don't like how we do things, you can always just leave.

I have no intention of leaving, I'm just pointing out the flaws in the way POTM is run, and suggesting a change to the way it works.  It's upto whoever runs the thing to decide, if these suggestions go ahead or not, personally I hope they do.

*still waiting for his new custom avatar to be uploaded* 

[Reply #24 on:]

It is odd that we get far more complaints now than we did when we had the "nominate and second" system where the ten nominees were often selected in a couple of hours and most people didn't have any say on the matter.

[Reply #25 on:]

Ben from someone like you im suprised that would say something so stupid.

[Reply #26 on:]

 

Originally posted by SB:
Melllvar agreed that all of us on 7 should have been discounted this month, after me, Ricky and Zed missed out last month under this rule.  So I accept he's forgotten the change he agreed to, but I still stick with the rule change come into next months and be written down somewhere.

Since when did whatever I say carry any weight?  What am I, a moderator?

General consesus means that it's agreed by more than one person.  Although I said that I thought that Paul's suggestion was a good one, I DID NOT say that it should be put into practice, and since I've already been slagged for taking this thing too seriously, I think that it should stay as it is.

...and you should learn to accept the rules as they are.  We have had this debate many times before.

[Reply #27 on:]

 

Originally posted by Drippy_taco:
Hahaha, that's rich...

*sits back and watches as all the newbies govern the functioning of Poster of the Month*

PEEL has reached a new era.

Drippy does have a point. It's not really our place to try to change how they've done things for over at least a year.

In fact, that wasn't what I was trying to do. I just felt that it might help to formalise the rules by putting them all in one place (creating new rules unilaterally was not my intention). The main problem with the proposed rule is when everybody gets the same number of votes. At least the original (and by the looks of things, more popular) way, 10 people in the poll are guaranteed (provided at least 10 people are nomination).

[Reply #28 on:]

Here's the old POTM Rule discussion thread.  Read it, it's where most of what we do now was agreed, before it became closed.

I really don't see what's so controversial about this rule.

[Reply #29 on:]

 

Originally posted by Australian Guy:
Ben from someone like you im suprised that would say something so stupid.

What is so stupid about being incensed that some random can just join up and virtually the very next day start telling everyone what to do? No-one liked it when Static, Fred and BrainSluggo did it, so how is this SB fellow any different..?

Disregarding that though, if POTM is causing everyone so much heartache, then it would be best to just let it die. It's become too farcical as it is.

[Reply #30 on:]

Has anyone else noticed how its the people who have already won who are taking the piss out of us trying to govern some rules here.

OK, SB, sorry but that is how the nonminations ahve worked and have always worked. It left me out of a poll a few months ago when due to a miscount aslate was included and either me or PCC Fred weren't. We argued, and eventually settled on an unofficial rule that now stands. The rule isn't official but everyone who has counted up since that day has followed this rule. Personally I prefer the 10 nominations poll. Somehow just seems fairer.

I agree with Teral that the nominations thread shouldn't be opened until the 1st of the month after.

The nominations thread is open for 48 hours. I vote that after the 48 hours are completed, three separate people count up the votes. Then there is another 12 hours for anyone to find any mistakes (which are usually sorted anyway) before the poll is opened.

If this is causing so much heartache, I volounteer to take responsibility for the nomination thread opening, poll thread opening and counting up. Someone can act as adjudicator to make sure I don't make any slip ups.

A couple more rules I would like to suggest:
- No nominating yourself. It just sems wrong somehow.
- Anyone who makes joke nominations has all their nominations discounted. It made no difference this month, but last month it ended up with Ricky not making into the poll.

[Reply #31 on:]

All of that sounds fine by me.  If you wanna take responsibility for opening/counting/etc.  I fully support that.  This rule is as fair as we're gonna get.

How they did it before was before my time, I don't know, so someone will have to educate me.

[Reply #32 on:]

Originally everyone nominated two people who were "firsted". Then once someone else nominated one of the people who had been "firsted" they were "seconded" and were in. This continued until 10 people had been seconded.

That was up until I think it was June last year when the nominations was open for about 45 minutes before a poll of ten was set up. Then it was changed.

[Reply #33 on:]

If Archie's willing to do it, then I think he's a good choice for taking the responsibility. I wouldn't mind helping to check the counting, etc.

Thanks for pointing out that thread, Melllvar, but I feel that a post (made by one of the mods and only editable by the mods) listing the rules and previous winners would be a useful tool, which was then linked every time a thread related to a POTM run was started.

Just suggestions, not orders.

[Reply #34 on:]

hahahahahhaha I love watching internet nerds bitching around this time of the month, strange how this happens at this every month like clockwork its like one big peel period

[Reply #35 on:]

a PEELiod?

[Reply #36 on:]

*gets gross images in his head*

Thanks Nixorbo!!!

Anyway the inanimate carbon rod should've won.

[Reply #37 on:]

 

Originally posted by Archie2K:
Has anyone else noticed how its the people who have already won who are taking the piss out of us trying to govern some rules here.

OK, SB, sorry but that is how the nonminations ahve worked and have always worked. It left me out of a poll a few months ago when due to a miscount aslate was included and either me or PCC Fred weren't. We argued, and eventually settled on an unofficial rule that now stands. The rule isn't official but everyone who has counted up since that day has followed this rule. Personally I prefer the 10 nominations poll. Somehow just seems fairer.

Ok, but the "time of last vote" ("first-to-nomination-count" ) rule is flawed, because we're not all in the same time zone, so the rule by Cybernight - "3) A maximum of ten people are eligible for the final vote. In the event of a tie, all those with the tied score are discounted from that month's poll.", seems fairer and might be worth giving a try?

[Reply #38 on:]

Remind me next month.

[Reply #39 on:]

You could do both : in the event in which the removal of the tied members results in a poll with fewer than 5 choices, the original rule applies?