Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    The Wish Void    Proposed changes to the POTM "contest" « previous next »
Author Topic: Proposed changes to the POTM "contest"  (Read 3877 times)
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
PEE Poll: Proposed changes to the POTM "contest"
I like the proposed changes   -13 (31%)
I hate the proposed changes   -22 (52.4%)
Keep the farce intact   -4 (9.5%)
I also have a few suggestions...   -3 (7.1%)
Total Voters: 42

Archie2K

Space Pope
****
« Reply #40 on: 11-02-2005 09:14 »

I'm happy to do the counting and the poll opening, I've done so many times in the past, then people can yell at me for screwing up. Of course I don't have moderator priviliges but I guess it's doable.

I'm not a huge fan of the new voting system, sounds complicated. A very simple proposal is, nominate a fake person then your nomination for that person gets discounted and if repeatedly done your nominations are all discounted.

Seriously, Beamer I am looking at you, nominating fake people might be "hilarious", but someone's got to go through the thread counting up all these nominations and it is incredulously tough to do so when people are voting for people that don't exist.

Added to the fact that canned eggs managed to get Jan Michael Vincent enough votes to get on the poll a few months back (all of which were then discounted by me) this Scarecrow business isn't even funny.
Col. Klink

Professor
*
« Reply #41 on: 11-02-2005 12:02 »
« Last Edit on: 11-02-2005 12:02 »

The rules arent terribly unbalanced. However I see no point in making changes since this whole proposal is aimed at making sure there are no more prank nominations. And with the outcry there has been that will obviously never happen again anyway so screw these new rules.

I also wanna call TNUK on his hypocracy over trying to make up new rules to kill the prank nominations while breaking the old ones to post a running count in the nominations thread.
NibblerJr

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #42 on: 11-02-2005 12:43 »

I don't think past winners should be able to win, otherwise people will just keep nominating their friends...
cujoe169
Starship Captain
****
« Reply #43 on: 11-02-2005 15:01 »

how did this thread become a debate?
Nixorbo

UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #44 on: 11-02-2005 15:28 »

The better question is WHY did this thread become a debate?
Nerd-o-rama

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #45 on: 11-02-2005 15:55 »

Because many people are dissatisfied with the current PotM policies, and yet no one liked TNUK's propositions either.  Okay, ten people did, but enough people didn't that a debate was created.
totalnerduk

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #46 on: 11-02-2005 16:52 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Col. Klink:
I also wanna call TNUK on his hypocracy over trying to make up new rules to kill the prank nominations while breaking the old ones to post a running count in the nominations thread.

I was waiting for that. It's pretty much the reason this thread exists. Also, POTM is flawed and should be ditched entirely.

No, that's not bitterness talking, I really hate popularity contests.

Nerd-o-rama was more or less right, except that I wasn't posting this for attention, I just wanted to get people stirred up enough to get things changed. Because POTM is... well, crap.

That's my two cents. Somebody close this thread already, it's old.

cujoe169
Starship Captain
****
« Reply #47 on: 11-02-2005 17:45 »

before we close this thread, why don't we just keep potm it always, was, it's been fine, and you don't fix something that's fine...
Slackit02

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #48 on: 11-02-2005 17:55 »

Tnuk - if its crap and its old, then why do you care.  Dont vote for anyone, dont nominate anyone, dont read the thread, dont even open it. 

There, your problem is solved
totalnerduk

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #49 on: 11-02-2005 18:02 »

Oh, I never said I'd stop participating. I do it because I can at least help steer it in a more fulfilling direction.

Next month, I'll be nominating the three most idiotic posters I can find.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #50 on: 11-02-2005 18:04 »
« Last Edit on: 11-02-2005 18:04 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by gff:
POTM RULES

heh, I didn't even know POTM has an established list of rules with which to follow...i thought it was all, um, conventional and agreed upon but not written out. and i've been regged here how long...? lol. but in all fairness, when i joined there was no POTM so i'll just claim that i'm outdated   big grin

also, wow, how did aslate get a name-drop in the rules? that's awesome! congrats aslate   big grin

and even with those rules, i doubt they are strictly adhered to...do 3 different parties really go over the tallies?   tongue

Nerd-o-rama

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #51 on: 11-02-2005 18:12 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by totalnerduk:
Oh, I never said I'd stop participating. I do it because I can at least help steer it in a more fulfilling direction.

Next month, I'll be nominating the three most idiotic posters I can find.

You're trying to destroy the system by simply abusing it?  Quite mature, mate.

I've come to the conclusion that PotM doesn't really need any changes.  Trying to make people vote intelligently instead of like six-year-old fadmongers goes against the very principle of democracy.

What we really need is stricter enforcement of the no-multiple-account rule to prevent voting abuse.  I'm looking at you, Pasty.

Note: just so we're completely clear, that last sentence was a joke.  Mostly.
Spacedal11

Space Pope
****
« Reply #52 on: 11-02-2005 18:58 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Gocad:
  And now let me quote the best post in this thread so far:

   
Quote
Originally posted by Spacedal11:
EDIT: Screw it. You're way too serious about this. It's a fucking website award thing for the love of God. Why is it so important? I mean I had my opinions but now I figure that this is just way to weird.
Yay! I've made someone happy.


Best Fucking Friends Forever?
Melllvar

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #53 on: 11-02-2005 18:59 »

I think we should give it a try and see.  The pool of quality posters is so diluted now anyway, the thing is undervalued to the point of farce.
PCC Fred

Space Pope
****
« Reply #54 on: 11-02-2005 19:17 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by totalnerduk:
POTM is outdated and terminally biased. It's a system for patting people on the back for no particular reason, and needs to be changed.

I beleive that I've come up with a better system of rules for POTM that will give it greater meaning and relevance to PEEL

Oh my God, I've fallen asleep and woken up in 2003!
i_c_weiner

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #55 on: 11-02-2005 21:37 »
« Last Edit on: 11-02-2005 21:37 »

My conclusion to the thread:
POTM is fine the way it is minus the fake account nomming, which will continue anyway. POTM is a popularity contest, I know it is. I got into the poll this month. I have no idea how, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't popularity. Just because it is a popularity contest means it needs to stop. Class elections are popularity contests, but you don't see the schools stopping them.

That's what I have to say. That's pretty much the summary of this thread. In a contraction and a word plus a puncuation mark: It's fine.
cujoe169
Starship Captain
****
« Reply #56 on: 11-02-2005 23:30 »

i think you mean it doesn't need to stop... but yea ^i'm with stupid haha
Col. Klink

Professor
*
« Reply #57 on: 11-03-2005 08:30 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by totalnerduk:
Next month, I'll be nominating the three most idiotic posters I can find.

WOO HOO!

And nerd-o I hope your aware of the irony of what you just said. Besides, POTM is not democracy. Its mobrule.
Nerd-o-rama

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #58 on: 11-03-2005 11:41 »

What's the difference, precisely?
David A

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #59 on: 11-03-2005 14:47 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by totalnerduk:
1. You get to nominate ONE person, and SECOND a previous nomination (at a later time if necessary). POTM nomination threads will be started three days before the end of the month, and closed at the end of the third day.

I don't see the point of this change.  The way it's done now is simpler.  Also, three days before the end of the month is too early.  Nominations shouldn't start until the last day of the month at the earliest.

 
Quote
2. You can't nominate yourself, fake accounts, or anybody who is less than a Starship Captain in rank.

I think it's already an unwritten rule that you can't nominate yourself.  Fake accounts shouldn't get nominated, but then, fake accounts aren't supposed to exist in the first place.

I completely disagree with the last part.  If someone new makes enough of a contribution to PEEL that people want to nominate him, then he should be eligible for POTM.  POTM should be about quality of posts, not quantity.

 
Quote
3. You are allowed to nominate past winners - if they deserve a nomination, then they deserve recognition. Having already won doesn't mean that they can no longer be honoured for being fantastic.

No.  It's hard enough to win POTM as it is.  If it had been that way from the start, maybe that would have been okay, but changing it now would just be unfair to the people that haven't won one yet.

 
Quote
4. POTM polls must be created by the moderator who closes the POTM thread, in order to prevent "fake" polls.

Nice idea, but I doubt that any of the mods want to be bothered with doing it.

 
Quote
5. POTM winners are required to give a short acceptance speech. If they are unable to deliver this speech to PEEL, then their immediate runner-up will be crowned POTM in their place.

Acceptance speeches are nice, but shouldn't be required.  I certainly don't think that anyone should lose POTM just because he doesn't happen to be on PEEL at the time.  Some people do have lives, you know.

 
Quote
6. Moderators, Administrators, and custom-rank holders cannot be POTM's.

Most of those people have already won anyway, so this would be largely irrelevant without your third suggestion, which I oppose.

Speak softly. Drive a Sherman tank.
Nixorbo

UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #60 on: 11-03-2005 16:45 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by David A:
Some people do have lives, you know.

Apparently not.
GreyThinkyWhale

Professor
*
« Reply #61 on: 11-03-2005 17:01 »

1. You get to nominate ONE person, and SECOND a previous nomination (at a later time if necessary).
-Disagree

POTM nomination threads will be started three days before the end of the month, and closed at the end of the third day.
-Whatever...

2. You can't nominate yourself, fake accounts,
-Agree

or anybody who is less than a Starship Captain in rank.
-Disagree

3. You are allowed to nominate past winners - if they deserve a nomination, then they deserve recognition. Having already won doesn't mean that they can no longer be honoured for being fantastic.
-Disagree

4. POTM polls must be created by the moderator who closes the POTM thread, in order to prevent "fake" polls.
-Agree

5. POTM winners are required to give a short acceptance speech. If they are unable to deliver this speech to PEEL, then their immediate runner-up will be crowned POTM in their place.
-Disagree

6. Moderators, Administrators, and custom-rank holders cannot be POTM's.
-Disagree


*scrolls up* Basically the exact same thing David A said...
cujoe169
Starship Captain
****
« Reply #62 on: 11-03-2005 21:13 »

wow... the consensus seems to be... an emphatic no... i wonder who the 11 who voted for it were, considering they haven't voiced their opinions...
Nixorbo

UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #63 on: 11-04-2005 02:20 »

I wouldn't call a 3-vote difference "emphatic."
cujoe169
Starship Captain
****
« Reply #64 on: 11-04-2005 15:48 »

well... considering no one who agreed to the absurd rules posted anything in it's defense, then it's safe to disregard?
Juliet

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #65 on: 11-04-2005 17:59 »

I say leave the POTM the way it is although I do like the idea where the winner give out a speech in the end.
SORF

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #66 on: 11-04-2005 18:03 »

i think only mods should be able to post the finales. we usually have several
Teral

Helpy McHelphelp
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #67 on: 11-04-2005 18:58 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by SORF:
i think only mods should be able to post the finales. we usually have several

If by "usually" you mean "for October 2005" then you are correct.

And I think you missed the part where the moderators said they have no intention of wasting even 5 seconds of their time on POTM.
cujoe169
Starship Captain
****
« Reply #68 on: 11-04-2005 19:57 »

this is a poll held by the peelers, it's not the mods responsibility to open one... we could just go with the idea... outrageous as it might sound... to not post a second poll if there's an existing one *waits for gasping*
Beamer

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #69 on: 11-04-2005 20:09 »

Can people stop calling Scarecrow a fake account?
He's real, dickholes.
cujoe169
Starship Captain
****
« Reply #70 on: 11-05-2005 00:16 »

haha, yes... just like pinochio was a real boy... but i think they just mean he has no posts... albeit there is a difference, but a small one at that
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #71 on: 11-05-2005 02:39 »

has anyone emailed Scarecrow yet? when you do tell me  big grin
Archie2K

Space Pope
****
« Reply #72 on: 11-05-2005 05:39 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Col. Klink:
I also wanna call TNUK on his hypocracy over trying to make up new rules to kill the prank nominations while breaking the old ones to post a running count in the nominations thread.

Actually that was a tradition ever since... ooh, way way back. 2002 I think. What happened was people would continually post updated lists where they merely added to the previous running total. Errors inevitably crept in and often the final poll would be wrong. A long long debate later and we banned running totals.
zoidyzoid

Professor
*
« Reply #73 on: 12-05-2005 07:33 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by totalnerduk:
1. You get to nominate ONE person, and SECOND a previous nomination (at a later time if necessary). POTM nomination threads will be started three days before the end of the month, and closed at the end of the third day.

2. You can't nominate yourself, fake accounts, or anybody who is less than a Starship Captain in rank.

3. You are allowed to nominate past winners - if they deserve a nomination, then they deserve recognition. Having already won doesn't mean that they can no longer be honoured for being fantastic.

4. POTM polls must be created by the moderator who closes the POTM thread, in order to prevent "fake" polls.

5. POTM winners are required to give a short acceptance speech. If they are unable to deliver this speech to PEEL, then their immediate runner-up will be crowned POTM in their place.

6. Moderators, Administrators, and custom-rank holders cannot be POTM's.

My thoughts:

1. Sounds fine, but 3 days may be a bit brief?
2. The Starship Captain restriction is just silly. Quality doesn't depend on post count. I doubt you'll find many potential nominees that are lower than SC (due to the whole becoming-established thing you mentioned), but those that do exist deserve a chance. After all, it is supposed to be POTMonth.
3. Having said that, it usually ends up being more of a general popularity contest that a true search for the month's best poster, so allowing multiple victories doesn't seem like a good idea.
4. Sounds reasonable.
5. The 'acceptance speech' thing is fine, but don't strip people of their title if they can't post one in time due to life/ work/ school or whatever. Unfair.
6. Why?

Punching Bag

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #74 on: 12-06-2005 01:00 »

Here's an idea...how about you get rid of POTM because it's FUCKING GAY.

You've banned flame threads, how much better is a blatant ass-kissing thread going to do? All it will do is leave feelings of resentment in those excluded and everyone will have their feelings hurt and be a little pissy baby about it. So why not just screw the whole thing? This place established itself as a community long ago. Now it's way past that, to the point of pompousness.

POTM, the PEELies, and any thread like "getting to know your fellow PEELer" is a complete waste of time and it stuns me that you guys are actually arguing over something that's supposed to be fun for everyone, but is causing enough stress to create a two page thread with long, detailed posts about regulating fun.
M0le

Space Pope
****
« Reply #75 on: 12-06-2005 05:51 »

Slow down with the revolution, Che.  roll eyes
i_c_weiner

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #76 on: 12-06-2005 08:17 »

...Who is this guy?
Ben

Space Pope
****
« Reply #77 on: 12-06-2005 10:35 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Punching Bag:
All it will do is leave feelings of resentment in those excluded

...resulting in them running to the Wish Void and making a post deriding the entire concept?

There there, we feel your pain.
SeanStud

Crustacean
*
« Reply #78 on: 12-08-2005 11:09 »

Dear Ms. Segal my name is Sean Solomon and I was wondering if you are singal ? If so would you be interested in being friends my e-mail address is BigSexxxyNash@aol.com. I also think you are very pretty and have a good since of humor and I also think a women that can fight and act sasy and pretty at the same time is very sexy
Nixorbo

UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #79 on: 12-08-2005 11:58 »

...
...
...
...
...
::blinks::

Normally I'd delete idiotic posts.  I can't bring myself to with this one.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.351 seconds with 19 queries.
http://www.peelified.com/Futurama-Forum-10/Topic-12891-40-Proposed_changes_to_the_P.html
www.peelified.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2016-07
121200
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:QF3L4PXERBQ3RQ2OQ3IRE76DMJ53OEWH
<urn:uuid:24f9103e-64c6-48c6-8b66-9185bee3fca9>
2016-02-07T21:41:23Z
80.67.28.169
sha1:Z3SJX6VCX5Y2RD5QMAWQBDYLILPFHKEA
<urn:uuid:7e54db51-5193-43a1-b74d-40cf03c850fe>
http://www.peelified.com/Futurama-Forum-10/Topic-12891-40-Proposed_changes_to_the_P.html
length
response
<urn:uuid:4294ddd0-d68b-46b0-9ba9-1109acec297c>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-236-182-209.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2016-07
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for February 2016
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf