Forum:Reviving the drama about dead, useless awards

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Reviving the drama about dead, useless awards (talk)
Note: This topic has been unedited for 4764 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Hopefully this will avoid drama, unlike that time I decided to question the relevancy of an award that had a single, unchallenged winner for approximately an entire calendar year. Luckily, this topic doesn't propose any dismantling or retirement of major awards, since interest (hopefully) will return for them later on. All I'm sayin' is we need to have minimum qualifying scores in order to win awards.

Having nominations shouldn't guarantee a victor. In the past, NotM contests have ended with no winner when all candidates failed to gain adequate support. Now there are a lot more awards, though, and way fewer people voting on them, so the once-estimable title of RotM is getting handed away with a score of +1. Clearly, no one deserved to win this month (NotM was looking equally bad until some last minute votes came through, and WotM's 5 point victory in March is also pretty telling of this year as a whole).

So yeah. Minimum qualifying scores. +5 seems to indicate some sort of a minimum community quorum.

Of course, the real reason why no one's voting is because no one's actually doing any shit at all. There have been 10 pee reviews in the entire month of October. Oh, cool, I can count to that number on both of my hands! That's pretty fucking dire, and something big needs to be done to combat this systemic malaise.

But that's not what this topic is about. This topic is about bringing back the Interest Event Horizon. Minimum qualifying scores for a better tomorrow. As a band-aid, that sounds good to me.

Sounds good to me?

Score: +8 for +5 minimum
  • Sounds good to me. --Littleboyonly.jpg T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK Oldmanonly.jpg 08:05, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • Not really too bothered whether we go with four or five but I totally agree with the idea. RotM is the perfect example of the problem; I'm not going to say it's been devalued because it's a pretty fucking useless thing to have, but if introducing a minimum gets people to do more reviews then that can only be a good thing. And if it doesn't then no one wins it and we can all get on with our deaths. --Black Flamingo 14:26, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
    That's basically the idea, yep. This is more of a wake-up call than a policy change. --Littleboyonly.jpg T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK Oldmanonly.jpg 17:05, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong For! -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 00:21, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • Right. Yes. Good. -RAHB 05:17, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. If people are doing good things they generally get noticed by a few people. On second thought, let's give all the awards to ME! Finally, I can take home the coveted Engelbert Humperdinck's Moustache of the Month award. Yayyy! I understand and I wish to continue. HauntedUndies2.jpg. 09:49, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • For.--Sycamore (Talk) 10:43, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • For You knows it. mAttlobster. (hello) 13:49, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • My ROTM awards :( But yeah I guess. --The magical fairy... KittyKitty (t) (c) 08:38, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
Score: +3 for +4 minimum
  • Some awards just don't attract that big of a crowd, man. —Sir SockySexy girls.jpg Mermaid with dolphin.jpg Tired Marilyn Monroe.jpg (talk) (stalk)Magnemite.gif Icons-flag-be.png GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 09:45, 1 November 2011
    Four is also good. Plus, if this vote doesn't even get the minimum four or five people, I'm just going to assume everyone else is a silent yes. --Littleboyonly.jpg T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK Oldmanonly.jpg 17:05, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • For, five sounds good. Or the problem could be solved by just nominating me for every award, that works too. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:26, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
    Nice try, but no.--- Iwillkillyou.gif 333.gif TALK What's it like to be a heretic? 17:56, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • Sure.

1234 ~ 16px-Pointy.png 23:37, 2 November 2011

Gotta disagree with this

It may be a good idea, but this could cause drama if someone actually worked hard and got nominated for something, but fell one vote short. I don't know if that's really possible, but during the school days people tend to disappear. Now having a minimum of 3 votes would be better, but it all depends on the activity of this site. Wouldn't you agree?--- Iwillkillyou.gif 333.gif TALK What's it like to be a heretic? 19:03, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there are more than 4 people here. --HM (T) 20:07, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
People who have made significant dents in an area almost always get noticed for the award vote. The Foolitzer has been running on steam for a while until Bizzee came along with the most significant contributions in months and won with an unshruggable score. "If you build it, they will come" applies here. --Littleboyonly.jpg T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK Oldmanonly.jpg 00:03, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
If it's just one more vote that's needed, the user closing the noms can always vote too. And even if he has already voted, he can still alert people on IRC to the existence of the award. There's no rule that otM pages have to be renewed the very second the new month starts. —Sir SockySexy girls.jpg Mermaid with dolphin.jpg Tired Marilyn Monroe.jpg (talk) (stalk)Magnemite.gif Icons-flag-be.png GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:27, 2 November 2011
  • Super mega hard strong abstain I think if we try to remember about the time when we were talking about this other thing I just mentioned, then you will realise that none of us made any actual answer to it...and it left me wondering just what is going on. JUST WHAT IS GOING ON? Does anyone have any idea? I'm standing on the precipice and no ones there to tell me not to jump :( --ShabiDOO 20:15, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
    What thing are you talking about? --Littleboyonly.jpg T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK Oldmanonly.jpg 20:35, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
    I was kind of hoping that you knew! --ShabiDOO 21:30, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
    Oh wait...I meant to say For --ShabiDOO 21:36, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

Question

Now that we're on the subject of award pages, shouldn't WotY be opened back up for nominations? There is apparently no existing winner for 2011. Plus it is November, and it was closed in February... -- Tinypony.gif Sir "TheSlyPony" Invariably certifiable. 08:32 November 3, 2011 (UTC)

Yearly awards are voted on after the year is over so we can reflect on the whole year. You never know, the greatest writer of the year might join in December. --Black Flamingo 10:12, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

Every time you revive a dead award, a Kejora haunts you

<youtube>6N1kUPl2y-Q</youtube>
Don't do it! GiratinaOriginForme.png |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Aussie CUN|IC Kill Don't be fooled. I'm an Aussie too. | 06:24, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://uncyclopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Forum:Reviving_the_drama_about_dead,_useless_awards&oldid=5333167"