Forum:UotM rule

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > UotM rule
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 12 October 2010 by Ajraddatz.

I am proposing a new rule to be implemented for RuneScape:User of the Month in the interests of fairness. I want to add a new rule that doesn't allow users to be nominated two months in a row.

This is to allow all the users of the wiki a fair chance to become one for their hard work/dedication to making a wiki a better place and so that the same names don't keep cropping up; eventually, if you keep being a nominee, then you will become the UotM.

Some users on this wiki are undeniably more popular (or more well known) than others, and it's those users who are more likely to be the UotM. I want that to change, and I think this is one step in the right direction.

Proposal: Add rule stating that you cannot be a nominee for two months in a row.

LordDarkPhantom 16:16, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - as nominator. LordDarkPhantom 16:16, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I'm not really sure if this will be beneficial, but I'm impressed by your sportsmanship.   Swizz Talk   Events!   16:55, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Well say there are two popular users: A and B. A wins this month. B will get re-nominated till he wins. Seems fair? Atleast if that does happen, there will be a space of time in which other users can prove themselves to be as worthy (or even more). LordDarkPhantom 17:11, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - I'd even go three months. But two works as well. HaloTalk 17:16, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Meh. bad_fetustalk 18:12, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of saying neutral - meh? To just let people know you're here or something? HaloTalk 18:17, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Probably pointless Lol. Okay fine, I don't think this would be beneficial, but I also don't think it could cause any harm. bad_fetustalk 18:21, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how it is pointless. I only see good that can come out of this. UotM is not (and should not be) a popularity contest. LordDarkPhantom 18:27, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Kind of. Often times, UOTM is all about getting someone who makes decent edits on to the page right after month is over. Often being the first on page means you are likely to get more votes (unless you are a terrible editor), due to people just seeing your name and choosing it without looking at others, etc. HaloTalk 18:32, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
I actually was calling my neutral - meh thing pointless =o. Anyways, this wouldn't stop it being a popularity contest. bad_fetustalk 18:45, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
But it would stop people re-entering every month till they got it. HaloTalk 18:48, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
So? There isn't only one popular person. bad_fetustalk 14:57, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Say two popular users competed in a month, and one of them wins. The other is probably going to be re-nommed next month due to popularity. LordDarkPhantom 16:12, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
And some other person will win because they are popular. The reason they win will still be popularity, nothing else. Also, I'm changing to strong oppose per Degen. bad_fetustalk 13:26, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Two months seems fair. Suppa chuppa Talk 18:35, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As long as I don't get nominated... --Coolnesse 21:43, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

You can reject nominations...HaloTalk 22:13, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - That's just ridiculous. It sounds like a way to eliminate competition in certain months, and such a suggestion could only be fed by jealousy. Andrew talk 01:06, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

I believe that's unfair to assume. I will go in more depth if an explanation is required. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:21, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, and I am of course entitled to my opinion. Andrew talk 02:58, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Isn't nominating over and over a form of stacking the forums, and thus gaming the system? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:00, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
This is nothing about eliminating competition. If the user is a good enough contributor, then he/she will win. End of. If they fail the first time, they will have other oppurtunities where they eventually can win. It's not as if there are only 2 possible, strong candidates each month. LordDarkPhantom 12:21, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
While you're entitled to your opinion, you should not accuse LordDarkPhantom of proposing this just to give himself an edge when running for UTOM. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:42, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
No one is accusing him of that? What are you on dude? He's been nominated two months in a row, and he thought this was a good rule, and thus withdrew himself from this month's. HaloTalk 21:31, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
That comment was directed at Andrew. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 09:27, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Um..way to twist my words? Nowhere did I accuse anyone of anything. Andrew talk 20:05, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
When you say "It sounds like a way to eliminate competition in certain months", it implies you are accusing somebody of trying to eliminate competition in certain months. Because LordDarkPhantom proposed this, it also implies that he is the person you appear to be accusing. Seeing as how you're denying this, choosing a less aggressive/more specific wording would prevent future misinterpretation. My apologies if I am incorrectly accusing you of this, though the recommendation still stands. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 20:44, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Psycho has a point there. 222 talk 06:32, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - UotM is about the users contributions and all-around good-work on the wiki, letting users who are more popular than others run every month consecutively, means that some of the lesser known editors who have put in outstanding work and deserve to be UotM are beaten by an editor simply because he/she is more popular, I find that wrong :/. Ruud (talk)(Suggest me naems) 07:54, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I agree 100% that popularity should not be a factor in determining the user of the month, but I'm not seeing how this proposal will fix that. ʞooɔ 08:06, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - If, yes if, my eyes didn't get sand inside, I saw nobody ever got two times User of the month. The theoretical possibility of a single user to obtain the title twice as for now is very low. The chance that he/she will get twice in a row is nearly unlikely. However if a user truly gains trust in whole of the RS society that will be another issue. As for now I cannot determine which stance I should stand for. Even for the rule to be posed, there might be chance that an extraordinary user comes out, but for now no such person appear before us. Rewlf2 08:15, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood, the proposal is to disallow users being nominated two months consecutively, not becoming UotM for two months consecutively. Ruud (talk)(Suggest me naems) 08:23, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, because once a user becomes one, they may not be nominated for it again. We already have a rule for one time per user ever.-- Degen says Unban TLUL  08:57, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Support - When I read further discussions I slightly got Degen's point. However I support this rule for another issue. As I said no one ever got twice of UotM but that doesn't mean they were not repeated nominated, worst case being renominated for fail previous trials. Although, the problem would occur more oftenly about the nominators since UotM nominees cannot do it themselves. Rewlf2 07:53, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

On a related note - In this month's UotM, it is impossible for Swizz to not win, as every other nominee has withdrawn for a variety of different reasons. Unless some amazing user gets voted for 18+ times within 8 days. 222 talk 09:24, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

What's that got to do with anything?   Swizz Talk   Events!   16:07, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Sounds fair. --Aburnett(Talk) 00:07, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I see a bit of potential for dirty political tactics and what not. This is especially true regardless of whether a nomination, whether accepted or declined, immediately invalidates the candidate for the following month's nomination. Take the following scenarios for example.

Users A and B both want to be UOTM. User C hates user B and wants to prevent B from getting UOTM. Given that A is more popular than B, C can nominate B in the same month that A is nominated, guaranteeing that B cannot become UOTM for at least two months.

Users A and B both want to be UOTM. On the last day of voting, it is clear that user A will win. User B declines his nomination to be eligible again next month (assuming that nominations not accepted don't count towards the limit).

I really don't like the UOTM system at all, and would like it to be removed. I object to it in principle. But, I suppose that's not going to be feasible, as it's too popular. --LiquidTalk 00:41, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Good point. How about adding: ...even if the user withdrew the previous month."? LordDarkPhantom 15:25, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I wasn't really sure about this issue until Degen pointed out that we have a rule limiting a user to getting uotm once. Since we have such a rule, why are we worried about users getting nominated multiple months in a row? If both users haven't gotten uotm before, I don't understand why we should remove those nominees who are "popular;" it seems like everyone will get uotm eventually, and it's not like it matters anyway... Leftiness 03:50, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

But why should a popular user win instead of one that is the better contributor? We're not removing the nominees, just making it fairer. The fact is, if the popular user miraculously does not win, he will probably be renommed till he does. That's not nice and it might even dishearten the other nominees. LordDarkPhantom 15:25, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

'Oppose Your very opening paragraph has a good reason this rule should NOT be made. "...This is to allow all the users of the wiki a fair chance to become one for their hard work So if someone works their ass off two months in a row and was nommed but did not "win" the first time, oh well, "we know your editing and fixing the wiki is awesome, but you can;t be the UOTM this month cuz of this rule see......" Wow, I have to say, stupid idea for a rule on the premises given. Any LEGITIMATE reasons?-- Degen says Unban TLUL  03:57, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

UOTM isn't even for the month. Many users are mostly inactive by the time they get it. It's informal, so no one is going to look through someone's monthly contribs, but look at their total contribs. If they work their ass off two months in a row, they should probably have a good chance at getting it the month after. HaloTalk 04:15, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed with Halo. Why would you work for UotM? That's like you want credit. UotM is just a pat on the back and a thumbs up, not a medal, and a certificate; I don't know any users who worked specifically for it. If they do lose and continue to be great editors, they will win next time. Anyways, this is the way I see UotM as working. Example:
A user does good work on the wiki in July. To get good chances of him winning, the person who nominates him nominates at the start of the next month (that's what happens). If the user is a good enough contributor (which you should be to win UotM) he will continue as normal and probably win. However if he works his ass off, that's his fault; don't contribute to win UotM. If he fails to win, he can carry on as normal and he will have further chances at it later on. This is what I think should happen. Also, I think it is also beneficial to the actual user. Who wouldn't be disheartened by losing 2-3 months in a row? I think a month break is enough time for more people to appreciate what he/she has/is doing. LordDarkPhantom 15:25, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
I feel like you're contradicting yourself. First, "if the popular user miraculously does not win, he will probably be renommed till he does. That's not nice and it might even dishearten the other nominees." Second, "If the user is a good enough contributor (which you should be to win UotM) he will continue as normal and probably win. However if he works his ass off, that's his fault; don't contribute to win UotM. If he fails to win, he can carry on as normal and he will have further chances at it later on."
If we're worried about disheartening nominees, why make it so that you can't be nominated for another month after you lost? "Better luck the time after next time" is definitely more disheartening. Also, if you don't contribute for the purpose of winning uotm, why would you be disheartened in the first place? The fact of the matter is, the system is based on how many vocal friends you have and how well they can sell you as a uotm; if you're a good contributor, and if you keep contributing in a positive way as you've been doing, "[you] can carry on as normal and [you] will have further chances at it later on," so there's no reason to be disheartened, and there's no reason to change the system. Leftiness 01:14, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
I assume good faith for nominators. Not nominees since they cannot advertise themselves. That means nominees should not be too concerned about being UotM. Rather than that the behavior of nominators should be watched. If someone fails to become UotM at a particular month, that means he/she is not the most outstanding one during the period and nominators should accept the result, rather than insisting in "He must be UotM". The proposed rule is a prevention of mnominators attempting to repeatedly nominate the same person for the same (similar whatever) reason. That way will disrupt fairness on "Each election process of UotM consists of equally weighted nominees".
When I emphasise "The period", I also emphasise the generic meaning of UotM. UotM is given to who deserve it. Anyone working hard which ultimate aim is for UotM doesn't deserve it. UotM indicates someone is sacrificing time and effort in improving the wiki. And UotM is for introducing the best and most hardworking people in wiki, which is irrevelant to how many people watch over his/her process. There is no problem for someone to be nominated once every few monthes, but consecutive monthes arise unfairness concerns.Rewlf2 03:36, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Proposing a modification - Disallowing the user from running two months in a row should only occur if the user was not nominated in the last seven days of the month, or if the user has declined the nomination within three days of notification of the nomination. After three days, the nomination is implicitly accepted, and a withdrawal after that still bars the user from the next month.

This prevents people who don't like a certain user from gaming the system by nominating him in a position that he's sure to lose, to prevent him from running for a two month period. This also prevents users who see that they are going to lose from withdrawing the nomination to get a fresh start next month. --LiquidTalk 16:58, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose While I agree in spirit, it seems an overly complicated rule. For **** sake, we're making so many damn rules that we are getting lost in the red tape. For simplicity sake, if anyone does this we can just DQ them for RS:GTS. And hope we do not get people like this nominated.-- Degen says Unban TLUL  14:25, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

I have the IQ level of a fish, and I understand exactly what this rule is stating... RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 22:07, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
Good for you?-- Degen says Unban TLUL  03:18, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Andrew. Matt (t) 04:45, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I suppose I should get off the fence. I really don't think that this will fix a broken system. If the user is a good contributor, he is going to win UOTM eventually, unless he declines nominations. The fact that UOTM is decided by counting votes makes it a democracy, and so we should follow the standard rules of a democracy. I cannot name a single democracy in the entire world that bars the losing candidates in one election from participating in the next. If that were true, then the Republican Party would be screwed this election cycle. Furthermore, I believe that this rule unfairly punishes users for variables beyond their control, namely their opposition. Look at User:Iiii I I I. He had three successive UOTM nominations before he finally won. Did he deserve it? Yes. Why did he lose the first two months? The rest of the field was too strong. This proposal is more of a punishment than any attempt at justice. --LiquidTalk 22:07, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Completely unfair to the losers. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 22:11, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Liquid. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:21, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per helm. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 02:22, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't think adding a rule will make the process any more fair. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 07:43, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Notice of intent - Unless some meaningful discussion occurs, this will be closed as no consensus. --LiquidTalk 14:41, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The intention is good, but I think that this solution would only create worse problems, as others have said above. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 13:45, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus for this proposal to be implemented as of now. ajr 14:18, October 12, 2010 (UTC)