Forum:Judging and suggestions for the upcoming PLS!

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Judging and suggestions for the upcoming PLS!

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5976 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

With the Aristocrat's Turkey Day Ball wrapping up, the next PLS starts on January 13th, making it only one month away. I contacted a few people beforehand who judged and participated last year and asked them if they'd be interested in judging again. Quite a few spots are still open here, so let me know if you're interested in judging below. And let me know if you have any suggestions for the upcoming PLS. Also, could somebody get a hold of Tompkins for me? I asked him if he was planning on judging this year on his talk page, but he never replied. --EMC ^[TALK] 01:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We're still in need of judges! If you would like to judge the Best Noob Article, Best Illustrated, or Best Rewrite category, please put your name below. --EMC ^[TALK] 01:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We are no longer in need of judges. The judges have been decided. Sorry to those who signed up and didn't make the cut. I'll contact those who have agreed to judge at the appropriate time. Until then, good luck to all would-be contestants. --EMC ^[TALK] 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Judge sign-up

• This contest of yours, sign me up! - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 01:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Hello. My name is Uncyclopedian. User:Uncyclopedian. I am here...to be a judge, please. Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me!
• So like yeah?? This is it? Sweet. -

  kingkitty ~Fuck you~

  07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Who wouldn't have the honor of an exclusive chair. --NXWave 18:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• I'm a noob, but I'd like to at least try judging. Because I suck at most other things. -- Contestant CUN -- VFH NotM Buzz Ctrbs 01:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• I'll judge best article. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 01:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Those whom cannot write, judge. -- Kip the Egg Talk Works 22:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• I'll judge best whatever you want me to judge. I don't seem to have much inspiration to create right now, so I might as well enjoy myself reading good stuff. Point me in the right direction and watch me go. --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 09:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Because I've got nothing better to do. ~

  Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.

  22/12/2007 @ 22:22
• Because it's been fun in the past. --Sir gwax (talk) 08:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Go on then. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  16:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions/General Discussion

• Knowing Tompkins and his current dedication to the site, I wouldn't count on him being a judge. Also, I'd judge, but once again, I'd rather participate instead. Sorry. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have a question: If I'm judging one category, can I compete in another? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:02, Dec 14

Nope. Sorry: "All registered members of Uncyclopedia are encouraged to enter so long as they are not a judge in the competition. Judges are not allowed to enter the competition as writers." (From here). --EMC ^[TALK] 02:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As official Shadow Advisor, I suggest that we eradicate that rule to allow for more diverse competition and/or so that I can participate in another category.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 03:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As official Financier and Patrol and Person Who Can Ban Your Ass, I suggest that we don't do that so that Ljlego cannot beat me in other categories. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 03:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As official Officiary, I support Ljlego's reason with the exact same reasoning, except for the "so that Lj can participate in other categories." I would like to change this part of the bill to say "so that Led can compete in other participate." - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:09, Dec 17

Rules have been changed to include judges: "All registered members of Uncyclopedia are encouraged to enter so long as they are not a judge in the category in which they wish to enter. Judges are not allowed to enter their category as writers."

• How about a Best Movie or Book Parody area? Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me!
• I'm really holding out hope for that "Best Article by ENeGMA" category. It's always a toughie. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 19:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• How about Best entry to the PLS? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:36, 17 Dec 2007
• I didn't get to finish my Goatseipods article for the Turkey Ball. Would they let me enter it here? -- Kip the Egg Talk Works 03:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope, the articles have to be started after the PLS begins. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:28, Dec 18
• Wouldn't the PLS clash with the voting for top ten of 2007? We'd need to collect votes for top three of December up to 15th January and then advertise on the main page for the annual vote during the contest. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  11:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Vote On Judges Entering in Other Categories

Score: -3 obligatory votes

• Against. The judges should be judging, not recovering from the inevitable Poo Lit burnout while they judge. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• For Though judging should be first and foremost, I don't see any reason why we should be exclusionary.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 21:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• For, per Lj and with the same ulterior motive. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:40, Dec 18
• Against. Keep them out of the competition entirely. Then they're not wondering how their article is doing in the other category and getting distracted. Methinks a judge should be as removed as possible. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:47 Dec 18, 2007
• No Obvious conflict of interest. Already the contest is tainted by knowing who writes the articles. This would make impartial judging even harder. Also, if I were allowed to enter the other categories, I would handily win them, which is naturally unfair to the other competitors. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 23:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Of course not. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 23:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Not a chance. Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me!

Yet Again, the Voice of Reason..

God, I'm glad I stumbled into VD. Probably some kind of divine intervention. Regular contributors, 'ear me now:

Stop being bitches. If you care about this site, become a judge, judge diligently, and take the loss on ONE fuckin' competition. Unless you plan on getting lives, you'll be around for the next one. And furthermore, judging a site-wide competition should be an honor. There should not be a fucking thread begging people to become judges, let alone a continuation of said discussion wherein competent contributors bitch about their opinions counting for something. NO, you cannot judge and enter simultaneously. YES, you should be fine with that. Jaysus.

Love,

--THINKER 07:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

For the last PLS, if I recall correctly, there was a forum topic announcing it. I can only assume it's always been this way. Why not create a thread asking for judges? How else will e|m|c know who wants to judge? He's not psychic, nor is it practical for him to go to every active user's talk page and ask formally. As for the judging-writing thing; don't yell at me 'cause I asked a question. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:56, Dec 19

Thinker's a grump. He's lacking in Christmas cheer, methinks. Me does! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc!

Woah, dear God....Thinker, bud, I don't know what's eating you, but there's no reason to take it out on the rest of us. Nobody's bitching about anything, we're just trying to gain a consensus on perhaps changing one thing. The most hostility and dare I say bitching is emanating mostly from your post.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 22:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he said "love," so it's all good. I love you too, thinker! YOU ARE NOT THINKERER, THINKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:43, Dec 19

I've been considering it for some time, and I think I must agree with many of you on the fact that judges shouldn't be allowed to enter the competition entirely. From my recollection of the past three competitions, forum threads were sort of a prerequisite to the PLS in doing three things: announcing it was coming (so people could barricade their homes properly), asking for community suggestions/ideas (a result of the last one was the addition of another category, "Best Alternate Namespace Article"), and asking individuals interested in judging to sign-up. I'm offering my daughter's virginity, my farm, and my rare comb collection if somebody will just please, for the love of god, sign up to be a judge! I'm not begging per-se. This is just how its done. --EMC ^[TALK] 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you decide who goes on to judge? Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 03:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Seryus question, here. Save the silly replies, at least until it's answered, pleez.

Yes. Yes I do. Will I employ favoritism? Absolutely. Will I do so and then claim that I chose the individuals based on merit, just like George W. Bush did with Alberto Gonzalez? Absolutely. Will this all end in a long series of Congressional investigations into unethical firings? Probably. --EMC ^[TALK] 21:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that judges were being contacted individually via talk pages as a means of getting like, good judges. Which is the way it should be, and as such, I have no contention with the current lot of those listed on EMC's page. I respect EMC, and his ability to pick those worthy of presiding over this competition. The announcement thread (I suppose this one, though it has veered), also fine. It is the notion that you can't just be satisfied with the prestige of being a judge that irks me, people. In theory, judges are supposed to be of a somewhat higher caliber than your average joe user, in order to view pieces with a higher level of evaluative analysis. You are undermining yourselves and the competition with this "judges should also be participants" nonsense. And the fact that we don't have enough respected regs readily jumping at the chance for a judges position is in and of itself a fact that sincerely saddens me.

I'm not grumpy. I just love Uncyclopedia and am always hoping for it's betterment. I was also hoping there'd be a contingency that shares my vantage. So sue me (I will, of course, represent myself). --THINKER 05:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

All rise, for the honorable Justice Modusoperandi!! /me stands and waits patiently for Modus's inevitable arrival. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:06, Dec 23

Hey, guys! Someone put an M on the Spangsignal. Oh. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Your honor, I was just in a car accident with the defendant, the thinker. Or so I think. You see, I hit my head, and I really can't remember. I demand thousands of dollars in retribution! - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:21, Dec 23

/me bangs gavel. No reason. I'm not allowed a gavel, normally. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, a gavel! Can I play with it? Please? Mooooommmm, Modus won't share his gavel! - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:46, Dec 23

Just so you know, Mooooommmm is an angry, drunk, and slightly mentally deficient Scotsman who absolutely abhors anyone who calls his name inadvertently. "Mooooommmm" in Gaelic actually means "insecure alcoholic with an intense testosterone imbalance." So I'd be careful next time you speak for the sake of talking, Led. Just saying.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 19:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

PLS vs Top 10

By my calculations we should be holding the PLS and top 10 of 2007 voting at the same time. Is this not a bad thing? Sorry for repeating myself, but I was ignored first time around. This time, I made a heading. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  21:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, we'll be having the Writer of the Year thing going on. January is such a busy month on Uncyclopedia. I don't know if it'll be a problem though. Top 10 usually ends by the 25th or so, and entries go from From January 13th ― January 27th for the PLS, so I don't think it's that big of a confliction. --EMC ^[TALK] 22:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Plus, I've got to get my annual flea-bath. I only use the finest fleas. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I guess as long as we can have two templates on the main page, there's no real problem. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  12:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking that the PLS template(s) would go on the main page, and the Top 10 template would go on the VFH page...? --EMC ^[TALK] 19:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No way. Knowing the current traffic on VFH, we'd get absolutely no votes. Maybe we'll have a template announcing a page announcing all the important stuff (and then maybe update the page for different months).-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 21:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Top10 voting be in February, anyway, since Top3 of December would also have to take place? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 21:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Bite meh-77.223.45.03

My understanding was that top ten of December would run from 1st - 15th January and top ten of 2007 from 16th - 31st January. If we announced our top article of 2007 at the end of February that would be a bit late. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  23:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)