Uncyclopedia talk:RYA/classic

Ballots

I guess my only suggestion to this great idea is this: having a mix of qualities where sometimes 10=good and sometimes 10=bad is a bit confusing. Would you consider:

(A) Changing to a Likert scale system where:

1 = does not describe this Admin

2 = sometimes describes this Admin

3 = undecided

4 = often true of this Admin

5 = almost always true of this Admin

~ or ~

(B) Changing the characteristics list so that each descriptor is positive (rather than the current mix of positive/negative). That way high ratings = positive, low ratings = negative across the board.

Bravo, Dawg!!! -- T. (talk) 03:19, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I thought all of those were positive... Seriously, though, I like idea A, except with more range. I'll get right on it. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 06:54, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I get a 100% A+ Happy face all the thyme! --Savethemooses 22:28, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The new rating scale doesn't match the ballots and ballot examples. --Sir gwax (talk) 22:06, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Defeating the purpose

So is the purpose of this to be an admin game where we compliment/make fun of each other or is it to get real feedback from users? Not to be a sourpuss, but if the intent is the latter, I highly recommend that none of us write anything about anyone else because we do enough of that on IRC, it tells us nothing and it will likely discourage actual non-admin, user comments. --Sir gwax (talk) 21:59, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a user to comment on any of us. I think our tyranny ratings should all be 7 for that. Really, it's for anyone to rate an admin, with some serious and some joking entries in the list. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 02:28, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)