Forum:"Against" votes on monthly awards

Forums: Index > Village Dump > "Against" votes on monthly awards

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6353 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I don't think that "Against" votes should be permitted in the case of Writer of the Month, Uncyclopedian of the Month and Noob of the Month. Just looking at this months' nominations, there's a lot of vote retracting and "ooh, well if he's going to vote against someone, I'm not going to vote for him, the silly poopyhead" kind of thing going on. To me, this has the potential to foster resentment and negative attitudes between users, and I don't really see the point of it. If I don't think there's a candidate deserving of an award then I simply don't vote. If there's someone more deserving then those already nominated, then I nominate them instead. Easy.

I'd hate for the monthly awards to be turned into some kind of airing of greviances or forum for conflict, and so I propose that: The award pages be edited to indicate that "Against" votes are not permitted and will not be counted, and current "against" votes in these categories be removed. Thoughts? -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 14:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. ~CaputosistheHorrible14:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Not against, but then we'd have to limit how many for votes you could make, right? —Hinoa KUN (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Against. Sometimes you can have legitimate reasons to strongly believe certain user shuldn't win. However, we do have to clarifie in the instructions that against votes resulting from the silly reasons you've mentioned, are highly dissaproved by the comunity.--Rataube 14:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm for modifying the instructions like Rataube says and neutral on allowing against votes as I don't have enough experience of previous voting to know how bad the problem is. This months n00b voting fun and games all began, I reckon, as a misguided kind of joke from one of the candidates which personally didn't bother me at all. But I can see how it could foster resentment. N00bs eh? What can you do?--Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 18:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Rataube as well.--<<>> 23:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Against. People can be irresponsible with for votes, too. Maybe one month some vandal will get nominated and a sizable group of people will think it would be simply hilarious to vote for him, which wouldnt be a stretch. Those of us who would find such a thing a very attack on the traditional esteem to which the award has developed would be unable to prevent this undeserving individual from winning. I think that any vote should be done with great thought and contemplation, or in other words, dont throw votes out there just for the heck of it. There really isnt a rule for this, but I think that the majority of people do this anyways. People are responsible enough. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It all depends on how the person nominated reacts to it. Different users will take "against" votes differently. --The Stig | Abt me Rant 13:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sorta for, sorta Against It may be noted that I retracted my vote for Boothman on Noob of the Month. I didn't give a reason, but the reason is linked to this discussion. You see, Boothman voted against someone, and when that person left a reply asking why, they were told that he "Felt like it". I find this to be very irresponsable. That is an example for why we might want to abolish Againstism. However, as Rangley pointed out above, we may need those Against votes someday to stop a disaster. So I propose that: We reword the discription for voting, so that if someone has to vote against someone, they should leave an unambiguous, clearly worded reason why they are voting against. If such a plausable and understandable reason is not given, then the vote should be striken (after the voter is notified and given a chance to reword/rethink it) --ZB 13:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Too much bureaucracy. Just reword warning we really dislike this kind of vote, that's enough to make most voters think of it twice before doing it, asuming they actaully read the instructions.--Rataube 16:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• UnFor and DoublePlusUnFor perhaps then? --Olipro Anchor (Harass) 14:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment AHA! I have a riduclous and impratical idea too! Why don't we give every one ONE vote, be it for or against for each award, for each month! --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 20:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Idea that one. --ZB 15:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Bidding for my one vote starts at $10@Amazon.com. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 00:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the sound of this. Just encourage people to vote for someone they like rather than agaist someone they don't. Though perhaps againsts should be allowed with a well justified reason if a for has already been made. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

For The me and barry hybrid --ZB 00:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Against. Just in case you are serious, otherwise I'm for.--Rataube 01:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

For I was being serious - in a unserious way. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 08:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not such a bad idea... but it'd probably encourage sockpuppets, so RubberStamp Vote Against --Olipro Anchor CUN (Harass) 18:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote that people who take the awards seriously be disbarred from voting. Furthmore, people who don't take the awards seriously should only be allowed to vote if they promise to keep their vote secret and not post it anywhere. This would have the side benefit of making vote tallying very, very, very, muy how you say in Englis? Easy! No, not really. ----OEJ 18:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)