Forum:Abolish NotM

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Abolish NotM

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4578 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I'm all for helping noobs feel more welcome, but NotM doesn't accomplish that. You're only qualified for a certain amount of time, which is unfair. People use the NotM page to gush over new users instead of gushing over new users on their own talkpages as they should've been doing all along. Anecdote: when I joined, winning NotM wasn't the highlight of my newbie experience, it was encouragement I got on my talkpage. That's what drew me into Uncyclopedia, not an award a month or whatever later. NotM is, in short, too little too late.

Besides this, competition between new users who barely know each other can be mega-awkward for said users. They barely know the place, they barely know each other, and now they're being judged against one another. That's kinda weird.

As a more minor point, NotM contradicts anonymity. Anyone on the wiki should be free to "start over" with a new account at any time, provided, of course, they're not using more than one account at once. This creates a moral dilemma with NotM - if they are nominated again and in danger of winning, they either have to admit their previous identity to someone, or steal it out from underneath a more deserving noob. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 01:49 Feb 29, 2012

Since I've won NotM, I have a special place in my and my sockpuppets heart for it. On many previous attempts to kill it keeping it has always won, so even bringing this up again seems a little unfair. Only drama would come from killing it, and the award would immediately pop up on someone's user page so why bother. And winning it has encouraged many people to stick around as they then felt more or a part of the community. Pros and cons, but it seems to have been here long enoungh that it should be left to stew in its own muses. Aleister 1:56 29-2-'12

I don't think discussing something is ever unfair, and I'm not doing it to stir up Drama. I didn't create this forum with a vote to try to get something ridiculous to pass. I'm bringing up what I see are some serious issues with the award. It's great for the winners, yes, I'm not denying it, but for the just-disqualified, the losers, and those wanting to start with a clean slate, it has downsides. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 01:58 Feb 29, 2012

Quite so, and a fair discussion topic. Since I won it I can only report from that dark side, so I can only imagine what people who lost felt and did about it. Aleister 2:00 29-2-'12

As another member of the dark side, I valued my non-NotM stuff more. So I think that leads us to the following header. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:04 Feb 29, 2012

So far as I can tell its not doing any harm by existing. It's something we've had since '05 and abolishing it is just gonna achieve nothing. If you want to encourage users by leaving messages and such, then we can still do that. It's a fun little thing thats been with us since before most, if not all our current user base came here. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 02:19, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's what I'd like to examine here: is it doing harm? Are we forcing newbies into an awkward position? Are we not leaving messages on peoples' talkpages and etc. because NotM is where most people choose to gush instead? Is it discriminatory towards those who accomplish a lot in their first month as opposed to those who take the first month to get a better grip on the site and really jump into it later? If it's such an important thing to keep around, why do the vast majority of winners disappear? And what are "clean-slate" users supposed to do? My opinion is that it is doing some harm, but I'm trying to collect more data first. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:23 Feb 29, 2012

NotM winners: How did winning NotM impact your experience on the site?

• It was meh at best. It meant far less to me than the encouraging personalized messages on my talkpage from Thekillerfroggy and Ljlego. Since it was more or less planned in advance (I see this fairly often on the voting page - "I'm voting for X this month, but Y is getting it next month") it had exceptionally little meaning. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:04 Feb 29, 2012
• By the time I knew it existed I was already having fun here, and then I lost the first month (someone told everyone I was eligible the next month when in reality it was how you counted the days, I was either right on the cusp of 33 days or over by a few hours), and won the second, and that was fun too. What it helped with was getting to know the people who were voting and having some good feedback on my articles. Aleister 2:20 29-2-'12
• I have a soft spot for this. Given it was won by me, Why, Al, and a few others that hung around for a while, I actually feel I'm in good company. However, to win I had to whore to be nominated, and then I almost lost out to LittlePinkSock. If I had lost it would have been a fairly saddening experience, and then compounded when the truth about LPS came out. By the same token Miley Spears didn't win due to a 30 day break between first and second edits, and she stuck around for a while, as did a few other non-winners, as even some of those that are no longer with us hung around for long enough to make changes here for the better. I also asked three or four user to adopt me, and was rejected by all of them, especially that heartless English bastard. Oddly, that hurt. So I have some mixed emotions about when I was new. Even odder was not ever being eligible for NotY. Pup 12:59 29 Feb '12

  And that rejection continues to haunt you to this day? Excellent - my work here is done. English bastard 10:15, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

  Yes it did. Bastard. Pup 10:20 02 Mar '12

• It made me learn on the fast track since I wanted to win it and really sucked formatting-wise and was not very good with grammar, so I set myself a goal to write 3 good articles that month and be active everyday. I took it as a challenge, although.. well I won it with 20 votes and the other guy was rcMurphy... I don't think it should be abolished though. Mattsnow 20:12, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
• It made people even more jealous of me. —rc (t) 23:04, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

NotM losers and those who missed the window of qualification: How did losing NotM impact your experience on the site?

• Losing made me want to work harder to win a different award, but I might be a rare case. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 02:06, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • To be fair to the "Abolish this sucker" side, the losers who left will be unheard here. When my sockpuppets lost they always left in a huff. Aleister 2:11 29-2-'12
    • I thought about this too, but hey, there are plenty of winners who also shoved off. It evens out. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:12 Feb 29, 2012
• I probably would have won it had I not been disqualified partway through the month for having previously created an account and not stuck around that time, so... yeah. The guy who did wind up winning that month wound up leaving anyway, but before that we seemed to resent each other a fair bit as a result of the thing, which is kind of... counterproductive, yes. Not exactly the most welcoming thing to say, oh, you finally stuck around? Great. You're disqualified, either, but... eh. Folks like Happytimes and Aleister and that weird sex act who adopted me made it seem relatively unimportant. More important, of course, is how do I get someone on Wikipedia to adopt me when I'm clearly not much of a noob? 1234 ~ 22:57, 29 February 2012
  • I'm happy to adopt you at Wikipedia, with my gigantic <100 edits. Pup 11:01 29 Feb '12
• Since I was in a sort of similar position as Lyrithya when I became active (I briefly used my account in 2006 before quitting in disgust, mostly thanks to some asshole named Hardwick Fundlebuggy and his frequent attempts to seduce me), I wasn't qualified for NotM. This made me feel kinda marginalized, but it was all better soon because some users started thanking me for my revert work, nominated one of my articles for feature, and gave me some cookies. The point is: NotM is just as easily replaced with a little user proactivity. Leave genuine, polite and chummy messages in response to their contributions; pee review their work speedily; give them some damn Cookies. It gives the same feeling as triumphing with barely 6 votes in a dying, underpopulated award, or, even worse, losing. -- 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 05:48, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
• Nobody even nominated me. I'm still pissed. Oh, yeah, all of you motherfuckers are gonna pay. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, Mar 2 '12 21:04 (UTC)
• Hell, even I never got nominated. In fact, the award kinda intimidated me and I didn't even think about it much when I started out. What really kept me in the site was probably creating an early article that didn't get deleted outright. Also, it got a negative, but sympathetic Pee Review too. If you're going to be critical to the n00bs, which you often have to be, be gentle and encouraging instead of pulling a blunt "your article sucks" on them. Even I'm guilty of being hard on some new users from time to time, but we all gotta live and learn. --Scofield & Friends 16:31, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
• I never won it, but it made me more jealous of Rcmurphy. --EMC ^[TALK] 23:23 Mar 4 2012

Vote to Abolish NotM

Score: -1

• Abstain but leaning towards against. Both sides make valid points, but this award has always been one of the more important ones (along with WotM and UotM). -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 02:02, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Can we cool it on the voting just this one time? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:04 Feb 29, 2012
• 'Gainst. It's a less pointless award than UGotM, for sure, so if we're going to abolish NotM, why not abolish UGotM as well? ~Pleb the magic! 02:34, 02/29/2012
• All right, since people can't seem to take the hint - vote freakin cancelled. This is going to be a discussion-oriented topic for the time being. If there's need for a vote at the end, there'll be one. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:40 Feb 29, 2012

  I think there's a need, and I think proposals are in place. Pup 10:08 09 Mar '12

• This is a really great idea Puppy! Though I would find that more "right of centre" than left of centre, for very obvious reasons that none of us need to explain...of course. --ShabiDOO 18:53, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • psst... I think you meant to put that down there! – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 19:12 Feb 29, 2012

The original message

Skullthumper is totally, absolutely right about one thing, nOObs need personal interaction. If we keep the NotM, it cannot take the place of indifference to those who didn't win, and those who were never nominated.

I wouldn't mind becoming a lot more proactive with nOObs. I'll go out of my way to and animate all nominated NotM's each month, and try to look back at nOObs, post-welcome-template and I'll try and drop personalised messages etc, and it would be nice if any users were apt to help me with it. --ShabiDOO 02:56, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

What got me thinking along this track was your idea about congratulating the runners-up of the month despite their loss. I read that, and then I thought, why do we put noobs in such a position that this becomes necessary? And it went downhill from there. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 03:00 Feb 29, 2012

I know what you mean, and I would prefer that there was no nomination or competition each month. Better that someone organise this on their user page, and give an award to one (or two or three) nOObs each month for good work. But, it seems like people will be pretty divided on this issue (if not against it) and so, I think Ill just go ahead and do something like that myself (create some kind of nOOb award to compliment the NotM). --ShabiDOO 03:13, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Left of centre thought. If the award was run more along the lines of VFH or VFD (if you have over x votes then you get the award, and users can vote for more than one n00b) it may be more friendly. This would mean to win it you would have to earn it, while at the same time it's not a competition between n00bs. If there are 3 or 4 or 10 people who deserve it, then they can have it. Pup 01:03 29 Feb '12

So basically it wouldn't be a monthly award, but an ongoing award process? I kinda like this idea, it does solve a lot of things, up to and including accidentally "stealing" the award from a more deserving noob. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 17:06 Feb 29, 2012

• This is a really great idea Puppy! Though I would find that more "right of centre" than left of centre, for very obvious reasons that none of us need to explain...of course. --ShabiDOO 20:17, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
• Yes! This idea! This one! Some other nigga suggested something very similar when me or ZB or whoever brought up NotM abolishment way back in the day. I was all for it then and I'm all for it now. Noob of the Moment! -- 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 05:58, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Adoption?

When it actually works, it can do wonders for folks to have a designated person who has promised to help them... I haven't been seeing much of that lately, though. Granted, I also haven't been around that much in general (and thus have no time for it myself), but what do you all think of the current state of AAN and the like? When does it even work and such, and is it less these days? Do we even have noobs anymore? 1234 ~ 23:00, 29 February 2012

I don't "get" AAN. When someone welcomes a noob, aren't they effectively the go-to person for noob questions? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 08:02 Mar 01, 2012

I welcome noobs all the time. Rarely one of them comes to me with a question on my talkpage, and then I tell them the answer. That's all I know. -- The Zombiebaron 08:05, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Usually, but sometimes it's easier if said person says they'll adopt you, too. Was for me, anyway. 1234 ~ 19:56, 1 March 2012

This is true. However, from what I understand, AAN works in the reverse way - the noob has to seek out the adoptee. Which is really weird, now that I think about it. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 01:35 Mar 02, 2012

Well, my welcomer (the original one, not ZB) left the site shortly after I got here, so I was knocked back for adoption at the time. I asked a couple of others and was likewise knocked back. I like the way things worked for me - I'd hassle whoever was around and get what I wanted from there. Spang bailed me out of a lot of techie type issues. But I'm unusual in that I read the manual. Pup 02:33 02 Mar '12

I've said this before

But the best way to fix NotM is to drop the stupid fucking legalistic requirement of 33+/- days and just let the community decide what constitutes a "noob." pillow talk 00:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

I won mine at 33 1/3 days. But yeah, you know a noob when you see one. So Horace is onto something, let people nom users and if enough people object to their noobness then the name can be stricken (and the faux noob can run away in tears). I remember praising and voting for Horace for NotM in fact, and if I recall I still owe him some payback on that. Best served cold. Aleister 00:52 3-3-'12

No matter how we end up fixing this, that stupid legalistic requirement is definitely going away. It's retarded. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 01:47 Mar 03, 2012

Aleister's title should be revoked. THEN we can get rid of that silly rule. Mattsnow 16:47, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't around at the time...but clearly Aleister wasn't a nOOb any more and he should lose the title for sure. Every one knows that 33 days is the etherial novice period...if not the celestial beginner phase. Alister...you can hand in your award to any admin on duty :) --ShabiDOO 20:43, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Seems like we all hated those draconian things about the rules

So I got rid of them, if nobody minds. I feel like this renovation process still isn't complete, though. -- 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 02:17, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that sounds fine, as long as the person wasn't "known" and that person just recently boomed. Mattsnow 03:27, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Supposing it survives

Rather than create a whole new forum about it, I would like to propose that we abolish the rule that they have to write articles or whatever, whilst it is generally good if they have, many of our greatest users aren't good writers (take this guy for instance), anyway I'd like to propose we get rid of that particular rule. Discuss. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 05:53, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Disregard that, its already been done. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 05:55, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Officialising vote

The changes made have not been greeted with thunderous applause from all sides. Given there are a few people who I have put forward this month as deserving a prize, I thought we may want to officialise this a bit with a few votes. Against votes are okay here! Pup 10:05 09 Mar '12

Remove the 30 +/- 3 rule

Score: 5

•  For. It's knocked a few good new members out of the running in the past. Pup 10:05 09 Mar '12
• Keep it gone. -- 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 11:04, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
• You know one when you see one. Aleister 11:32 9-3-'12
•  For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:05, 9 March 2012
• For. Hell yeah have we done this yet. --Black Flamingo 23:15, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
• We gotta catch the noobs while they're still going things, and have no idea if anone cares or not. --ShabiDOO 23:30, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Remove need for article completed

Score: 6

•  For. Given that being an Uncyclopedian is more than just writing, this seems silly. Think about how long Chief was here before he completed his first article. Pup 10:05 09 Mar '12
• Keep it gone-er. -- 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 11:04, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
• Rock n' Roll has many variations. Rap, not so much. Aleister 11:33 9-3-'12
•  For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:06, 9 March 2012
• For. Definitely, that never made any sense to me. --Black Flamingo 23:15, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
• It wouldn't hurt that they've made a few edits though. --ShabiDOO 23:30, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Change voting style to more like VFH style

Okay, to clarify this one, have the ability to cast multiple votes, and have it running on a rolling basis. Similar to VFH, allow members to vote for a user to be given an NotM (or Noob encouragement award) based upon reaching 10 votes. Have no more than x noobs able to be nominated at a time, and remove noobs based upon a health system that works on the same principle as VFH. Once a person is out of the running, they cannot be renominated as NotM (as they have hopefully moved beyond noob status.) This is a very rough of what I have in mind, but wanting to see if people are supportive of this kind of system in principle. We can fine tune details later if it has majority support. Pup 10:05 09 Mar '12

Score: 5

•  For. Pup 10:05 09 Mar '12
• Great idea. Rename "Noob of the Moment" so we get to keep the lovable, cuddly acronym. An award for new, budding users should not be as ostensibly limiting and competitive as WotM, ever. Let's please do this. -- 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 11:04, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
• For, if worked out well. Look at this month's crop of noobs, lots of good ones, while usually there are usually a few weeds among the corn stalks. Aleister 11:34 9-3-'12
• Yes. --Black Flamingo 23:15, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
• Yeah...for sure. I've been considering making a nOOb corner...for finding ways to retain nOObs and help them, on my user page. Ive been thinking about that for a while. --ShabiDOO 23:30, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Abolish NotM altogether

Score: -3

•  Against. I think that encouraging noobs is too important to let this lapse, no matter what changes we need to bring in to make it a more supportive atmosphere. Pup 10:05 09 Mar '12
• It's too cuddly to drown. Aleister 11:36 9-3-'12
• Oh I thought I did this already. The above suggestion basically gets rid of NotM as we know it, which I am all for, but getting rid of everything forever, as I assume this section suggests, is not right. -- 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 16:47, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
• Abstain. Release the Zana 1. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 17:00, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
• Abstain. I could go for this but I'd rather try something new first. --Black Flamingo 23:15, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

tl;dr

Somebody told me to vote here on my talk page, but there are lots of things to vote on. So I'll play it safe and just vote Against everything. That should do. -RAHB 00:51, March 10, 2012 (UTC)