Forum:An issue with NotM

Forums: Index > Village Dump > An issue with NotM

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6143 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I've spoken to many people about my belief that the limit for NotM should be bigger. People who join later in the month, expecially in the later half of the month will not win as in their time they will find people cannot win towards the end of the month due to nominations already having been long underway, and will not be able to win next month's as they will not have been able to contribute enough in such a short time, so are rendered totally ineligible.

I myself, it seems, have been conned out of getting the award due to this somewhat poorly thought-out rule.

So I'd like to raise this issue with the people in charge. A 30-day limit pretty much will stop anyone who joined uncyc in the second half of the month, which therefore excludes roughly half of the possible candidates. It needs to be raised.

If consensus cannot be met, would a vote be allowed? I'm not sure I'm permitted to authorise a vote on such a thing. ~Fag x FS

Vote on extending the NOTM time limit

Score: +1

• Personally I have no objections to raise the limit to 60 days. ~ Mordillo where is my NECROPHILIA? 09:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
• Of course I agree with myself :P of course, I don't object to lower times either. But 60 days is good: it matches up with what I said. ~Fag x FS
• Abstain. I don't get it. If they don't win the first month they have another shot at the next; that's what usually happens. And they have all next month to contribute, so it's plenty of time. Additionally, I've found people who join in the later half of the month to win very often in the next. So I don't really see a problem with the 30 day time limit, I'm afraid. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 09:44 Jan 08, 2008

Comment they wouldn't have all next month to contribute as they would have but a few days until the next month's nomination and voting gets underway. ~Fag x FS

Erm, what about the noobs that are nominated the month they join? They have even less time. What are you talking about? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 12:12 Jan 08, 2008

Additionally, keep in mind that unlike most awards, NotM is judged by what you're doing as you're nominated, not what you did before. Otherwise, none of the first-monthers would win. Changing vote to against until I can understand why we need this. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 12:14 Jan 08, 2008

If my understanding of the current rules is correct: A noob who makes their first contribution on say the 2nd day of the month gets maybe 60 days to win (all of that month and next month), whereas a noob who makes their first contribution on the last day of the month potentially gets half that (just next month). Is that not unfair? I'm not sure that changing the limit to 60 days is the answer, would we not still get this problem? Maybe make it 45 days from the first contribution?MrN 13:12, Jan 8

I was thinking that myself, but I sorta didn't mention it because people seemed to be agreeing. ~Fag x FS

• For - Yeah, I was robbed of NotM too. Nobody seemed to notice my amazing 45 contributions in my first month. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 11:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• For. Yeah! Extend the time limit! I myself was robbed as I became well known a mere 6 months after I arrived. Viva la n00bs!--<<>> 13:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• For tagging on an extra 15 or so days onto the time limit. -- 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 19:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• For Nice scoring TKF. I'm in favour of making it "you can be nominated for NotM if your first contribution was less than 45 days ago". This should even out the where in the month were you born problem. MrN 20:05, Jan 8
• 45 daysChanging to against. I thought about this a bit, and I agree with Boomer. I'm for 45 days if it passes anyway. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:23, Jan 8
• Against. 30 days is plenty of time. What everybody seems to be assuming is that if you don't have the entire next month to work there's to possible way you could get the award. Dead wrong. Making the assumption that all of the hypothetical subjects I'm using get nominated, if a user joins the 2nd they'll be nominated that month and have the entire month to earn it. If there was a noob that started the previous month and won that month, they'll still be eligible at the very beginning of the next month, and should be known widely enough to win. If they join in the middle, say the 17th, they still get a month. They get the entire rest of the month that they joined to get themselves noticed, and they're still eligible to win the next month. If they joined later, say the 25th, they get almost the entire next month to prove themselves. The system we have works fine, so I'm against. However, if this gets passed despite my vote, it changes to 45 days, as two months is way too long for a hard worker to be considered a noob. I didn't feel like a noob by mid-September, even though many users may have considered me one (and may still), and that was less than a month after I became active. In October, less than two months after, I started PEEING, the group that eventually cleaned out Pee Review, and Reviewer of the Month, now an official Uncyclopedia award. Was I still a noob? Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 23:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Against - I joined in the second half the month not long before you (on November 23rd) and I still managed to win If that rule was in place and I lost last month, I'd be eligible for NotM this month but I'm no longer a n00b. That said, after a period of time, you're no longer a n00b. Sorry Fag, you're no longer a n00b. --Æ 00:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Should I mention that I joined on 7th November and managed to win that month? (Only thanks to Razorflame having to take a break from Uncyc I should add)... /me dodges the tomatoes... It took Mhaille until the 16th (9 days) to notice my efforts and nominated me. I think it often takes about this amount of time to get noticed. I think the point is that if you're born late in the month, you only get one fair crack at the NotM whereas if you're born early, you get two. That does not appear fair. I'm not sure that changing it to 45 days would actually cause much of a problem. All N00bs will still get the chance to enter 2 times, and it's more fair on those born late in the month. MrN 00:48, Jan 9

We've had 30 days for 2 and a 1/2 years, we've gotten along with it well, and 30 days is plenty of time (45 days is way too long) I don't see the need for a change. Remember, I was born late in the month and I mysteriously managed to win NotM. --Æ 00:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Comment. If this gets enacted, I want to make a retroactive nomination. (Also, neutral on whether or not to lengthen, but if we do lengthen, I vote for 45 days, not 60.) — Sir Wehp! (t!) (c!) — 01:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• For Why the hell not? We're excluding lots of people by limiting it to 30 days!!   Le Cejak • <-> Jan 9 (02:55)
• Against Then it wouldn't be Noob of the MONTH, now would it? I think that maybe the eligibility rules could be clarified. Such as, if you join in the last half of a month, you're still eligible the next month. But extending the voting period to 60 days doesn't make sense. By the way, when I created this award, I intended there to be a period where votes couldn't be made yet. As in, nominations are made up until the last week of the month, at which point nominations end and ONLY THEN would voting begin. If that were to be followed, then races wouldn't be over before they began and noobs that make a lot of leeway in a week or two could get a nomination or at least work towards the next month. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 03:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Another clarification could be that you must have been around for 30 days as of the date of the nomination itself. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 03:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Against - I agree with STM's solution. If it works, we should move it all over the other awards. Like a blanket solution. A final blanket solution. I like the ring of that. -- The Zombiebaron 03:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with STM. Also, what is it with the rumbling? It's been fine for so long, and a user who was ineligible wants the rules changes so his nomination will be valid. But once you reach the 30 day limit, you're no longer a n00b, no exception even if it is a day off--Æ 22:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If we do change the time period, Fag would not be eligible in my view regardless of what it's changed to. We would be setting a rather dodgy precedent otherwise. The rumbling is that it's currently a lot easier to win NotM if you join Uncyc early in a month rather than later. MrN 23:23, Jan 9
      • I certaintly agree about the fairness, however, you can argue with this proposal that a user has 3 fair shots at NotM. Say (s)he joins on the April 17th, gets nominated later that month, than gets nominated May and June and by the end of June when (s)he wins, (s)he will clearly no longer be a n00b. Also, one fair shot is enough IMO as several users won with only one shot.--Æ 23:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Do we need two rules for nomination here? How about if we changed it to 45 days and said that you can only be nominated in the month you start and the next. MrN 00:31, Jan 10
          • Nah, the rules should be short and simple, and there's no need to make it so complicated. Let's just keep it the way it is and get on with the rest of our lives, eh?--Æ 00:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• For - I was robbed too... -- red Ape (anglicanise) (Riot Porn) 22:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Against Not really sure why this is needed, because if any user joins on the 2nd of the month, they are still eligible next month. I say we just make it so people who joined on the 1st of the month could be nomed the next month too. So extend the limit to 31 or 32 days. - UnIdiot | Talk? | Theme - 16:34, Jan 11

Slightly off topic

That 30 day thing is all well and good for the youngin's...but what about us old folk? You know, the ones that actually are old enough to have to be working all the time. When i got here, it took me almost 2 weeks to learn the correct formatting, rules, etc. But that's because i work over 40 hrs a week. Hell, if i had ever single day to devote to reading/writing/goofing off here...I would have cleaned out PEE Review single-handedly, written 30 articles, and probably read about 400 articles...sadly, I'm lucky if i can devote a full 24hrs in one week. But that's life. There is no way that I could have won NotM, no way in hell...I am physically unable to devote the time that would be required.

Most of us are busy during the day, even the young guns like myself. School is 35 hours a week for me, and then there's homework, usually an hour or two every day. Of course, I have all the time in the world for a few weeks in the summer. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:31, Jan 10

Same with me. I was very active in December because I had a few weeks off for the hoildays, but nowadays I'm too busy to slap in so many edits.--Æ 00:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Anybody whose first contributions are before July 1, 2007 should be ineligeable. That's my two cents.   Le Cejak • <-> Jan 11 (15:07)

Hey, it's Cajek! Its been days and your STILL not banned? ZB, get in here! Do you realise that your amount of bans for December is coming close to the amount of Reviews i did in Dec. ??