Forum:Change the "User banned within a month" rule on UGotM

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Change the "User banned within a month" rule on UGotM

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5973 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Moved from Uncyclopedia talk:Useless Gobshite of the Month

This rule should be changed, as you can see this month that nearly all nominations are getting disqualified because the people who truly deserve it are getting banned, thus making the noms useless, and this page completely cluttered. In case you don't know, nearly everyone who gets nommed for UGotM will be banned sooner or later, so this rule ruins it. If we made it so they don't get disqualified if they were banned after their nom, then we'd have people who'd truly deserve it, such as Metropolis, Zerotrousers, Java7837, and Fonchezzz. I'd like the rule changed so that they can't be nommed if they were banned last month, but are still eligable if they were banned after their nom, like Mhaille did in this diff. Does anyone agree? --AAA! (AAAA) 09:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I do. --thematrixeætsyou, the ^_^ (talk) (flames) 09:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I do, because Fonchezzz is my hero (and he's only 4 years old!). --THINKER 09:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Helloooooooooooo repetitiveness. I suppose it falls to me to ask again, why anyone wants to go seeking after UGotM? And why we'd want to let them "campaign" for the award by going out and getting banned as much as possible? -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 12:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say because as demeaning as the award is supposed to be, there is still a motive of good will behind it. Sure our gobshites are annoying and generally useless, but hey man, they're still our gobshites.. ;) --THINKER 15:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Against I only got banned for 12 hours, that doesn't mean I'm disq'd. By returning everyone else, me getting a vote-based award is history forever. --Sir General Minister G5 FIYC UPotM [Y] #21 F@H KUN 13:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree. Most of the candidates who got their noms removed were only banned for three days or so because of some minor offense. --THE 14:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• We've already voted on this. It was no then, and its no now. UGotM is a joke, stop pretending like it matters. -- The Zombiebaron 15:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Zombiebaron: It matters more than you think. Winning UGotM is Fonchezzz's greatest dream. He's heartbroken that he's out of the running.-- Phlegm Leoispotter * (garble! jank!) 18:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a shitty award. He should be trying to be a good user or a good writer or a good 'chopper, rather than someone who is just dickish enough to earn UGotM but not dickish enough to be banned for being a dink. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hell, I know Fonchezzz, and he's definitely not capable of being a "good user"-- Phlegm Leoispotter * (garble! jank!) 19:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've made me sad. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry :)-- Phlegm Leoispotter * (garble! jank!) 20:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Are YOU tired of being a mediocre user, who will never win a major award?

Tried to win Unfried Goat of the Month only to get banned time after time?

Are you, in fact, a bit of a Zerotrousers?

Then try new Uncyclopedia Awards, the place for all your award needs!! We have a range of awards at Very Reasonable Prices. Fully customisable. Pimp up one of these fine awards, and be the envy of Knight and Dame alike!!

Phone toll-free today, and remember - if you don't have an award, you're a worthless nobody!
-- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

---

• Finnally someone got it right. Jeeze. -- The Zombiebaron 04:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)