Forum:Noob eligibility requirements

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Noob eligibility requirements

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5349 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

WARNING! This page contains profuse whining. Proceed with caution.

I has a proposal. And here it is. Honestly, I think the eligibility requirements for NotM are dumb. I propose that we eliminate them.

Let's look at these:

• Be a MEMBER of no more than 30±3 days membership (Unless you are Rcmurphy).

What's the sense of a hard "33 day" cutoff? If someone logs in in January 2008 and fixes a single typo, and then actually begins editing the site earnestly as a new member in July 2009... can we really say that person isn't a noob? I think that person is a noob. Can't we trust the community to determine who is and isn't a noob?

• Have written at least one "full" article or have created at least 5 "decent" photoshopped images.

This is also very silly. We made a Sonje exception, but there are innumerable other exceptions to be made. What if someone shows up, doesn't do any writing, but does 30 excellent in-depth pee reviews? What if someone shows up and makes significant improvements to ten of our worst articles on popular subjects? Again - can't we trust the community to determine which noob is most valuable?

Oh, and also: a non-binding vote. pillow talk 18:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Vote

For

Score: +16 (0 Admins)

1.  For. Eliminate the silly eligibility requirements. pillow talk 18:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
2. For. Because I've expressed my own similar sentiments. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 18:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
3. For. I'm a noob. Isn't it obvious? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
4. For the children. Please, think of the children.--Almost Sir Random Crap
5.  For. per above. --Mn-z 19:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
6.  For. Sounds good. Colin ALL YOUR BASEHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 19:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
7.  For. was thinking of making a similar forum post.    Orian57    Talk   19:57 6 August 2009
8.  For. Cho fearly? --Sir Sunbeam no u F@H KUN 20:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
9. For a site that "doesn't take itself seriously", the pedantry inherent in this rule seems pretty ridiculous (unless it's meant to be ironic, but it's not is it? rhetorical). Having said that I'd still have voted for Sequence anyway.--El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 08:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
10.  For. As per sunbeam. And if you don't think someone qualifies as a n00b, just don't vote for them! Pup t 00:18, 8/08/2009
11. I was about to make this forum, but I gave hyperbole a chance. zh I hate me new sig 09:54 August 8
12.  For. Right now we have someone who's already created two articles, majorly improved two others, and is one of the biggest contributors to Uncyclopedia:Imperial_Colonization/project (God). But that person was disqualified because she was here for one day then came back a month and half later (two weeks ago) and has been editing like crazy. Should she be penalized for one day? Binky The WonderSkull 13:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
13. For. As per TKF (see below). --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 13:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
14. For. Per above. -- pricey Ape (exemplify) (Riot Porn) 15:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
15.  For.. I know it won't help me (I'm the girl who was here for one day and came back), but it could help future n00bs! Miley Spears 18:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
16.  For.. These restrictions are just stupid. NotM is pretty lax about the current restrictions, so why not change the language to fit our attitudes about this? If these current restrictions were seriously enforced, they'd require a lot more unnecessary nitpicking. Something more broad ought to also bring in more candidates and encourage newcomers to do some of the things that they want to do at Uncyclopedia and be rewarded for doing whatever it is that they're good at rather than just do these requirements to win an award that they might not even know exists. It's better reinforcement -- these prerequisites just devalue the award altogether. --EMC ^[TALK] 21:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Against

Score: 12

1. Nah. Though I would be in support of eliminating Noob of the Month in its entirety. It's really a silly little award. While it's here, though, I feel like we ought to have these eligibility guidelines in place. -- 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 18:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Against changing things that seem pretty much fine to me. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 19:30, Aug 6
3. Agstain. Fixing things that aren't broken. Also, delete NotM or let the Admins hand it out to whoever (and however many) as they see fit. -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:01, 6 Aug
4. against as per led. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 20:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Against. I think the guidelines are pretty much fine as they are. Yes, they could use a little clarification, but on the whole, they are fine. I do think that Hype makes a good point with saying that a user who creates an account, leaves, and comes back should still be eligible. However, we have the Reviewer of the Month for users that do good reviews and we have the Potatochopper of the Month for users that can photoshop. And writing one article is not that hard. I also think it's a test to see if a user can do what Uncyclopedia is about: writing articles, instead of being just a fixer-upper. Writers are cooler. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 21:11, Aug 6
6. Against. It's okay as is. Also, you don't want it. NotM is cursed. If this was an episode of The Brady Bunch, and I think we can all agree that it is, it would be a tiki idol. To a lesser extent, Uncylopedia in its entirety would too. That's right; a tiki wiki. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Against. ~ 07:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Against. Wait, hang on. Are we actually being serious about this? I kinda understand that it would be nice to do it, but then it would become a debate about who is eligible, and you would not be comparing like with like. It should be possible for a noob to join in the middle of the month and still win. If there was a "backlog of deserving winners" who are still getting all the votes at that time it's not good. The purpose of NotM is to encourage REALLY new noobs into Uncyc. Although rewarding the deserving is obviously good, such as in my case. :-) I joined on the 11th and I was still eligible for the next month had I not won, so I would say that's OK. MrN 13:42, Aug 9
9. Against. --T. (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Against It doesn't need fixing. Also, rcmurphy should just win it automatically when there is any drama. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 16:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
11. Against, given that I've been arguing this way anyway. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 17:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
12.  For. I have blended into the unwashed masses... Perfectly --SirFixalot 21:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. How come the total here is 13 ? Do admins get double votes ??--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 15:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Apparently they do, TKF ban-threatened anyone who corrects they vote. --Mn-z 16:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    • ..I see. Surprised they haven't tried the double vote privilege on the VFH , VFD forums etc..unless they plan to implement that 'oilygark' idea..--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 17:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Nah, just forums and VFS. And UGotM too, I guess. Anything goes down there. -- 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 17:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Not that I care enough about this subject to do anything, let alone actually vote, but that rule is utter bullshit (except on VFS). *dances away* Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 20:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked on IRC for TKF to demonstrate that this admin votes count double thing is a rule. I got this, which established that it is a rule in appointing sysops. We are not appointing sysops here, so in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I am reverting the score to what it would be if we just have straight democracy, pending discussion. I have made it clear to TKF that if I am banned again over this I will not be returning, because I'm not going to deal with sysops abusing their positions. -- pricey Ape (exemplify) (Riot Porn) 22:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, you were not the white knight in this argument that you've been shaping yourself up to be. You're not standing up for the little guy, nor are you trying to take down "the man" and shedding light on his "abuse of powers." There are many other topics and votes we can drive up from the past that prove that admins count double in forum votes, but that one link "absent of evidence" is enough. Forum votes just started with appointing sysops, so naturally, a couple rules carried over as the avenues split. One was the rule that admin votes count for double. Sometimes, this rule has been ignored, either because there's overwhelming consensus and it doesn't matter, it's a minor issue and it doesn't matter, or we just forget about it.

But the matter of whether it's a rule of not is completely, ridiculously moot right now. Hell, it should have been moot in the first place. You have taken an anthill and turned them into the Himalayas, then got into your Jesus Christ pose and begged that your voice be heard. I created the warning out of petty annoyance with people reverting me by accident, but you knowingly reverted me, after reading the warning and hearing the arguments. I know this because, well, you told me yourself. I warned you again, you did it again. So I banned you. You got unbanned and, in true dramawhore fashion, threatened to sacrifice yourself for the "good of the community" if I continued acting as a sysop. Then, as the final icing on the cake, you fulfilled your own ultimatum. So there you go, Ape, that's why you were banned: you can now leave the site and never return. -- 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 23:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. 3 paragraphs of complaints are very attractive. And I'm not being Captain Sarcastic, of course not.--Almost Sir Random Crap

Of all the things you two could be fighting about, you picked this? Are you both retarded*? (*Note: apologies to all of the legitimately retarded out there. You know who you are.) Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, who knows. they could have been huffing raw Plutonium an hour ago...-Almost Sir Random Crap

The Martyred Ape...now I haven't seen a pub with that sign ! But seriously , a lifetime ban is worthy only of Conservapedia isn't it ? How about a 3 day cooling off period for all concerned and then see ??--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 06:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue's already been resolved (via IRC), and it's been concluded that everyone is retarded. -- 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 06:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think if admins get two votes, then n00bs should get three. Just because we're so darn cute. Miley Spears 23:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

• Nobody had better write anything here. pillow talk 18:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Anything. --Nobody 21:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • UNDAR YEWSAR MAKED A FUNNY!    Orian57    Talk   21:28 6 August 2009
    • Comment. I should just point out that, according to my mega-fantastic maths skills, neither "For" or "Against" score is correct at present, and "Against" is off by a long way.--El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 00:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
      • They look fine to me... Pup t 00:36, 8/08/2009
        • Someone changed the "11" to "7" on "Against" after I posted that message, after which I changed the "9" to "10" on "For", assuming that I'm allowed to do so. Yeah it's fine now.--El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 00:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
          • I wonder who that someone was. Obviously a n00b who wasn't thinking about the dual importance of the admins here. Pup t 00:59, 8/08/2009
            • Are we double counting admin votes or something? --Mn-z 05:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
              • 

                One of our smaller admins, Alula.
              • Apparently. Admins, you see, are twice as obese as users. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
                • Who made up that rule? --Mn-z 05:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
                  • Some person way before I even came to this site. Probably Savethemooses. -- 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 06:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
                    • Let's say Chronarion. He was spotted a day ago, right?zh I hate me new sig 09:57 August 8
                      • Well, # Abstain with savings. Noob of the Year. zh I hate me new sig 09:55 August 8

Allow admins to hand it out to whomever they see fit

• This is actually a fine idea. We'd have to lower the total distinction of the award a bit to the point that it just becomes "I recognize that you are fairly new and also good! Have this Noob award!" I am not opposed to that, however. Also, it'll finally free up space on the main page for UotM on the monthly award blurbs. -- 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 18:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Against. Too much power in the hands of the Inner Circle. I don't want to become a prole. (But for switching UotM and NotM on the front page blurb thingy.) Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 21:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Against. This may seem surprising to you, TFK, but users who weren't arbitrarily picked to become admins enjoy having/deserve a say, too. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 03:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Arbitrarily picked by a site-wide democratic vote. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 04:05, Aug 7
    • Yeah, whatever happened to that? -OptyC Sucks! CUN15:46, 7 Aug
      • Having a voting page for something we don't need every month just seemed kind of dumb, so we got rid of it. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 16:16, Aug 7
        • But the policy hasn't changed? I honestly wasn't paying attention when the voting page went away (which I have no problem with). -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:25, 7 Aug
    • And who chose who gets to edit on this site exactly? Who is it that can ban and unban anyone as they please? That's right, the admins. So the admins have the ability to choose who is going to vote for other admins, making the vote fixed. NOW, THAT DOESN'T SOUND VERY DEMOCRATIC, DOES IT?! I CAN SEE THROUGH YOUR POWER-GRABBING AND PLOYS, ASSHOLES!!! Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 04:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Its more of a self-perpetuating oligarchy. --Mn-z 04:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      • No, I'm pretty sure there's usually a vote. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 16:16, Aug 7
      • Also, TKF, don't forget to ban that Fuhrer person. He called you TFK. ~ 08:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Whoops. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 12:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
        • But, Admins get double votes, and only admins can vote in the final round, and the admins reserve the right to change the process at any time for any reason. --Mn-z 19:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Someone who is an admin and knows what the job entails usually has a better idea of the right kind of person to join the crap-cleaning team. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 05:50, Aug 8
            • True, but that doesn't make it any more democratic. Benevolent(-ish) oligarchy is still oligarchy. --Mn-z 05:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
              • Well, I guess it's a good thing this isn't a country, then. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 07:07, Aug 8

• For; less voting is always more goodingnessful. -- The Zombiebaron 15:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
•  I like pie! Because having only gotten this from a popular vote, I can say it's a lot more valuable than a single user (admin or not) giving me an award. I like my golden showers (take it any way you want it) but that doesn't make me as excited as the prospect of becoming RotM, purely because it's not the opinion of one, but the opinion of many. Otherwise why the hell do we vote of FA, or UotM, or WotM, or PotM, or BotM? And having had to deal with a user recently who was adding FA status to his own work for no apparent reason, as well as giving himself a couple of other accolades with no basis, the very idea of having this be a single user, admin or not, who hands this around for the fun of it steals away the impact of it. (Although I wouldn't be against the concept of a N00b cookie!) Pup t 00:15, 8/08/2009

Delete Uncyclopedia

• Uncyclopedia is the worst, right? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Kerkill the poor sonvabitch. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 19:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• What's Uncyclopedia? Is it the cabal? zh I hate me new sig 09:59 August 8
  • Yes! It is the cabal! --Cabal Member #1
    • So I'm on the cabal? zh I hate me new sig 09:59 August 8
      • Hush, young 'un. 'Tis not s'pposed to be reveal'd. Thee cabal is restrict'd. Thou art banished! --Cabal Member #2
        • Wait... am I banned? zh I hate me new sig 09:59 August 8
          • Maybe. --Cabal Member #3

I like Pie

•  Against. Fuck pie. pillow talk 19:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
•  For. Though fucking a pie isn't that bad of an idea. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 20:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain. I never did understand triganometry.    Orian57    Talk   20:51 6 August 2009
•  For. Grandma's Pies. Delicious. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 21:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
•  For. Pie is the universe's answer to everything, even the area of circles.--Almost Sir Random Crap

Rcmurphy

• For. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 21:04, 06 Aug 2009
• For. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 23:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• For. MrN 04:03, Aug 7
•  Against. You all are being really stupid. This user...RcMcMurphy, or whatever his name is, has been here for well over 1 month. I don't think this is in the spirit of Uncyclopedia to have him win this award. Learn to be more like the rest of us Uncyclopedians, and learning rules. New User #356731 04:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Against. I'm tired of the joke, and I've only been here two months. (Okay, I'll admit it was my fault this month, but even so.) Pup t 00:06, 8/08/2009

A Much Better Idea

How about, in the first week of every new month, we gather together all the previous month's noobs and put them together in some sort of fenced-off enclosure and let 'em fight it out for supremacy, sort of like those royal rumble things that they have in American wrestling whenever audience figures fall? We could throw in the occasional rusty knife/club/dog/broken bottle to liven it up a bit if they show signs of flagging. The intelligent ones will form alliances for their own protection, so we'll know they're worth keeping and can be removed from the ring early. Then whoever is left standing out of the remainder at the end of, say, a week or so, is declared noob of the month. It'll take a lot more effort to set up than the current NotM, but it'd be a lot more entertaining and we could place bets of them. All those that fail can be disposed of by sending them to ED or somewhere that's happy to take our rubbish. Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 08:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• For MrN 16:38, Aug 7
•  Jelly wrestling even if this doesn't get voted in, I'm still loving the image. Pup t 00:20, 8/08/2009

Discussion

Why is NotM such a major issue?

I'm not really sure why. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 18:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a really valuable tool to say "We notice you, we like what you're doing here." For me, getting nominated for NotM was when I first decided to stick around on the site - since that's when I first realized I wasn't just typing into a vacuum and that people were occasionally actually reading what I wrote. pillow talk 18:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean that question like that--a winner of NotM myself, I can frankly say that being recognized for the contributions I was making early on was a real encouragement. What I meant was more along the lines of "why does everyone hate on NotM?" There's a number of users who think it should be abolished or whatever, and I don't understand why. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 20:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Because they're resentful that they're no longer eligible and will never win it. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 20:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, I was never even nommed for it, Cheevers won it when I was a n00b, and I'm not bitter at all. At all. I'm not the admin who's banned Gerry more times than any other either. --UU - natter 21:27, Aug 6

Whoa, you joined at the same time as Cheevers? Shit, you're a lot younger than I remember... -- 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 05:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

With me it was Hardwick. With Modus it was Methuselah I believe. ~ 07:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I joined two weeks before Todd Lyons, that young whippersnapper. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

wow, modus, your uncyclopedia account is almost five years old. it has to go to kindergarten in a few weeks! SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 12:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, in a few years it'll be stealin' cars. A few after that it'll be eligible for the death penalty in Texas! (/me stomps around, shoots guns) Go Texas! Woo! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What? I started school when I was four and a half! And then a few years after that I stopped wearing nappies. My parents were proud that day, they said I was the first one in the class. /me acts smug/    Orian57    Talk   01:12 8 August 2009

My parents were proud of me to be the first one wearing designer nappies. Hang on, I'm, the only person commenting here who isn't old! Pup t 05:53, 8/08/2009

didn't you mean disposable nappies? You're parents were proud that they could afford them back when they first came out. And you are old! in fact everyone commenting here is old except for me!    Orian57    Talk   12:48 10 August 2009

actually meant age as in number of edits in low four figures... Why have I shrunk. Oh that's right, I don't actually want to comment on this any more as the way that this is being discussed is worse then the way we treat what is being discussed. Because there is no discussion, but there is a significant amount of waving dicks in the wind. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Sigh!Pup t 10:30, 12/08/2009

OptyC for admin!

 Against. He's a fuckin wanker. -OptyC Sucks! CUN19:06, 7 Aug

• Uber against Worthless trash. (Odd that you should open up a brand new conversation and then criticise your self in it for no apparent reason.)    Orian57    Talk   01:09 8 August 2009

• Against, purely because he left out the $r$ and reversed the $t$ and $p$ in $OtpyrC$ Pup t 01:24, 8/08/2009

• I dun get it.    Orian57    Talk   01:28 8 August 2009

• sdrawkcab ti daeR User:POTR/Invisiblesig

• i still don't get it. zh I hate me new sig 10:02 August 8

• mih ot ti evig enoemos naC User:POTR/Invisiblesig

• That's a bit convolouted really. Also this invisible sig thing is a tad annoying. It just looks like you havent signed.    Orian57    Talk   22:53 9 August 2009

• Tis the idea... Pup t 21:24, 10/08/2009

Cejak for admin

And I wonder. I haven't seen him for a long time. was he banned or something? zh I hate me new sig 10:03 August 8

No. He just left again. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 17:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh. zh/SG/14:39 August 10

So going back on track again

So let's say we decide to remove the requirements. What then? Are we going to call it "The Generic of the month award" - and anyone can participate in it? Can I get this award now even though I've been here since 2006? Anyone bothered thinking about this? This award is to encourage noobs, new contributors to the site. If you remove the time limit - this whole award is becoming useless, and we might as well get rid of it. ~ 10:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not just change it so that you can be nominated if you were here for two months. That way it solves any problems of someone joining a couple of days before voting for that month ends and hence not having 'done enough', and then becoming ineligible for the next month since they already joined the month before. Plus it means that if two particularly skilled people join in one month then one of them won't miss out just because they joined in the same month that another skilled one joined. Sequence 14:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Because then you make it harder for the really new n00bs. They are the people who need encouragement, not people who have been here a while. I think people are forgetting that the point of NotM is to encourage new users to stick around the site. It's not to rewards the deserving. We could change the rules but then we would end up with a queue of "worthy" winners" backed up. "Oh, it's OK, you can win N0tM next month"... "Hmm, Well I don't think he's a n00b now"... "Well I do"... Bullshit. There would be noms on NotM which had been there for months and real noobs (as in guys who had actually just turned up) would probably not even get a nom as they would not be able to compete against those who had been on the site longer. That's wrong, and defeats the point of having NotM. Mordillo is right. I understand why people are voting for as it sounds like an obviously sensible suggestion but people need to think about what would actually happen if we did do this... MrN 14:19, Aug 10

I think Sequence makes a decent point. Also there's nothing less motivating for a n00b than seeing 3/4 of established members voting for an in-joke as NotM. --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 14:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We've got to keep rc's self-esteem up somehow. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 16:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

random idea: make NotM like VFH. if a n00b gets +10 votes before they have been around for one month, they receive the award. this would be more like a n00b merit badge, since there might be more than one in a month (or none). this would eliminate weird things happening due to people joining during certain times of the month. this would encourage new users to stick around, even if there is another n00b that is on fire. most importantly, this would seemingly eliminate any and all whining in the forums about this award. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I almost support this, except if we were to make it like VFH there would also be plenty of against votes. Some noobs, yes, would be given overwhelming support and gain the award, but I can think of plenty others that only became popular because they're sociable and that I would certainly vote against. This isn't so much a point that the voting could drag on, but this negative input could discourage some of the noobs. Scratch that, negative reinforcement is not a bad thing. Now my only issues with this are that we would still need to set an arbitrary time limit for eligibility, and that the impact would be reduced greatly by turning NotM into VFN. People value being Writer of the Month more than they do getting a feature, and this could become the same thing. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 16:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, ex post facto laws are unconstitutional, so everyone who's won NotM already will still get to keep their award (I'm not sure if you were alluding to this, but someone was going to bring it up eventually). As for the devaluation of the award, I feel like it's a better bet than not being eligible at all in the first place or boiling up a huge vat of drama every 2 months. And it wouldn't necessarily be the same thing as a feature, because we'll give this a flashier title and, like Writer of the Month, you can only win it once. Plus, we can barely get features to scratch 10 votes nowadays, so a +10 rule for winning (as Gerry suggested) ought to value the award a bit. That means that half of the whole voting community is in support of them! -- 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 17:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am in support of 2 things: Getting rid of NotM altogether, or changing it to a recognition-style merit vote, like Gerry suggested above, or the admin-only type that someone else suggester above-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 17:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Giving an award to more people cheapens the award's value, IMO. How is a 10 vote limit any more arbitrary than a 30 day time limit? We use the month thing because we're trying to encourage the noobs that have an exceptionally good start to keep going. I know it's not fair to that one guy who joined 4 days before the thingy, and we should be giving this award to lots of people because so many of them deserve it, and so-and-so was totally robbed by the completely arbitrary deadline or whatever, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere, so we might as well leave it where it is. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 17:36, Aug 10

Okay, now that we're back on track

Of course NotM should be an award for noobs, and I think the community realizes that, and won't vote for anyone who's not a noob. Maybe two or three users will be saying "He got robbed three months ago," but the majority will be voting for another candidate.

Thing is, I think the community can do a lot better job of deciding who is and isn't a noob than some arbitrary number (which stands at 33, for some reason) can. Personally, I think someone becomes a "noob" at the point that they first seriously start writing articles, voting, and participating on the site. I don't think it does Uncyclopedia any good to tell a new, enthusiastic user "Hey, we're glad you're writing and participating now, but you fixed three typos in April, so as far as we're concerned you're old news."

I wouldn't vote for someone for NotM who had been making solid contributions for more than a month. Obviously, neither would any of the users who voted "Against," above. But why do we expect everyone to hit the ground running? We should be encouraging people to become active contributors to Uncyclopedia - not merely to register an account - and demanding that they do both simultaneously to win the award is just unreasonable. And it's because of the fact that most noobs *don't* immediately hit the ground running that RCMurphy racks up so many votes: month after month, many of the best candidates are obvious noobs who get struck out due to a lame technicality. pillow talk 17:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

i understand and sympathize with your points, but the fact remains, we have to draw a line somewhere . otherwise all we'd be doing is debating the n00biness of n00bs. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 17:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really "debating," just voting. You know, like: "For. Even though I recognize that User:FeminineHygeine has written two great articles at this point, User:CrimsonBunghole has made stellar contributions in only one week." ...to me, that's a far better scenario than just striking FeminineHygeine because his account (although perhaps not his activity) is slightly too old. pillow talk 17:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't expect everyone to hit the ground running. That's why we have this award--to recognize the very few that do. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 17:38, Aug 10

Also, the sockpuppets who hit the ground running. -- 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 17:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

So why not recognize and encourage those who registered, looked around, sorta liked it, and a couple months later, joined the community?? pillow talk 17:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If we get rid of the requirements, the issue of who is and isn't a noob would be decided by an election instead of a drama laden legal battle. We have already changed the rules after the fact, i.e. we expanded the eligibility time from 30 days to 33 days (but refused to increase it to 35 days), and we changed the requirements from writing one full article to writing a full article or making 5 decent images. --Mn-z 17:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

While this idea would, in theory, work, I think it would create more problems that it would solve. Sure, "old" noobs would get their chance to shine, but there is absolutely no way that drama would not be stirred up. People feeling that the guy others are voting for is too old, the waitlist of awardees that many have already mentioned, Zombiebaron complaining about voting, and, of course, people complaining about Rcmurphy winning so damn often. I'm with Gerry on this one, there's no way this would go off without a hitch. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 17:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you find a nomination of a person who has been on too long, vote against that person, or leave a comment to the effect of: while I apprieciate this user's contributions, I think has been active too long to win this award. --Mn-z 18:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I would start the drama, or that it would start immediately after the change is made. But somebody somewhere along the line will make a complaint, drama will be made, and in all likelihood it will be resolved. But then it will happen again, and again, and we'll be exactly where we are now. I feel that the method we have now is the most effective of all the suggestions that have been brought up, making the award attainable without devaluing it completely or inevitably causing drama when we get a string of good noobs. If there's anything I've learned about this site over the years, it's that drama will happen, and having a concrete set of rules to refer to is one of the best ways of resolving it. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 18:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Any voting award can create drama. These eligibility requirements don't chill the drama so much as they chill the entire award - month after month, a good noob or two get nominated, get struck as ineligible, and we end up with three votes for Rcmurphy and four half-hearted votes for someone who hasn't really done anything. It's better to recognize someone who's been around for more than a month but just started to get into the swing of things than to be stuck with no one to recognize at all because of red tape. pillow talk 18:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In defence of Sequence, he would actually make a very worthy winner of NotM and his reputation has shot up a lot for me since I voted for him half-heartedly originally. I get your point though. --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, its the rules on eligibility that create drama, because it turns nominations into "court cases" instead of elections. (And the fact that we have changed the rules after the fact in the past isn't helping.) If there are no rules on eligibility, there would be less drama. --Mn-z 18:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

But where are the laffs??

• The main problem that I see with voting – although I really do see alot of problems with it – is that it's not funny. This is supposed to be a humour site. Awhile back we had a problem with UGotM similar to what's now going on with NotM (people were ambiguous about the definition of a gobshite, and some people were offended, and other people were being dicks and whatnot). Now – it seems – UGotM is just a joke the way it should be. I think we should stop taking all of these awards to fucking seriously people. Nobody cares. Go ahead, nominate admins for NotM, nominate kakun for UotY, nominate me for everything I haven't won yet. But don't take a single shred of this stuff seriously. If you want to show someone else on the site that they're doing a good job, the official awards may no longer be the place for that, and instead you could perhaps create your own award-templates to hand out or something. I dunno. I'm just sick and tired of people bickering about things that in the end aren't even consistent with the overall goal of this site: making people laugh. -- The Zombiebaron 17:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, thank GOD. FINALLY, something I can agree with.  For.. *Standing Ovation, and perhaps some whistling* Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 17:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Against. these awards are intended to be ways to recognize contributions, not be jokes. Granted, there has been too much drama, but that is no reason to turn the awards into jokes. That would be like featuring iCarly or TYATU. --Mn-z 18:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please, don't take this the wrong way M (fuck the rest of your name), but I don't know if you know, or almost anyone on this site, has the ability to tell Zombiebaron what anything around here is intended to be. He's been around longer, he's an admin, he probably knows more about this site, and what it's about than most of us. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 18:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • What he said. I don't want to sound like I'm talking down to you, but it's illogical to talk down to the admins. Especially Zombiebaron. -- 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 18:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• I wouldn't call that "talking down". At least that's not what I intended to do. --Mn-z 18:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think I ever suggested that every award should be a "joke". I merely stated that UGotM is and always should have been for fun. What I am suggesting is that people stop taking the awards so seriously, and try to have a little bit of fun while they recognize good work on the site. If you feel strongly that someone is doing a good job, it is probably a better idea to just leave them a nice message on their talkpage, instead of getting the whole wiki involved in a voting process for them. I'm not sure if I'm making myself entirely clear here, but if you keep humour and satire in mind everytime you vote, you're already on the right track. And thanks Woody, what a nice thing to edit conflict me with :) -- The Zombiebaron 18:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'm lost. If voting is not a laff, why do we all enjoy doing it so much? The voting shows appreciation. More voting more encouragement. Yea, sure edit their talk page or better still edit their articles but having a goal to work towards and the recognition of your peers has proven to work very well IMO. An award which is not chosen by your peers is less effective. MrN 18:36, Aug 10

• Alright, I agree with that MrN, but isn't that what VFH and VFP are for? I would trade all the WotMs in the world if only I could have the ability to write 20 featured articles. The Hall of Shame may need to be more prominent, but I think that's where the real pride is. I know I feel pretty good about having the third most featured images on the site, and the fact that I've won awards that people voted for the recognize that fact only highlights it (I'm not bragging, merely pointing out that I feel I know what I'm talking about...). We should be working towards making highquality content, not winning awards. People should just stop taking the awards so seriously. Do you understand now? -- The Zombiebaron 18:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Really? You think that 15 FAs (the difference between 20 if you have 5) is worth more to Uncyclopedia than all your other contributions? I don't. I think that Cajek could have written 50 FAs by now had he not done so much to help everyone else but I'm glad he did things the way he did. FA is important, but for me there is a lot more to Uncyc than who is given credit for what's on the front page. The Hall of Shame should be more prominent. MrN 19:15, Aug 10

• You missed my point again, man. What I was saying about the FAs and the awards only applied to WotM. I think people should want to create featured articles for the sake of creating featured articles (because, like, nobody sits down and spends two or more days working on an article and then doesn't hope that their work gets recognized on the front page, right), and not for the sake of an award. That may seem obvious (at least when we're talking about WotM), but I think that misunderstanding is at the heart of this whole conversation. When I was a noob I was pretty damn nooby. That's the point of being a noob (as I see it): to learn things, ask questions, and make mistakes. If you are being a good noob (from my point of view), you are off fucking around with wikicode on some subpage of you userpage and submitting MS-Paint drawing on the Reefer Desk (and then following up with the suggestions and improving those drawing), not jumping feet first into the community where you are bound to end up making mistakes all the time, and get frustrated because even though you have good intentions and are trying your best there are people who keep pointing out that you have no idea what your doing, so you require an award to calm you down and make you want to keep doing thankless work. But, obviously, people do not agree with me in this respect. -- The Zombiebaron 06:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, you do bring up a good point on longevity here. I took another look at the NotM winners, starting with the month that I joined (Contestant, if you're looking for yourself). Of those that won before (or during) that month, I see two that still contribute. Two, and neither one is particularly active. Going forward another year (to Luvvy), there are three left. Another year forward, another nine gone. It's only within the last five months that a substantial number of users remain, and even then YTTE is still long gone.
• On the other hand, when I joined I was dead weight. An annoying little bastard on the forums. But I'm still here. Led joined around the same time. He's still here. There are a number of users that joined before us, including ZB, and they still contribute actively. I'm really starting to rethink my support of NotM, because the "winners" seem to have a tendency of disappearing at an alarming rate. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 06:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• That's because of the Curse of NotM. Sheesh, I brought that point up a week ago. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I don't believe in your hippie voodoo crap, so my post is much more better. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 07:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think having the whole wiki get into a voting process is fun. Sending a message to a noob saying "good job" is nice, but being taken up in front of everyone so they can acknowledge you're doing a great job is a really nice way to introduce promising new users to the community. And I think the red tape of the voting requirements just hurts that. "Oh, I can't introduce you to the community that way because you registered 37 days ago. Sorry. But personally speaking, good job" - if someone said that to me when I was new, I'd think: what kind of fucking site is this? pillow talk 18:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think I understand that element of the current NotM issue. If a user is too old for NotM, just nominate them for UotM. -- The Zombiebaron 19:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, sure, if they've quickly become world-class Uncyclopedians. But that's rare. I'm talking about a hypothetical user - hypothetical, although I could probably find ten examples - who creates an account, dicks around with pre-existing articles a little, and then at some point decides to join the community and start doing stuff. That's the kind of user who could use encouragement - and this award is an excellent way to encourage. A little community support like that could mean the difference between someone who gets bored a week later and leaves and someone who becomes one of us. One of us! One of us! pillow talk 19:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• That's the kind of user who gets a cookie and an uplifting haiku on their talkpage. NotM is for a different kind of user; the kind that burns too bright too early. Then they stop. And never return. Because a train ran over their hands. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

you know, voting is supposed to be fun. If it wasn't, nobody would vote. that aside, I just have to say: If you go to a noob and say "good job, you really are getting into the wiki" and then nominate them NotM, then those hardworking noobs have a 50% more chance to become amazing admins; so in conclusion, those noobs that we nominate now with our votes will become great users. so our votes count greatly and should be taken seriously but funny as well.--Almost Sir Random Crap

50%, eh? I'm not sure where you came up with these stats, but I think you've got the story about giving a noob a cookie backwards. If you give a noob a cookie, he's going to ask you for a glass of milk. When you give him the milk, he'll probably ask you for a straw. And then he'll use that straw to huff kittens. -- The Zombiebaron 06:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

argument based on the facts

if you look at the NotM past winners, it seems to be a fairly solid list. going back two years to Dr. Skullthumper, you've got 25 NotM winners. one was permabanned for some reason (Clemens177), and one was Rcmurphy finally winning the award, and the other 23 turned out to be solid uncyclopedians that earned the award under the current set of rules. if that doesn't sway you towards 'don't fix it if it isn't broken', then i don't know what will. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 21:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll accept that, but wouldn't you say though that these requirements are a bit too exclusive? Wouldn't you say that the timeframe is a bit arbitrary (UN:AAN roughly defines a noob a bit more realistically by experience and know-how rather than some arbitrary number)? I can think of countless situations where somebody probably deserved the award but wasn't eligible because of these silly requirements. I think the award ought to be a recognition of good effort rather than some sort of competition requiring 1 article and 5 pictures of some undefined measure of quality within so many days. In other words, I'd prefer it if the award was "good job, here's an award for your work and effort" rather than "here, you did everything on the list." All the other awards work in this fashion. Another problem with the current rules is that people can rarely be renominated with the given timeframe. --EMC ^[TALK] 21:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I counted 12 of them who are active on the site - about half. But that's kind of beside the point: the first point, to me, is that there have been a lot of outstanding new users during that time period who couldn't even be nominated for NotM - due to a complete technicality. But the more important point: is it possible that we lost the interest of some promising new users because that technicality caused us to basically ignore them? I think it's possible. pillow talk 22:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If they were really good at something but couldn't be nominated because of a technicality, they would have been nominated at UotM, WotM, or at one of the other various voting places. Also, they would have gotten a feature article or picture which should be more than reason enough for them to stay. So blah! MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 22:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. I've had months where I've put just dozens of hours of work into maintenance tasks - deleting overused templates, VFD'ing articles, trimming excessive quote lists, etc. Did I ever get nominated at UotM? I did not. pillow talk 22:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You sir have a {{GUN}}. MrN 23:04, Aug 10

ah, well i believe that would fall under uncyclopedia clause 13.b.wtf, which states: "how the bloody fuck does <user> not have <award> yet?" SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 23:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Moot point, you just got nominated. --Mn-z 05:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And apparently I also just got nominated for the fictional "Whore of the Month" award ;) pillow talk 17:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears the Whore of the Month has been protected. --Mn-z 17:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

i'm not sure i'd call the current requirements 'arbitrary'. one month is certainly enough time to make a name for yourself, and after that you should have the site pretty much figured out. i'd also like to see some examples of these supposedly countless situations where people where snubbed: "back up yo' assertions with facts, dawg" as the famous public debater ice cube would say. i wouldn't say that requiring 1 article or 5 images is arbitrary or unecessary, either; that's what the site boils down to when you strip away all of the fat: producing quality mainspace content.

sure, 12 are active now, but what fraction of people stick around for 2 years on this site? i'd say that list of 23 represents some of the very best of the last 2 years of uncyclopedia. if we could bypass this technicality by, say, upping the eligibility to 40 days or 45 days so that the whole 'started at the beginning of the month' problem could be erased, then maybe that could be something specific that we could decide. but, if you made some edits in march and came back strong in july, you're really just out of luck. but personally, if i was a n00b (as i once was), a personal note on my talkpage from such prominent uncyclopedia legends as hyperbole or e|m|c saying 'sorry you couldn't get NotM because you were around a while ago for a few edits, but you would have gotten my vote' would mean just as much to me as the badge itself. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 23:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It meant a lot to me even though I was technically disqualified (here for one day, gone for 1 1/2 months, then active for the last 2 1/2 weeks.) But even if I wasn't here for that one day, in some ways my nomination would be unfair to others. I've been editing wikis for a long time, just not here. Some noobs really are noobs, but some of the rest of us are just clever imitations. :D Miley Spears 03:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What did it mean to the n00bs who didn't get in the draw due to disqualification for time. And what about the shitty user who gets permabanned, comes back as a sockpuppet of their former selves, and then is in the running for it. Also what about those who are in the running and are not voted in. "Hey Miley, we think you're good, but compared to Sequence you're crap." The argument that there are 23 of 25 still active (or whatever it is) shows that the award has merit, not that it is given to those who merit it. (Although of course I did merit it. Ahem.) Pup t 10:38, 12/08/2009

New way to classify n00bs

On some wikis (I won't mention any names), a newby is based on number of edits, not what date they signed up. A common number is less than 100 edits. What if the award were based on a person's first 99 or 100 edits? This would encourage noobs to really think about their edits, and make them as good as possible. What think? Miley Spears 17:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That could have a perverse incentive, as it would also penalize early typo correction and the like. It would probably be as bad as our current system and probably even worse. --Mn-z 17:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a terrible idea, but I still think the best way to identify a noob is to just leave it to the community. I think we can tell who is and isn't a noob without taking, like, mathematical measurements. We don't put these kinds of silly requirements on, say, WotM (writer must have written at least three features of more than 7,000 bytes each, with an average of at least three pictures each... bleah). pillow talk 17:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Per Hype, although I think time limits are a bit less worse than edit count limits. --Mn-z 17:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about this "new way" because it would mean that noobs would have to "really think about their edits, and make them as good as possible" (to quote Miley Spears, above). That is not what being a noob is about, and if somebody were thinking that hard about their first 100 edits to the site they would probably have to either already be a member of the community (i.e. sockpuppetry), or have been very curious IPs. And, really, if you're thinking so hard about your first few edits, you shouldn't count as a noob. Being a noob is about learning. That is why we have the Adopt a Noob Program. That is why noobs are the ones who make the most mistake: because they don't know better and we sometimes have to talk really slowly and use monosyllabic words in order to communicate with them to make them understand. Being new is about learning how to be old, and at the same time reveling in all the wonderful new things – and then editing those new things and messing them up. I think when/if we change the definition of "noob" on NotM we should keep that in mind. But I also think we should all laugh more and talk less. -- The Zombiebaron 06:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's because of the Curse of NotM. Sheesh, I brought that point up a week ago. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Modus, I sometimes just don't pay attention to things you say because its hard to tell which part is serious information and which part is a joke. Like that time you told me you needed my kidney. That was a joke right? Right? -- The Zombiebaron 07:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't need it. I wanted it. For my collection. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And I keep telling you I don't believe in this curse of the n00b that you keep going on about. I am just as much a presence here as I was before I won the NotM. And one other thing that I need to add ...ah, fuck it! User:POTR/Invisiblesig

Sure, you say that now, but when the Curse of NotM catches up with you... Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(Quoting Zombiebaron, above) 'I disagree about this "new way" because it would mean that noobs would have to "really think about their edits, and make them as good as possible" (to quote Miley Spears, above). That is not what being a noob is about, and if somebody were thinking that hard about their first 100 edits to the site they would probably have to either already be a member of the community (i.e. sockpuppetry), or have been very curious IPs.' Now I understand. You only want to nominate n00bs who don't think about their edits. If you do quality work, you're automatically disqualified from being nominated for Noob of the Month. And here I thought Noob of the Month was for someone who's new and works hard on their edits and does a good job. So the award's only for incompetent, untalented noobs? Gee, that makes my nomination even more special. Miley Spears 19:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, Miley, chill. Secondly, that is not what Zombiebaron meant. He was just saying that your idea rewarded those who already knew what they were doing, instead of those who are new, and learn on the job. By saying this, he was also implying that the current set-up leaves both on the same footing. Thirdly, I can't think of anything else. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 19:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see anywhere in the statement above that Zombiebaron was implying "that the current set-up leaves both on the same footing." I think it would be more accurate to say that's your inference, not Zombiebaron's implication. Also I meant my comment to be taken tongue-in-cheek. See, look at my mouth. See that bulge in my right cheek? That's my tongue, not my foot. Miley Spears 21:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thirdly, this is Uncyclopedia. If you're getting too worked up over any award, you're doinitwrong. -Opty On Fire! Sexing Opty Stalking Opty

I didn't even know about the n00b of the month award when I started here. If I did, I wouldn't have edited for one day, then be gone for a month and a half which disqualified both my nominations. I just get worked up over people's comments. Oh Baby, Oh Baby! :) Miley Spears 21:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't interfere. I make things better. Sure, you could say your conversation was going better before I came in and started doing my dance and screaming, but you would, of course, be wrong. You are allowed to be wrong, but you look stupid. Secondly, both your tongue and cheeks are big ugly. And you are a doody head. So there! And, thirdly.... Opty, can you help me out with my thirdly again? Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 00:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thirdly, Miley is a girl. Probably. -Opty On Fire! Sexing Opty Stalking Opty

On the internet? Hardly. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

But, but...she says she's a girl! -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:34, 14 Aug

I sure hope I'm a girl. If not I've been going to the wrong locker room! :D Miley Spears 18:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What I wrote above was, "I think it would be more accurate to say that's your inference" not "that's your interference." I meant that I believe you got something out of the poster that the poster hadn't actually posted. And your third point should be that you conceded the argument because your tongue is uglier than mine. :-P The Girl with the Beautiful Tongue Named Miley Spears 02:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)