Forum:Noob of the Month: Sometimes you just need to euthanize things

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Noob of the Month: Sometimes you just need to euthanize things

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5136 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Yes, it is yet another rant about wanting to end NotM. However, a replacement is offered!

First off, I realise that we voted to not retire this a few months ago, but we need to especially since the requirements of it haven't been reviewed/changed like they were supposed to be. This award above all others is pointless. It is the most likely of the awards that could cause sockpuppetry (NXWave won it like 20 times). Rarely do the winners stick around, and those that lose it end up having their hopes of being a great user dashed. Then there is the issue of it's completely shit requirements. "Written at least one full article"?! What about those that fix up articles or do other good stuff on the site? Why are they not allowed to win? Seriously, any noob who makes a full article that doesn't get huffed during their first month here is quite suspicious.

An alternative appears! It's Super Effective!

Perhaps this could be turned into a different type of award where anyone could nominate an exceptional noob (regardless of them being good at writing or general maintenance on the site). If that noob gets +5 votes or more within a ten day period of being nominated, they would be awarded a badge or ninjastar of some sort. This would eliminate any perceived "competition" between those nominated (since it is my belief that most noobs don't realise that they shouldn't take the awards on this site too seriously and therefore naturally develop ill feelings towards those that beat them). Think of a voting system more akin to VFD/VFP/VFH. I'm also imagining that a noob could be nominated would be within 60 days of registering, effectively doubling the time period where a noob's hard work could be noticed rather than the overly restrictive 33 day limit of NotM.

*If a noob is really great, they could always be nominated for UotM or WotM or whatever where they would compete with the big boys. No big deal there.

Pros

• Eliminates competition between noobs.
• Extends period of time when a noob's good work could be noticed.
• Theoretically removes any motivation to make a sockpuppet since the award won't be that special.
• Expands what a noob can do to win the award, rather than just a noob who has written an article...

Cons

• Theoretically could cause socks to be made just to vote for someone.
• More voting... And yet another page that would need constant monitoring...

Discussion

You know, any other ideas would be great, but it is really time to put NotM down. I see it possibly being a big debate, but not because I think anyone will actually want to just keep NotM. I'm mainly imagining everyone will want to discuss what the requirements would be to be nominated or whatever. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 11:40, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Just extend the definition of what a good Noob is rather than scrapping Noob of the Month. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 12:46, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I really like the idea of extending the time period, 60 or 70 days out. This gives someone a chance to "win" notm a few months, and they may try harder, and by the time they figure out the jokes and the fun they can have here, they might not care as much if they win and will enjoy themselves even more by hazing and tp'ing the new noobs. Aleister 12:50 20 9

For the old hands here, they don't perhaps realise how much this site can be a culture shock. Perhaps Two Months isn't a bad idea, perhaps even a few yellow cards for breaking rules will not rule you out (hello there Gompy, the new Gouncyclopedia). --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 12:55, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, so rather than creating a new much fairer award to replace the obviously broken NotM, you're for just expanding who could be nominated for NotM? The issue of people making socks just to win and the incredibly small time when someone could be nominated would still be problems. And the biggest issue, picking one noob above all others each month, can't be fixed just by expanding the eligibility requirements of NotM. The award itself is damaging per the jealousy or inferiority complexes that could be developed by a noob who loses it, and I'm offering a near-perfect replacement that truly fixes that problem. This can be won by anyone who actually deserves it rather than just one person... I'm really not seeing how anyone could think NotM is better than this proposal, regardless of how you change NotM. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 12:58, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Why not a combination. Lots of us like the award (especially the past winners bias kicks in), so let's keep it and expand it to 70 days so everyone gets a chance. And both during and after the voting, your idea (maybe up it to 10 users voting yes?) would also award good noobs. And even if some noobs don't win the notm but win the badge you propose, they may try harder and actually watch for the noob who won to leave to do a nah-nah-dance on their departing backsides. Anyway, your idea seems like a very good plan, and notm has its supporters too, so how about a marriage made in hell for both of them. Aleister 13:35 20 9

I'd be for an extension of the time period, 2 or even 3 months might be fairer, though I'd probably favour 2. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I've said this before, but I think it's ridiculous to have a time period at all: the community will naturally sort out who is a noob and who isn't. There are enough people who will refuse to vote for someone who's been here six months that "non-noobs" will get naturally voted down - unless, perhaps, they made one or two edits in January and started editing regularly in late July, in which case, in my view, they are still a noob. pillow talk 19:56, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

• I think everybody should be eligible for every award always. If they really are jokes then the rules should be a joke too. NotM should be a place for recognizing exceptionally noobish behavior, wether it comes from an admin or a user that joined the site yesterday. -- The Zombiebaron 20:12, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Noob... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

• In the end, this looks to me like a big overhaul that really wouldn't change much more than just killing the rules. I really don't see why we can't just eliminate the excess rules, and the people who people don't like just don't get voted for. Honestly. There are no real requirements for UOTM besides the voter's opinions, and it doesn't really get abused.--HM (T) 20:38, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I do think this idea sounds better then the current NOTM.-- (CUN) 22:00, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

*glances at NOTM award* I think that a redo of the award isn't out of the question, since the current rules for NOTM are a bit sketchy. I mean seriously! I won it. I never win anything. I wouldn't like to see the award exterminated. Noobs deserve something for their good works, and they deserve their own award. Being lumped in with UOTM and WOTM may be a bit intimidating, and other users may disregard the younger users because they're noobs or something. Leutnant Herr Thatdamnedfollowspot 01:51 Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Now, really...

As a noob, I resent the fact that y'all assume the noobs are inherently noobish. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100920 - 23:01 (UTC)

NOOB!User:Mrthejazz/sig 02:34, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Mreeaaaoow! HKSSS! *claws* ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100921 - 14:30 (UTC)

Yet another discussion over the horrible NOTM?

Because we obviously don't have anything better to do (such as pee week, UN:REQ and fix all articles that need fixing) let's get some things straight: the only thing that might be annoying with this award is the time limit that can be extended. Other than that, it's JUST ANOTHER AWARD. We don't need to complicate it with minimum number of votes, we don't need the extended bureaucracy. People always come and go around here, and NOTM has nothing to do with it. Think it is not necessary or not encouraging people? Here are some examples:

1. RadicalX - admin, great photochopper. Active today on an on and off basis.
2. BobBobBob - admin, still shows up and every now and then.
3. Todd Lyons - admin, still active.
4. MoneySign - admin
5. Count of Monkey Crisco - still active
6. Spang} admin, semi active
7. Hardwick Fundlebuggy - WOTY, WOTM, one of the greatest writers we had.
8. Nydas - great writer, WOTM
9. Zombiebaron - Zombiebaron
10. Shandon - WOTM, active
11. Procopius - WOTY, WOTM
12. Braydie - admin, WOTM
13. RAHB - admin, WOTM, active
14. Dr. Skullthumper - admin, WOTM
15. Gerrycheevers - WOTM
16. MrN9000 -pants
17. DJ Irreverent - WOTM
18. The Woodburninator - Go-Gettem' attitude. active
19. Multiliteralist - active
20. Nachlader - WOTM, active
21. DrStrange - Twice WOTM. Active.
22. Guildensternenstein - WOTM, active
23. Sonje - 3XPOTM, POTY, active
24. PuppyOnTheRadio - WOTM, active
25. Why do I need to provide this? UOTM
26. Aleister in Chains - WOTM, active
27. HELPME - UOTM, active

etc. etc. (and apologies if you've left out some awards)

See a pattern here? Great writers? Admins? Sexy people?

So to summarize - the never ending discussions over NOTM are overrated. As far as I recall we never had a serious drama other than some on and off winging. The time limit can be extended to make everyone happy, but we really need to stop discussing it every other week. ~ 09:04, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

That's all nice and well, but you provided no evidence that my proposed replacement of NOTM wouldn't be infinitely better. You cite "extended bureaucracy" but I see none of that. It'll just be another voting page replacing another, so there wouldn't be any more bureaucracy than there already is. In all honesty, my proposed award could lead to more attention being given to newer users which could then potentially lead to more frequent users than before. I'm beginning to think some people are just afraid of changing the status quo around here. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 09:29, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

• New users being treated and looked after primarily by the welcoming people and AAN. NOTM was never the primary tool, just yet another way to encourage people.
• If you're worried about sock-puppetry your proposal opens even a wider window for that as "everyone above 5 votes win". You don't see a problem there?
• The fact that we have a blurb for one exceptional noob on the front page each month creates yet another tool to encourage new contributors. Your proposal eliminates that blurb, unless you intend to put 5-6 of them.
• Maintenance is not the core business of Uncyclopedia. It's creating. So while it's important to acknowledge that with UOTM we need to remember our prime directive which is the creation of disinformation. Noobs can win UOTM, NOTM should be directed at creating content.

I think I've proved quite nicely that many of the outstanding people in Uncyclopedia have won this award and are still here and they were never involved in kind of NOTM related drama. I don't think there is a need to change the current situation not because there is "fear" of change but because all of the so called problems are artificial and are coming primarily from the forums such as this. I don't think there is a real problem and therefor I don't see a need for a change.

As mentioned I think the only potential problem is the limit that can be extended if there is an overwhelming need to do so. However, ask yourself this - did any noob ever left over the mere fact that he/she were disqualified over the time limit rule? I don't think so. ~ 09:51, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you were on the debate team in secondary school or university because you are dancing around what I said: How is my prosed replacement not infinitely better than NOTM? You're just throwing out random and complete irrelevant points to avoid answering the damn question. If you can't think of any answer, it's because it is better and therefore worth implementing. It is literally as simple as that. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 10:23, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Since you have yet to respond to my question, I'll just respond to the irrelevant points you tried to make to detract from my question.

• AAN is dead, in case you haven't noticed. If I were to go through and remove those that are currently ineligible to adopt (due to that "no bans in the past 6 months" rule), there'd just be a couple of people left, and the people that would be left are hardly role models for new users, regardless of the awards they've won.
• The potential of sockpuppetry to get this is far lower than the potential of sockpuppetry to get NOTM because it would be given out more frequently to more people so it wouldn't be as widely regarded.
• Replace the blurb on the front page of NOTM with a blurb for UOTM. It's stupid that we don't already do that...
• So the main work of some users is less important than others? Great to know you think that. Perhaps you should be more careful with your phrasing...

MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 11:08, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its Mordillo's place to argue either case, changing something because you believe it to be better, as we have seen elsewhere, invariably has other negative effects. NOTM isn't causing us any problems at all, has worked quite well at highlighting and rewarding individuals who are doing good work (just from getting nommed, not from "winning") and as 'dillo has pointed out many of the individuals who have "won" have gone on to be more than decent contributors. Following your proposal I've not really seen much support for it, or even a reason why it would be necessary. Sometimes things just work with faults and all. A "better" system might not be the best solution.... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

If there wasn't any problems with it, then why was it up for retirement a couple of weeks ago? It had quite a bit of support to retire it, but in the end it was kept with what appeared to be a promise that the rules of it would be reevaluated, but that didn't happen. In Mordillo's own words, there are "never ending discussions over NOTM." That means plenty of people have problems with it. I've just take the initiative to actually do something about it. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 11:08, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Five people voting for the removal is not plenty of people in my book. ~ 11:42, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

And out of the 10 who voted to keep, how many said we need to reevaluate the rules? All of them? Cool. Did it happen? No. And you still haven't answered why my idea isn't better than NOTM, probably because you have no reason. Nostalgia of the award shouldn't cloud your judgment in regards to replacing it with something better. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 11:47, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Dexter, you put words in my mouth once more and you'll find out how far my patience goes. I think I gave a very clear answer and I'll leave it at that. ~ 12:04, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Just emailed you. I'm just taking action. I haven't done anything that would warrant any negative ramifications. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 12:18, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Dexter, I'm sure you feel very passionate about the matter, but I would question the "tone" of your comments myself. By all means let us discuss the issue, but please do so in a civil manner. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Sorry if anyone misconstrued my comments as abrasive. I just see this as a simple matter and have yet to see any reason why this isn't better than the broken system of NOTM other than "there could be unforeseeable problems with your proposal", hence the discussion I am trying to have to see if anyone sees something wrong with it that I don't. So far nobody has stated any issue that I haven't addressed. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 13:35, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Thats cool, mate. Having said that you might just have to put up with the fact that there is little enthusiasm for a full scale change, most people seem happy to amend just the length of time. It may very well be no matter how valid your idea may be that people just don't want to go for it. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

That long list up there, it's making it look like it's just the folks that have won that are worth keeping. Was that your intent, Mordillo? ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100921 - 14:30 (UTC)

NotM will always be abused

We will always have good users come in at the same time as the socks, though. Mordillo's list doesn't really prove anything except attempt to make a weak correlational observation. NotM would probably have been some sort of a catalyst to inspire Gerry or Hardwick to stay, but I don't see how this other option would be any less effective. In fact, it would be much more effective since it'll discourage nobody.

Plus, since sockpuppets are going to end up eventually getting nominated for this anyway, it's best to just give them a smaller-stakes award then have them beat out actually deserving noobs on the off-chance.

Dexter's already said this, though, and in fewer words even. This is progress. -- 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 13:54, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

The sockpuppeting clause is moot as far as I'm concerned, it has never been an issue (or rather a serious issue, we've located all of them in due time and removed them). Also, that reasoning can be applied to all awards in Uncyclopedia. We have at least one known case of a sockpuppet winning the Goldstein award. So? Shall we cancel that one for that reason? ~ 13:58, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Dexter and Mordillo should totally do a sitcom together. I love reading their banter. --Black Flamingo 15:18, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Glad someone's enjoying himself. Now fix your sig please. ~ 15:32, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

What's the matter with it? Has it gone green? It does that sometimes. --Black Flamingo 15:36, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Mord, what I was saying is that the sockpuppets thing is moot, even though it appeared that you were saying it would be an issue with the new award if we were to implement it. It was a small an inessential problem on NotM and it'll be even smaller and more inessential with this new award. I still can't see any reason why this isn't a good idea except, oh, maybe that Dexter suggested it. -- 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 20:59, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that show of faith with that last point of yours. One more time, I'm saying that you don't need to fix what isn't broken. NOTM is a nice little award that is making people happy, doesn't cause a lot of trouble and give new editors a blurb on the front page. Dexter's proposal will break down the award into a series of Ninja Stars and essentially nulify the whole NOTM concept (thereby killing the award via the back door). Again, the only potential problem is the time limit which personally I don't think it's a big issue, but can be extended if it disturbes people that much. ~ 22:39, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

TKF, I'm more than a little disappointed with your last comment. You are entitled to your view but I don't think resorting to ad hominem abuse in order to further an argument for one side or another is either called for or helps in anyway. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

The Final Word on UOTM

Mordillo's a Jew faggit. -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:58, 22 Sep

I think he's cute. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100922 - 23:31 (UTC)

Who? Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 00:03, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

That guy over there. *gestures vaguely* ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100923 - 00:34 (UTC)

Never heard of him. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 03:09, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Don't have to have heard of him... just look. Innit he cute? ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100923 - 04:48 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. He's a cute Jew faggit. Also, HI WOODY! Opty On Fire! Sexing Opty Stalking Opty

I didn't know

About the NOTM award until I was here for a couple of months (that's how big of a noob I am was). And even though I'm jealous of those who've won I don't think it should change one bit... that would only serve to lessen the award for those who've won. In fairness though, the ideas above are well thought out and deserve a chance-- so, start a new award and begin awarding it. If NOTM is so terrible then it will atrophy and die over time. (Now I'm off to nominate myself & we'll see how seriously people take these "I think everybody should be eligible for every award always. If they really are jokes then the rules should be a joke too." sentiments Zombiles put forth above there.)  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  24 Sep 2010 ~ 03:38 (UTC)