Viewing Thread:
"In the next notable election...."

We should be able to vote a Notable OUT. Out on his ass I say. Let's face it, half of them hardly appear on the board as much as they did when they were first voted in. They were given their status because they make the forum a "fun place to come and visit" as the Notable definition says, but the majority of them hardly visit themselves, let alone make it fun for others. As such, we should be able to vote them off and give them a good old fashioned booing, like some sort of forum pantomime.


What say you regular folk?

We should be able to vote a Notable OUT. Out on his ass I say. Let's face it, half of them hardly appear on the board as much as they did when they were first voted in. They were given their status because they make the forum a "fun place to come and visit" as the Notable definition says, but the majority of them hardly visit themselves, let alone make it fun for others. As such, we should be able to vote them off and give them a good old fashioned booing, like some sort of forum pantomime.


What say you regular folk?

I agree, for one. They are supposed to be the "elite" and set an example for the rest of the forum. And whilst most of them do this there are one or two completely unheard of to some.

I mean, just glance at the Top 100 posters, only one Notable is in the top 40, and that is newly elected Tim! Surely being in the top 40 is an attribute that attracts votes, as the four/five main candidates for the last election are all right up there. I say get to 25 Notables and stick with 25, or less if need be.

I think I'm in the top 40.

Heh, that one post right there only got you there. At time of writing I was most correct.

;-)

I agree

We should vote some one to be notable while voting someone to hand down there notable position!

I agree.

I actually think we have a nice selection of Notables. Indeed, some have moved on and aren't posting anymore but that's not to say they don't deserve it or don't continue to deserve it.

It's a difficult subject because I can understand both sides the argument.

It's quality not quantity that matters.

Notable elections should be every 6 months.
Legend elections once a year. The Legend colour would obviously be black.

Some notables need special recognition, like Meka or Grix, for instance.

Sorry but I agree too, infact as I said to Grandprix, I had no idea how some people even ended up as notables and having been here ever since the forum was created I certainly don't remember there being notable elections and yet if notable elections were every 3 months, then by my limited maths skills this forum should be well over a year and half older than it actually is. Unless of course some stupid idiot thought it would be far better to have an election every 2 months then that would explain it.

Of course if all the notables were to lose their status tomorrow, how many of them would win it back? I'm probably guessing a couple at most.

Personally I don't see any benefit in having notables, unless someone could list some that I could agree with?

Notable Elections did used to be a lot more frequent I remember, every couple of months I thought.