Viewing Thread:
"Should Notables be Sacked?"

This is the question. How long should a notable stay a notable if they no longer post on the forums?

1 Year
2 Years
3 Years
or Forever

mattributé wrote:
> That's all open for debate, RBS.
>
> I personally think he's been wasting company money in lavish hotels
> making 'private' movies for 'feetfeetfeet.com'

Heheh, you may be right there. If he now has a pornstar 'tasche adoring his features then we'll know for sure...

That's all open for debate, RBS.

I personally think he's been wasting company money in lavish hotels making 'private' movies for 'feetfeetfeet.com'

A fine suggestion, Tonty. By the way, where on earth have you been for the past year or so?

One comment on the proposed new system by the way... I'm not in favour of the idea of ousting old notables. They're notables for a reason and their status means that, at some point or another, they were deemed worthy of notable status by the users of this chat forum. Just because the forum has moved on - new users arriving and old departing - surely that doesn't nullify the old votes?

Actually, after re-reading, and not being a total nob, it's not a bad system

cookie monster wrote:
> I quite like Ashleys system.

thanks cookie.

Its really easy to set up and keeps an interesting blend involved keeping it kind of fresh and not just creating an imbalanced tier system. and gets rid of some jokers too who just won a short term popularity race, or in the earlier cases not even that. The genuinely great notables will be left in place " and some who aren't really that great posters/popular/really inactive" can be rotated, they could be added to a notable hall of fame or something too

I quite like Ashleys system.

its hardly more work, we just have 2 rounds. its pisss easy and no more work for the staff except typing "round 2 voting" then in the thread "canditates are...... go squabble!" takes about 1-2 minutes, they don't even have to count them as some individual with far to much time on their hands will do it.

Why have more voting? Surely you're lucky to be able to vote for Notables as it is - it's extra work for the overworked underpayed staff Tony rules with his whips and chains.

Note - may not be true

Or, alternatively, we could do something decent.

I reckon we should reinvent the elections into a 2 round event. New election format:

Nominate a notable for eviction
Nominate a new notable

The most popular 2 voted noob potential notables then stand.
The two least popular notables stand.
---------------

So we have 4 names in the hat.

Lets say:

Category A:

Notable 1
Notable 2

Category B:

popular Regular 1
Popular regular 2


Then we have the second round of voting a couple of days later using these categories. These are the only nominees, you cannot vote for anyone else. You vote for one person from category A, one from Category B, to become/stay a notable. The other defeated pair are regulars. Ensures we keep it in the mix and (probably won't) keep the notable posting of a standard, but would make the elections a bit more interesting. A voiding huge scale numbers of Notables to and removing some of the tripe notables who god knows how they got in.

It looks a bit complicated but in practice is ridiculously easy and coincidentally ensures a more practical popular vote on the new regular as everyone who has voted must have voted on either of the 2 new candidates