Viewing Thread:
"Official Notable Election: 12/05/05"

Yes, I know there's some other election happening today, but coming this time next week is the vote that can really make a difference to people's lives - UKchatforums.com Notable.

Every three months the regulars of the board vote to give one member "Notable" status. The colour of their name (which is changed to Gold) and their member title is the only difference that you'll see, but the increased fear and respect from their peers will be obvious to all.

The vote will be held on Thursday 12th May. There will be an official voting thread put up in General Chat on Thursday morning, and you'll get until midnight to place your vote. Unfortunately JATs and Newbies are unable to vote, this will be for Regulars and Notables only.

This time round, as well as your normal vote for Notable, you'll also be able to vote for someone to relinquish their Notable status and rejoin the ranks of the Regulars. Use it wisely.

So next Thursday then. Don't forget it.

And so I shall. It's between you (even though I don't know you), Light (who is clever and cool), and Tiltawhirl (who is funny).

Thanks

Why? My brother said you were 'a funny bloke who was fun to talk to' and that i should 'vote for you'.

Red Hat wrote:
> I vote Flock

The staff wont like that, i'm a rebel now y'see :)

I vote Flock

Celestine wrote:
> Well then, how's about the "Notable Emeritus" distinction
> for them and back to Regular status colour?
>
> Doesn't sound as harsh as a flat out
> demotion/deselection/relinquishment..

That sounds about right, i'd have the yellow colour for the other system, it's more current.

Well then, how's about the "Notable Emeritus" distinction for them and back to Regular status colour?

Doesn't sound as harsh as a flat out demotion/deselection/relinquishment..

Celestine wrote:
> I made a suggestion on the Site Bugs forum about perhaps just creating
> a new category for "Notable Emeritus," but they.. I don't
> think the Staffies are around? I think it would be cool to vote a
> new colour for this new class, as well, tomorrow.
>
> From Dictionarydotcom:
>
> n. pl. e·mer·i·ti (-t)
>
> One who is retired but retains an honorary title corresponding to
> that held immediately before retirement.

Some of them already seem to have retired anyway, i suggest a hall of fame where elected notables go and we continue that system as usual but they lose their colour on here and a more rolling election type system similar to my thread to determine the current notables.

I made a suggestion on the Site Bugs forum about perhaps just creating a new category for "Notable Emeritus," but they.. I don't think the Staffies are around? I think it would be cool to vote a new colour for this new class, as well, tomorrow.

From Dictionarydotcom:

n. pl. e·mer·i·ti (-t)

One who is retired but retains an honorary title corresponding to that held immediately before retirement.

Apologies if this has been brought up already, but I'm not going through 13 pages to find out. Doesn't the idea of voting people out seem a little stupid and evil? Deliberately voting against people is totally different to voting for people. This is more complicated, (not by much) but wouldn't it have been nicer to have a vote for "keep your chosen notable notable", then the one with the least votes loses the job to the newly elected notable. How is the losing notable going to feel if they look down this list to find that everyone has deliberately voted against them, showing clear dislike?

Also on that note, isn't this just turning into a popularity contest. When I used to care (a couple of years ago at least), it felt like people voted for somebody who did something notable, not just somebody who talked so much that they gained "friends". Now its clearly a case of "if you're liked you are notable, if you are disliked, you'll soon lose it".