The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Time to move forward with the Election of the next Notable.
One man one vote on August 19th.
You can only vote HERE - in THIS THREAD.
First vote counts - vote twice and you have spoilt your ballot. Don't sign up new names to vote more than one - or you'll be disqualified.
JAT's can't vote and NOR can anybody who signed up less between 1 and 5 days before the vote.
Don't vote for staff - they can't be elected.
Don't vote for JAT's or Newbies - they can't be elected.
Don't vote for Notables - they are already elected.
Do your campaigning here or all over the forums. Drive up your popularity as there can be ONLY ONE new Notable.
DON'T VOTE until August 19th.
When you do vote say "I vote for ...."
That's it. It won't be the same without the er-no campaign.
You er-no it makes sense.
One man one vote on August 19th.
You can only vote HERE - in THIS THREAD.
First vote counts - vote twice and you have spoilt your ballot. Don't sign up new names to vote more than one - or you'll be disqualified.
JAT's can't vote and NOR can anybody who signed up less between 1 and 5 days before the vote.
Don't vote for staff - they can't be elected.
Don't vote for JAT's or Newbies - they can't be elected.
Don't vote for Notables - they are already elected.
Do your campaigning here or all over the forums. Drive up your popularity as there can be ONLY ONE new Notable.
DON'T VOTE until August 19th.
When you do vote say "I vote for ...."
That's it. It won't be the same without the er-no campaign.
You er-no it makes sense.
Page:
for us people who are unlucky and whoses decent posts get ignored or deleted by their comps that would be unfair. I prefer the method of bribery and cheating! Did i just say that? Blast!
FantasyMeister wrote:
> I think notables shouldn't be elected, I think that regulars and
> even newbies if it's possible should be made notable status for
> reaching a grand total of 10 or more GADs/FADs. (Yes, it can be a
> mix, as long as the total is 10 or more).
The reasoning behind
> this is as follows:
Notables are primarily there for their
> contributions to the forums over time. Most if not all of the
> current 7 notables have achieved the 10 or more landmark, which also
> shows that they have remained longstanding members, and that they
> have contributed in a positive way to the forums with quality posts.
By removing the election method of selection, this
> encourages regulars and even newbies to hang around and post quality
> rather than quantity in an effort to gain notable status, 'working
> for it' if you will. It also removes any possibility of favoritism,
> election rigging, pointless 'vote for me!' threads etc.
On the
> downside this would remove the 'election fever' in the forums every
> 3 months, but on the upside the ratio of quality posts to quality
> spam may get better.
It's just a thought...
I have to agree. The current system can be so easily abused. I've done online votes before for favourite games on my site (not normal games games people have made) and what people did was they would get their friends to join and vote for them just so they could look cool. It's the same problem here. One time or another some person is going to be voted in that has hardly been on the site and is only a regular due to spamming on extra gameadays. There are many people on this site I can't see as being notables. People who haven't been here as long as me and me myself and people around my word count certainly don't deserve to be notables as they have not been round long enough. I guess we will have to wait till the situation arrives then I can say I told you so or go with Fantasymeisters idea :)
> I think notables shouldn't be elected, I think that regulars and
> even newbies if it's possible should be made notable status for
> reaching a grand total of 10 or more GADs/FADs. (Yes, it can be a
> mix, as long as the total is 10 or more).
The reasoning behind
> this is as follows:
Notables are primarily there for their
> contributions to the forums over time. Most if not all of the
> current 7 notables have achieved the 10 or more landmark, which also
> shows that they have remained longstanding members, and that they
> have contributed in a positive way to the forums with quality posts.
By removing the election method of selection, this
> encourages regulars and even newbies to hang around and post quality
> rather than quantity in an effort to gain notable status, 'working
> for it' if you will. It also removes any possibility of favoritism,
> election rigging, pointless 'vote for me!' threads etc.
On the
> downside this would remove the 'election fever' in the forums every
> 3 months, but on the upside the ratio of quality posts to quality
> spam may get better.
It's just a thought...
I have to agree. The current system can be so easily abused. I've done online votes before for favourite games on my site (not normal games games people have made) and what people did was they would get their friends to join and vote for them just so they could look cool. It's the same problem here. One time or another some person is going to be voted in that has hardly been on the site and is only a regular due to spamming on extra gameadays. There are many people on this site I can't see as being notables. People who haven't been here as long as me and me myself and people around my word count certainly don't deserve to be notables as they have not been round long enough. I guess we will have to wait till the situation arrives then I can say I told you so or go with Fantasymeisters idea :)
depends how many votes i need. Only get paid when i am notable! maby £10 or so
i am not here on the date of the vote... ah well, the only person who comes to mind is sheepy... and he was given notable status out of pity... i mean love... yes, that's right... errr
NiGHTS!
NiGHTS!
I've only got 4 :P
Bloody staff
7 months .... 7 frekin months :P
Bloody staff
7 months .... 7 frekin months :P
I think notables shouldn't be elected, I think that regulars and even newbies if it's possible should be made notable status for reaching a grand total of 10 or more GADs/FADs. (Yes, it can be a mix, as long as the total is 10 or more).
The reasoning behind this is as follows:
Notables are primarily there for their contributions to the forums over time. Most if not all of the current 7 notables have achieved the 10 or more landmark, which also shows that they have remained longstanding members, and that they have contributed in a positive way to the forums with quality posts.
By removing the election method of selection, this encourages regulars and even newbies to hang around and post quality rather than quantity in an effort to gain notable status, 'working for it' if you will. It also removes any possibility of favoritism, election rigging, pointless 'vote for me!' threads etc.
On the downside this would remove the 'election fever' in the forums every 3 months, but on the upside the ratio of quality posts to quality spam may get better.
It's just a thought...
The reasoning behind this is as follows:
Notables are primarily there for their contributions to the forums over time. Most if not all of the current 7 notables have achieved the 10 or more landmark, which also shows that they have remained longstanding members, and that they have contributed in a positive way to the forums with quality posts.
By removing the election method of selection, this encourages regulars and even newbies to hang around and post quality rather than quantity in an effort to gain notable status, 'working for it' if you will. It also removes any possibility of favoritism, election rigging, pointless 'vote for me!' threads etc.
On the downside this would remove the 'election fever' in the forums every 3 months, but on the upside the ratio of quality posts to quality spam may get better.
It's just a thought...
how expensive sdd?
Time_Warp wrote:
> CJC wrote:
> The_Vottanator he has a very good chance of being
> the next notable.
I think you are mistaken. (:)
Why?
> CJC wrote:
> The_Vottanator he has a very good chance of being
> the next notable.
I think you are mistaken. (:)
Why?
Page: