Board Thread:Townie of the Month/@comment-27575896-20171101150106/@comment-32881402-20171108192849

I'll trust your schedule, but this still doesn't prevent the nicer players being voted more. See, you'll still count those reviews that just about make it. Once they're eligible, it's up to the community. It's too easy to become eligible and the effort differences can be very very clear. There is a clear difference between someone obviously farming the edits (and stopping once eligible) and someone who is helping for a genuine reason. After you're eligible, your honesty is not taken into account, since it just says 'eligible'. It becomes harder to tell who's actually making a difference, since you have to actively search. I might be getting less than 2 edits a day, but if I'm getting them consistently, I'm better than the person who got 30 in 1 day then just stopped. Waves of activity should not be rewarded if the person is obviously still active in other parts. It means they're dishonest about actually helping the community. I understand that keeping track of edits is hard, so that's why I advise a rework. Only Staff, or very trusted players (maybe include ToTM winners?) would be able to vote, since they have the best judgement. There's no eligibility line; you just choose 5 people and see who is doing best. Who looks like they're helpful? Put them up for ToTM. Then, personality can be debated professionally looking at attitudes as a whole, rather than letting a community who has only seen parts of a player's work. I'm still against taking personality into account, but if you must, there's a better way to do it.

As Staff, you ask yourselves: Who has been very productive and has been helping this community a lot? Then, people can't work towards an eligibility 'limit', forcing the people who are being dishonest about it into either:


 * Stopping being dishonest and not taking the commitment. Sure, this might not be productive, but if they're not going to genuinely commit to it, they shouldn't be ToTM;


 * Continuing their work 'spree' for the whole month. They'll be encouraged to work more because it's judged on more of a 'whole', rather than a limit saying 'eligible'.

As you're counting, you might recognise the people who're really helping, but others won't. They'll just see 'eligible' and think 'Oh, they must be doing good or this community. Equally as good as the other person who was really rude', which is not at all true since the rude person might have done 100 extra edits, which we're unaware of. Now, keeping track of edits like that is going to be problematic and timeconsuming, so that's why you get Staff and other committed and trusted members to look at activity and helpful edits, possibly at the very end of the month.