Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-28112409-20170924144238/@comment-29253708-20170924160159

Okay, so what ive been thinking of brining up for the last little while, is changing the ToTM requirements.

Plenty of people are nominating themselves because they just want ToTM. Not enough people are doing it because they deserve it.

Shadow was a perfect nominee, in my opinion. He did so much for the wiki; mainspace and otherwise. Sadly, his edits never seemed to get recognized.

Most of the other people we have nominated (I hate to say it), we only really nominated and voted because they were a good person or they were "everyone's friend". I think I never really deserved ToTM, even though FirePyre nominated me the first time.

As for what we would do to change the requirements... I don't know. I just feel like some people do simple edits or review role ideas without too much thought (let's be honest, some of these are simple reviews, and they still miraculously get counted). Please view this (Zed's role review slate) if you have not yet. I want to put forth the importance of basically going on a rant with each role. I'd say that people like Haw, Vert, Rex and Zed set a fair bar regarding role idea reviews back in their day. If you need examples, go back about two or more years in the role idea boards.

As for each mainspace edit; it's obvious what "quality" means. I don't mean adding templates (unless you add a full page of them or something else as well), I mean adding strategies or at least one or three blocks of text. It's pretty simple. Just don't be lazy about it.

Twenty "quality edits" is okay, I guess, but we need to get better about what quality actually means. Maybe we could hit it up to thirty, since it's the current month AND the last month. But it would definitely cause more people to not be eligible till halfway or late in the month.