Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31256456-20181228061901/@comment-27575896-20190122152920

Mhm, that’s the issue with having a new winner each month. Nobody wins twice, and Rubik’s second win was somewhat figured since the new rewards for consecutive winners came out.

I cannot tell you how many times in the past months I have seen people nominate each other for “oh they were so close last month” and say some half-asses effort of why they should win.

And hey! They win. No offense to the winners, but you got that somewhat easy.

There’s an issue with the edit count rule. People are saying it prevents a lot of people from voting, but who is actually being prevented? One user? Two users? I’m not seeing very many whatsoever. In all honesty I’ve forgotten why we have limited people being able to vote. Everyone was able to vote previously and I have forgotten why we have changed it.

Every single person right now that hasn’t joined the wiki in the last week, maybe month, or hasn’t been moderately active can vote and be nominated. Every single person has 400 or more edits. I don’t see much of an argument on that. Mr alex 123 is like the only used in seeing being used as the argument. And they didn’t check for the rules first in the overall view, since Rubik directed them to the rules.

The point of ToTM is to award a user who has made the most contributions to the wiki and has helped out improve ether article pages or role ideas.

Hell, if you want someone who has improved article pages, look at RuriRuriRuri. 99% of their edits is all good mainspace. So why aren’t they recognized?

Because they don’t, per say, socialize with many people. But that shouldn’t be what ToTM is about.

Hell, you can nominate VERTROYER again since he is no longer staff. He is amazing on his role reviews and is still moderately active.

Instead, we nominate the same goddamn people each month: people who HAVEN’T won yet or the person who was second-up last month. And the cycle continues.

Why do you think the month of January 2018 had no winner? Because it was determined nobody was eligible, which apparently convinced people and some staff that sooner or later it had to change.

Wait, so we changed it so SOMEONE CAN WIN EACH MONTH?

If it’s a competition, then the rules should be followed. If the winner of a hot dog eating contest was discovered to be cheating or didn’t complete the required amount to eat per say, why should they “win”?

Nominees didn’t decide to put effort into that month. That’s fine.

And Wolfi brought up a good point. Why should we let the community decide who the best contributor was if they continue to choose someone new each month and follow along a list of non-winners?

Shouldn’t we have users present themselves to be the best person in the month? Work hard and hopefully let it pay off?

As in let users do their own form of mainspace edits, role reviews, any contributions that they want to do. The staff could then check each person and decide between themselves who did their part to the wiki the best. And there would be very little limitations to possible winners other than they can’t be a staff member.

Users do their part for the wiki the way they want to, staff keep watch and evaluate each user, and based on their views of the users and who have done the most, choose/vote on a winner. Think of it like Great Britain or other parliamentary democracies, where the voters are those who can be chosen to become the “prime minister” as Townie of the Month instead, so somewhat reversed. Parliament consists as staff, for a reference.

Either way we have a long way to go on how we change this to everyone’s liking. Could change basic edit rules or revamp the whole process so staff can choose a winner, and hopefully not be biased.