Eligibility of website nominations for the T2W MCA 2009

Should website nominations be all threads and members regardless of status?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 25.0%
  • No

    Votes: 6 75.0%

  • Total voters
    8
Status
Not open for further replies.

Sharky

Admin
5,513 275
This is a private poll (your username won't be published) as to whether you think we should extend nominations, in the T2W Website Category of the MCA Awards, to all members and threads over the course of the year regardless of their current status (banned/unregistered/deleted/closed) for the following awards:

-Most Helpful Member (Answers Questions/Help Newbies)
-Most Valuable Contributer (Illuminating/Useful Posts)
-Favourite T2W Journal
-Favourite Thread

Please remember that in terms of the awards, the period over which contributions to the site will be considered is only 2009. If the user was banned or the thread closed or deleted before this time, then it won't be considered for inclusion.

NB: this thread is a copy of the original announcement thread, with the original post replaced by this poll; and only the comments leading up and relevant to this poll included.
 
Last edited:

zupcon

Experienced member
1,162 322
Are banned members still applicable for nomination for awards this year ?
 

Sharky

Admin
5,513 275
Zupcon, no - website nominations are open to active threads and registered members only.
 
Last edited:

sandpiper

Well-known member
458 53
Zupcon, no - website nominations are open to active threads and registered members only.
Why the restriction on member status (re: voting eligibility)? Perhaps it's that you don't want to have to go through all the second ballots and recounts needed to arrive at a set of "acceptable" winners. :)

Strange. I don't understand how, one one hand your content can editors suggest bringing back old, "quality", threads to the attention of the masses whilst, on the other, you decide that the authors of or contributors to these threads can't be voted for.

Yes, the members in question may have been banned. But let's face it, the guidelines for banning members have changed so dramatically since then (probably because it's largely pointless) that those old bans are a bit of a joke. When you consider that, and the fact that some of those old threads still represent the best quality material on the forum it makes no sense to me at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sharky

Admin
5,513 275
Okay you've made some good points, and I'm willing to open it up for a vote as to whether we should extend nominations across all members and threads over the course of the year who have made a signficant contribution to the site, regardless of the current status - remember though that in terms of awards, the period over which contributions to the site should be considered is 2009.Moving this discussion to a separate feedback/poll thread...
 
Last edited:

arabianights

Legendary member
6,725 1,377
I voted yes, not because I wish to nominate anything to do with Wasp but because I have some spanish threads that deserve recognition. If we allow banned members/deleted threads then for a kind of consistency we ought to allow ones from last year as well, in which case spanish89 is the master :)
 

Mr. Charts

Legendary member
7,364 1,181
How about having an award for the most stupid banned poster?
Or the poster who has done most to trash t2w?
Or jester of the year?
Or the poster everyone loves to hate?

KISS (keep it simple, sharky)......
 

Sharky

Admin
5,513 275
I agree it's a slightly odd poll, but I'm willing to give people an opportunity to cast their vote. The subject matter in itself doesn't require further debate though, a simple yes or no will suffice.
 

sandpiper

Well-known member
458 53
Hi Sandpiper,

Ahh Feb 9th, yes - thanks for double checking that.

Okay you've made some good points, and I'm willing to open it up for a vote as to whether we should extend nominations across all members and threads over the course of the year who have made a signficant contribution to the site, regardless of the current status - remember though that in terms of awards, the period over which contributions to the site should be considered is 2009.Moving this discussion to a separate feedback/poll thread...

Arabian, you could only if we had a best forum category... but we don't.
Fair enough. I'm sure that I'm not alone in not caring what the value of contrbutions is/was in terms of the site (we are kind of a bit past that). I tend to vote for who contributed in some way to my own development/amusement. That's why I keep going back to previous years to nominate.

Let's be honest, Arabian is right, there isn't much from 2009 in terms of threads or journals or actually helpful members (people just aren't as altruistic as they used to be I guess..) that is going to reverse the trend of 6 post threads on interesting subjects lost in the middle of dozens of endless 1 liner and snide remark dialogues.

Hence, if I'm honest, I too, at a push, would rather be talking about Spanish than the other dribble that has dominated the site this year. In truth stuff like his is/was far less dangerous than some of the "white-collar, middle-class" nonsense on here now, passing itself off as fact.

WRT your KISS Richard. I don't get the sarcasm (perhaps I missed post since they are being moved around). Nobody is asking for a change of category, just possbly the recognition that the most helpful/valuable information on here may not be on the most active thread list.

In terms of the other categories you mention, I reckon that those that fan the flames are equally as responsible for the downward spiral as those that light the fire. In that respect we all have to accept some responsibility for what the has become.
 

zupcon

Experienced member
1,162 322
Its a bit of a catch 22 situation. If someones been banned, then they're unlikey to have contributed. This problem is arising because content managers, moderators, and long standing members typically promote information contained in old threads, and the very best material is inevitably provided by banned members. There's only one solution, and that is to DELETE ALL POSTS BY BANNED MEMBERS.

It strikes me as hypocritical to promote the content, and for the forum to benefit from that quality content, without any attempt to acknowledge the contribution made by the original authors. If that where not bad enough, the original authors are denied any right of reply when their material is discussed, and new members are denied the potential benefit of input from those who where once prepared to contribute !

The situation last year was reminiscent of the recent "free and fair" elections in Afganistan, and this year's already heading in the same direction.

Do the honourable thing, delete banned members content, and dont allow banned members to be voted for. It makes a complete mockery of the site otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sandpiper

Sharky

Admin
5,513 275
Thanks for your comments.

So it seems to me from what you've said, that if we consider the poll only based on the idea of contributions for this year then it makes the suggestion of having a nomination for a banned member/closed/deleted thread pretty redundant. Hence I think we need to clarify on the voting page that the nomination relate to this year only. We'll make the adjustments tomorrow and I'll close this thread now - as it's served its purpose.

Sandpiper, the biggest change in the past couple of years has been the sheer numbers of people coming to the site, we've grown exponentially and it's been difficult to keep up. The challenge is how to allow for this expansion in the community whilst at the same time ensuring the reasons why the older and more experienced members were drawn to it in the first place remain intact. It's no easy feat, and I take responsibility for being slow to adapt. But in the past few months we've assembled a great team of people who are all tasked with one goal and that is to strive to improve the quality of the community, and I fully believe it's an achievable goal, but one that ultimately requires the members themselves to take responsibility - as you rightly pointed out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.