POTY revamp - suggestions

[Jingthing]

Here's an idea for the future.

Let the winner be decided by artificial intelligence.

[CharlieH]

Off topic posts removed.

[Old Croc]

Many years ago, the then owner of the site appointed the poster of the year without reference to the readership. Unfortunately, he had a tendency to choose his drinking mates so there was little general interest.

Later, when Mods were included and voting allowed, it was usually a foregone conclusion that someone like the forum nurse would win.

At one stage applicants would display their yearly efforts on the forum by linking to outstanding threads or posts they contributed during the year. It was then in the General forum and well patronized by members.

It went into hiatus for a while, and when started again, it seemed there were voting shenanigans that would put Florida to shame. Several winners came from a long way back at the last minute when it appeared that certain, not universally liked, members were about to take it out. 

Some applicants became so obsessed with the whole idea of claiming the title that they would say or do anything to win. Dirt was thrown, even by posters you would think were well above it, and tears shed. It culminated a short while back with fraud involving false membership registrations.

It has now morphed into a titter fest for a very small number of people who wet themselves whenever, for example, the oft repeated, pink tights or tiaras are mentioned. Small wonder most members have little or no interest any more.

It's obviously a lot of fun for the few, and should remain on the pub forum so the few can have their games, but, under this format, shouldn't be patronized by moderators, nor considered as something above what it is.

 

 

(If that doesn't get me nominated for Curmudgeon of the Year, nothing will!)

[transam]

5 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

Many years ago, the then owner of the site appointed the poster of the year without reference to the readership. Unfortunately, he had a tendency to choose his drinking mates so there was little general interest.

Later, when Mods were included and voting allowed, it was usually a foregone conclusion that someone like the forum nurse would win.

At one stage applicants would display their yearly efforts on the forum by linking to outstanding threads or posts they contributed during the year. It was then in the General forum and well patronized by members.

It went into hiatus for a while, and when started again, it seemed there were voting shenanigans that would put Florida to shame. Several winners came from a long way back at the last minute when it appeared that certain, not universally liked, members were about to take it out. 

Some applicants became so obsessed with the whole idea of claiming the title that they would say or do anything to win. Dirt was thrown, even by posters you would think were well above it, and tears shed. It culminated a short while back with fraud involving false membership registrations.

It has now morphed into a titter fest for a very small number of people who wet themselves whenever, for example, the oft repeated, pink tights or tiaras are mentioned. Small wonder most members have little or no interest any more.

It's obviously a lot of fun for the few, and should remain on the pub forum so the few can have their games, but, under this format, shouldn't be patronized by moderators, nor considered as something above what it is.

 

 

(If that doesn't get me nominated for Curmudgeon of the Year, nothing will!)

POTY is a take it or leave it topic, a bit of end of year fun for me and I enjoy it ever year, even with the ups and downs...????

 

Yes a bit tame this year but it was smiles for a few of us who like a bit of fun. ????

[Thailand]

Such a small number of TV members are involved and invariably the same ones. Why not just rotate the award once a month amongst those that need it and give it another name perhaps.

Or ------------

[Odysseus123]

14 minutes ago, Thailand said:

Such a small number of TV members are involved and invariably the same ones. Why not just rotate the award once a month amongst those that need it and give it another name perhaps.

Or ------------

There is absolutely nothing forbidden for you to participate in the process

 

I participated even tho' I did not even realize  that I had been nominated.

 

I may even have voted for Bild-if his past posts had not indicated that he was a dedicated supporter of authoritarianism-and therefore beyond the pale.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Odysseus123

[transam]

28 minutes ago, Thailand said:

Such a small number of TV members are involved and invariably the same ones. Why not just rotate the award once a month amongst those that need it and give it another name perhaps.

Or ------------

You sound angry that you are not "recognised" by others....????

[metempsychotic]

18 hours ago, Brunolem said:

First and foremost, members should be required to provide links to the posts that led them to nominate their candidates.

 

To me, the actual process looks like a "buddy thing"...either you are part of a certain group, or coterie, or you stand no chance.

 

There is absolutely no connection with whatever was posted by the winner.

 

Not everyone is following each candidate...for example, a certain Babboon was widely supported...good for him, but based on what?

 

Other members, such as myself, are unlikely to spend hours searching among hundreds or thousands of posts in order to find out why someone was selected in the first place.

 

In the end, it looks much more like a (virtual) popularity contest, than a posting contest.

I think you mean to say that it is a single clique honoring itself. 

 

Thaivisa has changed drastically over the years and as the pool of actual posters dwindles, so does interest in the poty. 

 

Interesting, original, intelligent, contrerversial posters just don't last long these days, or simply moving on as a result of the incremental changes to the site over the years. 

 

I'm pretty sure if you looked at the votes you would find very few actually read contribute or vote anymore. 

 

[Andrew Dwyer]

It's obviously a lot of fun for the few, and should remain on the pub forum so the few can have their games, but, under this format, shouldn't be patronized by moderators, nor considered as something above what it is.
 
 
(If that doesn't get me nominated for Curmudgeon of the Year, nothing will!)

I think you have summed it up nicely.

It does now have a small number of followers who are more interested in the jokey commentary than serious posts ( and I include myself in this category ).

I suspect it will continue in its current format to amuse the few who follow it and have a similar parallel thread running ( as this year ) commenting on how it now “ pathetic “ and “ not like the good old days “.

But that’s okay, I , for one, will continue to follow it and make some humorous remarks ( in my own mind anyway ) when I feel the urge.

I think it’s plain to see that it won’t achieve its past heights of following and will continue to plod on to amuse the minority.

[transam]

1 minute ago, Andrew Dwyer said:

 

I think you have summed it up nicely.

It does now have a small number of followers who are more interested in the jokey commentary than serious posts ( and I include myself in this category ).

I suspect it will continue in its current format to amuse the few who follow it and have a similar parallel thread running ( as this year ) commenting on how it now “ pathetic “ and “ not like the good old days “.

But that’s okay, I , for one, will continue to follow it and make some humorous remarks ( in my own mind anyway ) when I feel the urge.

I think it’s plain to see that it won’t achieve its past heights of following and will continue to plod on to amuse the minority.

 

Yes me....????

[metempsychotic]

A quick look at the polls shows 134 people voted in the finals. 

 

Scan of the actual poty threads show the same posters posting over and over again. 

 

Beyond a very small group or reqular posters it seems no one is interested beyond a very select few. 

 

The poster of the year has certainly had its day. 

[LucysDad]

2 minutes ago, metempsychotic said:

A quick look at the polls shows 134 people voted in the finals. 

 

Scan of the actual poty threads show the same posters posting over and over again. 

 

Beyond a very small group or reqular posters it seems no one is interested beyond a very select few. 

 

The poster of the year has certainly had its day. 

 

 

 

Now go and take that number and work it out as a percentage of the ACTIVE posters on TV

[transam]

3 minutes ago, metempsychotic said:

A quick look at the polls shows 134 people voted in the finals. 

 

Scan of the actual poty threads show the same posters posting over and over again. 

 

Beyond a very small group or reqular posters it seems no one is interested beyond a very select few. 

 

The poster of the year has certainly had its day. 

As a new bloke you seem to be very interested in years gone bye...????....????

[dick dasterdly]

22 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Yes, the result definitely seemed predetermined this year. It would have probably happened anyway though. 

In previous years it was totally allowed for people to bring up opposition research on competitors which is basically looking at their old posts and using them against them.

Positive posting history of course could be used as well to support a person's chances or at least balance out the negative stuff.

That used to be a big thing in previous exciting contests.

Pretty much nonexistent now. Mostly silly banter. 

After all, what is it that people are supposedly judging members on?

Their hair style? The size of their genitals? No. It is about their POSTING HISTORY, positive and negative.

That seemed to be off limits now, making the POTY even more bland than it needed to be. 

But even then, it would have been mostly pointless to do so anyway as the main reason to do that in previous years was to encourage people to change their votes, which the software used to allow.

So it's basically become a castrated contest.

I don't believe all those humor categories would help at all.

It's less than one percent of the members that are interested at all.

That would be desperate lipstick on a pig tactics.

"In previous years it was totally allowed for people to bring up opposition research on competitors which is basically looking at their old posts and using them against them.

Positive posting history of course could be used as well to support a person's chances or at least balance out the negative stuff."

 

Entirely agree with this part as I suspect most of us rarely come across the candidates posts - and so have little idea about their posts/opinions/attitudes over the year!

 

I also agree with Andrew Dwyer that Geronimo's commentary should make him a good candidate for POTY.  But, on the other hand, that would curtail his excellent commentary on the 'competition' - making it even more boring.....

[metempsychotic]

Just now, transam said:

As a new bloke you seem to be very interested in years gone bye...????....????

I suspect you mean years gone by. 

[metempsychotic]

Just now, LucysDad said:

 

 

 

Now go and take that number and work it out as a percentage of the ACTIVE posters on TV

There are very few active posters on TV as far as I can see. 

 

Rather impossible to determine though. 

[transam]

5 minutes ago, metempsychotic said:

I suspect you mean years gone by. 

 

[dick dasterdly]

16 hours ago, vogie said:

If it ain't broke why fix it, at the end of the day it is a bit of fun, does it really matter who wins. Some people take the whole affair far too serious, life is too short to be worried about whether POTY can be improved, it does not matter. As long as some people get some enjoyment out of it, it does not have to be run like a finely tuned machine.

Because it's not as much 'fun' anymore?  As shown by only 134 (?) voting out of a membership of a few thousand?

[transam]

5 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Because it's not as much 'fun' anymore?  As shown by only 134 (?) voting out of a membership of a few thousand?

They should have let me run again....The woodwork would have come to life again..????

[vogie]

18 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Because it's not as much 'fun' anymore?  As shown by only 134 (?) voting out of a membership of a few thousand?

Do you actually know how many members there are actively posting on here, the few thousand you are quoting may have long gone to pastures new, for whatever reason. Of course its fun, the people that spoil it are the ones that take it serious. We are not voting for someone to lead us into battle, I am sure the people that partake in the event enjoy it immensely, but there are probably just has many who don't, up to them. 

Happy New Year.????

[dick dasterdly]

15 minutes ago, vogie said:

Do you actually know how many members there are actively posting on here, the few thousand you are quoting may have long gone to pastures new, for whatever reason. Of course its fun, the people that spoil it are the ones that take it serious. We are not voting for someone to lead us into battle, I am sure the people that partake in the event enjoy it immensely, but there are probably just has many who don't, up to them. 

Happy New Year.????

Obviously I have no idea how many members are actively posting here.

 

Perhaps I'm looking through 'rose tinted glasses', but I remember the POTY thread being a lot more fun previously.

 

Having said this, I appreciated Geronimo and other posters' efforts to still make it funny enough to be worth reading ????!

[LucysDad]

1 hour ago, metempsychotic said:

There are very few active posters on TV as far as I can see. 

 

Rather impossible to determine though. 

 

 

Indeed......... but I think you see my point.

[Jingthing]

BTW, I was serious about using artificial intelligence for this. 

Think about it. 

It could be designed to take many factors into account --

minimum number of posts

breadth of forums posted in (a great poster posting in only one forum not appropriate for the overall site POTY)

likes

repetition of posts (posting the same crap all the time obviously negative)

language skills in the posts

creativity of writing in the posts

gauging feedback to the posts by direct quotes (different than likes), positive and negative

entertainment value of posts

helpfulness of the posts (advice to others)

Insipidness of tone and content (negative)

Constructive controversy level -- a healthy balance between totally bland/sucking up to all in a spineless fashion and flaming

 

Would it be perfect? Of course not, but arguably much more fair than the current random mess of a system.

 

Cheers.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Jingthing

[Andrew Dwyer]

BTW, I was serious about using artificial intelligence for this. 
Think about it. 
It could be designed to take many factors into account --
minimum number of posts
breadth of forums posted in (a great poster posting in only one forum not appropriate for the overall site POTY)
likes
repetition of posts (posting the same crap all the time obviously negative)
language skills in the posts
creativity of writing in the posts
gauging feedback to the posts by direct quotes (different than likes), positive and negative
entertainment value of posts
helpfulness of the posts (advice to others)
Insipidness of tone and content (negative)
Constructive controversy level -- a healthy balance between totally bland/sucking up to all in a spineless fashion and flaming
 
Would it be perfect? Of course not, but arguably much more fair than the current random mess of a system.
 
Cheers.

That would be fair, but let’s wait until the transition to the new server on Thursday evening has finished.

Who knows what innovations this change will make . [emoji51]

[vogie]

28 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

BTW, I was serious about using artificial intelligence for this. 

Think about it. 

It could be designed to take many factors into account --

minimum number of posts

breadth of forums posted in (a great poster posting in only one forum not appropriate for the overall site POTY)

likes

repetition of posts (posting the same crap all the time obviously negative)

language skills in the posts

creativity of writing in the posts

gauging feedback to the posts by direct quotes (different than likes), positive and negative

entertainment value of posts

helpfulness of the posts (advice to others)

Insipidness of tone and content (negative)

Constructive controversy level -- a healthy balance between totally bland/sucking up to all in a spineless fashion and flaming

 

Would it be perfect? Of course not, but arguably much more fair than the current random mess of a system.

 

Cheers.

And after all those proposals, and if they were implemented, would we be able to have a re-vote if the winner was not to our liking?????

[grollies]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

BTW, I was serious about using artificial intelligence for this. 

Think about it. 

It could be designed to take many factors into account --

minimum number of posts

breadth of forums posted in (a great poster posting in only one forum not appropriate for the overall site POTY)

likes

repetition of posts (posting the same crap all the time obviously negative)

language skills in the posts

creativity of writing in the posts

gauging feedback to the posts by direct quotes (different than likes), positive and negative

entertainment value of posts

helpfulness of the posts (advice to others)

Insipidness of tone and content (negative)

Constructive controversy level -- a healthy balance between totally bland/sucking up to all in a spineless fashion and flaming

 

Would it be perfect? Of course not, but arguably much more fair than the current random mess of a system.

 

Cheers.

And, obviously, a future POTY would have to show tolerance by not blocking members....but you probably won't get to read this post.

[grollies]

7 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Because it's not as much 'fun' anymore?  As shown by only 134 (?) voting out of a membership of a few thousand?

134 voting is pretty crap but, I didn't vote this year or comment on the POTY topics but still read and post regularly.

[geronimo]

17 hours ago, Jingthing said:

BTW, I was serious about using artificial intelligence for this. 

Think about it. 

It could be designed to take many factors into account --

minimum number of posts

breadth of forums posted in (a great poster posting in only one forum not appropriate for the overall site POTY)

likes

repetition of posts (posting the same crap all the time obviously negative)

language skills in the posts

creativity of writing in the posts

gauging feedback to the posts by direct quotes (different than likes), positive and negative

entertainment value of posts

helpfulness of the posts (advice to others)

Insipidness of tone and content (negative)

Constructive controversy level -- a healthy balance between totally bland/sucking up to all in a spineless fashion and flaming

 

Would it be perfect? Of course not, but arguably much more fair than the current random mess of a system.

 

Cheers.

AI will eventually rule our lives anyway, so why not now?

[owl sees all]

The answer is a complete rethink and revamp

 

A structured POTY. This would begin with 11 POTMs. Starting in January and finishing in November, there should be a POTM each month. with each winner going through to the grand final in December (baring dropouts or deaths or bannings,..... in which case reserves go in).

 

There would have to be rules, of course, like posting at least once in a month, and for those who do not want to be included being able to abstain from the grand final; the POTY. 

 

I personally would not want TVForum staff included. The more they stay low-profile the better for me. Previous winner welcome. But, just as in Miss World, all the finalists would have to make a profound statement about their particular passion (football, plastic bags, food etc....) to help us voters differentiate between them during December.

 

Now. would the POTM winners carry their votes into POTY? I'm undecided on this.

 

 

 

 

[geronimo]

2 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

The answer is a complete rethink and revamp

 

A structured POTY. This would begin with 11 POTMs. Starting in January and finishing in November, there should be a POTM each month. with each winner going through to the grand final in December (baring dropouts or deaths or bannings,..... in which case reserves go in).

 

There would have to be rules, of course, like posting at least once in a month, and for those who do not want to be included being able to abstain from the grand final; the POTY. 

 

I personally would not want TVForum staff included. The more they stay low-profile the better for me. Previous winner welcome. But, just as in Miss World, all the finalists would have to make a profound statement about their particular passion (football, plastic bags, food etc....) to help us voters differentiate between them during December.

 

Now. would the POTM winners carry their votes into POTY? I'm undecided on this.

 

 

 

 

I nominate Owl as the Official POTY Rule Committee