Talk:2011 RationalWiki Awards

From RationalWikiWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

yay, another popularity contest I can lose--Brxbrx 17:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"Worst criticism" should really go to a specific incident, if anyone can think of any. They're there, but finding them is a different matter. Armondikov 07:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The MRM article is always a consistently good one for butthurt. And you can do a search of the talk pages for the phrase "not very rational" Armondikov 07:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The circlejerk/New Culture shit was a pretty massive butthurt. And it's one Brx can win. Ace McWicked 09:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
How exactly did I make the "worst criticism" list? I won't throw a hissy fit over it but I'd like to hear the reasoning. --Ullhateme 22:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Damned if I know. You're just another faceless internet person to me. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 22:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Probably them lumping you with Maratrean/Brx. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 22:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
That, and this. which is pretty lame: i.e. worst criticism. Mbwun 23:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Really, Ullhateme? This is how Parthian Shots ought to be done. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 00:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
A "Fuck you all" is criticism? So… what did I criticise about RW? The lack of fucking oneself? Or of orgies? --Ullhateme 00:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol most abusive. You should start categories that consider people with and without regard to Brx and I think you'll find that I "abuse" him infrequently in response to him either lying or carrying on his vendetta. Otherwise I'm not cuddly but I'm far from abusive. But hey vote on whatever you want. If you want a real idea of what people think I suggest you actually set a policy of not considering Brx at all this year but giving him his own little narrative describing how miserable he is and all the shitty irritating things he does. Unfortunately when you're talking about negative superlatives, permitting his odious stench to influence nominations will unfairly bias the outcome. Nobody approves of him or what he does or has had a good experience with him. You can't say that for any other drama queen we've ever had. Nutty Roux 15:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Least effective moderator

What are the criteria for nominations. I see UHM is carrying a petty and unsupportable gripe over here by nominating me for least effective mod. I don't like him either but it raises the question of how this works if someone who's had a prominent and substantial voice in defining the role of mods and in influencing policy to protect the rights of editors and gets slapped up there as part of a personal gripe by literally the only cheerleader of the two people he's butted heads with in years. Nutty Roux 15:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Criteria? For either mod category, they must be/have been a mod. For most potential they can't have been around for more than a year as of 15 November 2011. I'm honestly thinking about nominating all the mods for both least/worst to avoid this sort of drama. Everything else is a free for all. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 15:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
That's sort of my point. With 7 of us it makes no sense to wait for some drive-by with a grudge to slap a name up without being able to justify it (see Brx lying and making stuff up below for a fair example of a failure to justify a claim). Nutty Roux 16:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
It is done, with the former ones as well. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 16:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I nominated you because instead of stopping HCM you've been participating in it. If the role of the moderator is to stop HCM and moderate, that's pretty much as uneffective as you can get. I don't hold a grudge or a gripe against you, I think you're an ass, but I think that about many people I don't even talk to, and by all means you are allowed to be an ass. We have differing viewpoints on many things, that's it. If you think everybody lets his or her emotions come into play at all time, well, I feel sorry for you. --Ullhateme 17:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I would with you because I don't accept it as an honest criticism given what I expect you to know about the facts and what "HCM" means. We've had relatively little trouble (you new people call it "HCM" when we haven't had anything like that since May) and I've never participated in making it worse. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "participating" in "HCM." Nutty Roux 19:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Why should it not been an honest criticism? Why should I? Because I disagree with you? Do I have a history of being dishonest or hypocritical or something?
And why exactly should I try to explain, now that you stated that I am dishonest, what I meant with that? You can simply wash it away, claim it was from dishonest person or that I "don't understand the culture of RW" (or of course, you can say I'm a socialist troll). I'm sorry, but there is no sense in having a discussion with somebody who thinks you are a dishonest person. If you get that trust restored we can continue were we left off, but until then there is no reason to do so. --Ullhateme 19:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Cool. Way to substantiate a fairly specific claim. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. You're very good at what you do. Nutty Roux 22:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
HCM=Bad shit going down. "participating"=making shit going down. Now you can get into a rant how I don't understand the culture or otherwise unintellectually mastrubate yourself into an "I'm fucking awesome and everybody that dosn't agree with me is lying"-pseudo-orgasm. --Ullhateme 23:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
lol--68.230.64.189 23:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Yep. All I asked was for you to substantiate a specific claim. Don't know how me ranting or doing that other stuff has anything to do with whether you'll bother to put facts to allegations, which you apparently won't. But I'm more and more impressed with you as we continue having these exchanges. You and young Brx come from the same #winning school of rhetorical strategy and I salute you. Nutty Roux 03:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
What's the "#winning school of rhetorical strategy"? Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 03:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Obfuscating with his prediction about how the exchange would go without bothering to actually substantiate the claim. It's his pattern and it frustrates even him or he wouldn't insult me after it became clear he sucks at this. Nutty Roux 03:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks like you allready came...
Oh, Fukky, I don't know what about HCM=Bad shit going down. "participating"=making shit going down. isn't substantiate. If you are in any kind an honest person you know you did that. Maratreans Talkpage? The "brx shut up"-templates? That stupid cooping against Nx?
I don't know what you'll do next, but with this bullshit you have entered the ranks of Andy and Ken. On the one side you keep saying that you can't trust a word I'm writting, on the other you go all up in flames if I say that discussion doesn't make sense then while at the same time making some wishy-washy demand that you don't even know even need to move the goalposts because I can't see them in the first place. And the same way as with Andy and Ken, I will not have any discussion with you as it wouldn't be much more than a waste of time to believe you might change your opinion. --Ullhateme 11:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(UD)Now we're getting somewhere. I'm not going to let you make a drive-by character assassination by calling me the least effective moderator based on nothing but your own personal dislike for me. You can call me a dick or whatever you want based on our strained personal interactions. I don't care what your personal opinion of me is. But I will always refute false claims like yours about my performance as a moderator because I want people to know that I take my position seriously and believe I've done a good job. I've done it differently than others and explained why. That's appropriate when there's disagreement about the role of moderators.
Oh, Fukky, I don't know what about HCM=Bad shit going down. "participating"=making shit going down. isn't substantiate. From what I can understand, you're defining HCM about as broadly as possible and then saying that you already substantiated your claims that I "making shit going down"? You haven't come close. As usual, you ignore evidence and blithely toss out references to situations that don't support your position as if they did.
If you are in any kind an honest person you know you did that. This is the second weakest form of argument, just behind your other rhetorical strategy of making bald assertions of fact, and the province of 2nd graders who haven't yet mastered the skill of marshaling evidence to bolster factual claims. I don't know or agree with you or I wouldn't be asking you to substantiate your claim that "instead of stopping HCM you've been participating in it."
Maratreans Talkpage?" Which of my 12([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]) edits to Maratrean's talkpage have me "making [bad] shit going down"? My first edit to Maratrean's talk page was back in August when someone else asked him why he blocked me and Ace. I responded when the conversation turned toward Maratrean and Brxbrx shitting on me as a moderator (mostly Brxbrx, as he doesn't waste an opportunity to do). Which of those August edits do you think has me "making shit going down"? How about my September edits? I posted a picture of a Taba with a dick pooping on Maratrean's campaign slogan as Ace's campaign manager, as well as got into a discussion about Maratrean's candidacy. Were those edits so beyond the pale that I was "making shit going down"? Toward the end of September I chimed in on a discussion about Nx doing something or other with his server rights, I think adding the Marcus Cicero RC filter. Was that "making shit going down"?
The "brx shut up"-templates? There was one template. I didn't create it. I changed it from "Shut up Brx" to "Oh shut up Brx" in blinking text. That lasted for 5 minutes until Nx removed the flashing text, which he was right about being obnoxious. I then changed it to a flashing box. That lasted for 9 minutes until Weaseloid, Nx, and B flat made their final contributions. That was enough "making shit going down" to call my qualifications to be a moderator into question, right?
That stupid cooping against Nx? I've never cooped Nx. In the last cooping I voted pretty circumspectly, saying I'd change my vote if he said he'd stop being a cowboy. In the MC/Recent Changes cooping I stuck to clarifying the facts and just trying to keep the discussion focused on the specific conduct alleged. See edits like: [13][14][15][16][17]. Are you referring to something else I didn't address?
You completely missed me making a "Holy Maratrean Sigil" out of dicks. That was pretty awful behavior.
I don't know what you'll do next, but with this bullshit you have entered the ranks of Andy and Ken. Really? This is getting awfully close to Godwin territory, especially where you haven't come a country mile from showing what "this bullshit" is. Come on, Ullhateme.
making some wishy-washy demand that you don't even know even need to move the goalposts because I can't see them in the first place. The whole conversation is in this thread - it starts with me asking you to substantiate your claim that "I nominated you because instead of stopping HCM you've been participating in it." That's not moving goalposts, buddy. It's asking a pretty simple question you repeatedly declined to answer by making weird personal remarks about me.
And the same way as with Andy and Ken, I will not have any discussion with you as it wouldn't be much more than a waste of time to believe you might change your opinion. And with that, he yet again clicked his heels and vanished in a puff of smoke, leaving not one single thing in his place but unsupported allegations of fact and personal insults. Nutty Roux 16:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact you respond to me saying "I'm not talking to you anymore" with a 6,581 comment really made me lol. And no, I'm not going to read or answer it. --Ullhateme 19:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I'd expect you to continue conducting yourself as you have. So much for being a big grown up university philosophy student if you tuck tail and run away like a little boy when called to the mat for making negative claims about me that you couldn't back up. All this highly emotional language from you yet aside from the weird insults you've really got nothing to say. That's very sad to me. Nutty Roux 20:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot didn't you want to teach me something some time ago? Like for example how to be hypocritical fucktard about ad hominem while at the same time not understanding that other peoples other opinion might be just as valid as ones own? Or did you drop that project because you were so busy in real life? --Ullhateme 20:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Good god, UHM. You want to keep going? Alright. Teach you? I just taught you an important lesson about being able to back up the shit you throw at another person, but I don't think it sunk in. I don't see me using any ad hominem attacks here, do you, UHM? I see me making fun of you, but not suggesting your arguments have no merit because of some irrelevant claim about you as a person. Here's something else I'll teach you today: your opinion is as valid as anyone else's but opinion ≠ fact. Stop saying things about me you can't back up and we can stop having these long conversations. Nutty Roux 21:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
As I think you are a dishonest person I don't believe a word you are saying. Therfore I dismiss all of it. --Ullhateme 21:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Wow. You've been spending your entire day so far hating on brx. By the way, this also includes treatment of Maratrean, Ty, UHM, CUR, Blue, ADK, and a number of users who are guilty of crimes ranging from nothing to complaining about your bullying and asshole behavior--68.230.64.189 15:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, you (Brx) and Maratrean are the 2 people UHM cheerleaders for. ROFLROFLROFL you're standing up for CUR when you don't know the first fucking thing about anything from that period. Ask Blue and ADK what they think. And FFS there is no "number of users" who have complained about my "bullying and asshole behavior." You need to stop lying and making things up, Brx. It's an awful awful reflection on you. I've spent about 5 minutes posting on RW responding to some of the unnecessary shit you've started with people I respect. Other than that I've been making money doing the profession I went to grad school for. What are you doing today? Nutty Roux 15:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] tl; dr

Is there some point to this conversation, i.e. do you want to be removed from the list Nutty, or can we just sit back and grab the popcorn? -- Nx / talk 20:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Totally TL;DR. The point of the conversation was to challenge UHM to substantiate false claims he made about me and then make a record of his failure to do so. Nutty Roux 21:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Have fun. -- Nx / talk 21:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Really I thought the point was attacking somebody you don't like because that somebody said something you don't like. Although I guess we just see it differently. So when can I come into class? --Ullhateme 21:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
All I did was ask you to substantiate claims you made about me. I dismissed you from class a little while ago. I'd rather you didn't come back for supplemental instruction; this has been a real waste of time. Nutty Roux 21:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you are dishonest about your intent. --http://www.snopes.com/medical/homecure/coughcpr.asp 21:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
You think I have a bad motive in asking you to justify something bad you said about me? You really are wasting my fucking time. Just go do something else, UHM. Nutty Roux 21:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Wow, you really don't see what I just did there, do you? [18] --Ullhateme 21:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you drunk or something? You're citing me explaining why I don't accept your criticism as honest because you ought to know the facts and asking you to justify it. This is taking a turn for the surreal. Nutty Roux 22:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
How blind can one human being be? I'm holding a mirror in front of your face! We've done this before! Remember? Ty/being creepy about assuming stuff? Jesus Mother Fucking Christ… --Ullhateme 22:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess pretty blind. Help me out here. I don't follow. Nutty Roux 03:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
You're just moving the goal posts and we can all see through you.--68.230.64.189 04:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
You don't know what "moving the goalposts" means. All I asked for was evidence of Hate's claim about me. His response was to expressly refuse to justify himself while petulantly carrying on the insults. Here you go doing the same thing. Are you guys both mentally retarded or something? Is it transmittable through the internet? Nutty Roux 06:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I know what it means. You're just in denial. How many times do you have to be called out before you pull your head out your ass? Better yet, you could just leave. You really ought to LANCB again. The wiki and the community is better off without you flinging shit--68.230.64.189 07:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the psychological projection, boy wonder. Your continued presence anywhere near either of these sites is a mysterious testament to your level of pathology. I'm doing pretty good if the only bumps in my online life are the likes of you and Hate slagging me. Nutty Roux 14:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
You are a worn ileostomy bag. You leak chyme, shit, and gut flora everywhere leaving a foul smell and infections over anything you touch. Your corrupting taint has made RationalWiki a worse place, and you need to leave. You viciously attack users with the intent to drive them away, because you're disappointed that this place isn't your own private party anymore. Do everybody a favor and rent out a web forum that you may brag about how much you drink and post videos of shitty music away from decent people--Brxbrx 02:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I finally understand why, beyond your general pattern of causing trouble wherever you go on RW, you consistently reserve your worst for the growing list of people you disagree with or who won't give you want. It scales in severity with how badly your pathological refusal to self reflect hurts. My only consistently negative interactions on RW are with you. They began when you saw me stand my ground for Huw and my hopes for the future of RW and I refused to stand for you misrepresenting my positions and qualifications and then just generally attacking me whenever you get in trouble. Go look in a mirror before you engage in this kind of obvious transference. I suggest you reconsider the offer I made on your talk page. Nutty Roux 09:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Nutty, when you say to Brxbrx that "My only consistently negative interactions on RW are with you", I'm left wondering about the times we interacted positively... and I'm not sure there were any... maybe this bottle of 2002 Mouvedre is getting to my memory... but if that is true, that would render your statement false. Maratrean 10:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to the frequency of our consistently negative interactions and using "consistently" colloquially but you make fair point and I had you in mind when I wrote that. The distinction is that you and I interact, however negatively, very infrequently but I'm positive it hasn't been 100% strained. Nutty Roux 11:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
When you're losing an argument, you can always fall back on semantics...--68.230.64.189 16:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

How much more nonsense can you turn out?! Behind your bold posturing is a pathetically inept child who gets outclassed every time he tries arguing with anyone. My point is that of all my interactions with people on RW I only have this degree of trouble with you and pretty much only you (add in a few with Maratrean and when Hate trolls me that are massively dwarfed in number and intensity by those with you). Your claim that there are numerous people who "call me out" is a bald face lie you cooked up to distract from your own terrible behavior because I've been there to call you out when you frequently fuck up. I've got no such record. I don't get cooped. I don't have talk page archives full of people telling me to knock off my shitty behavior. People don't marvel at me throwing temper tantrums when I don't get what I want. I can think of one single instance that remotely resembles what you describe and it mostly involved you and Hate trolling me, you calling me names and edit warring your vandalism of my user page, and spitting bile before I even knew anything about your foul nature, etc. And that is why I will show you to be the brazen liar you are each time you try smearing me with these falsehoods born of your own psychological transference. Lol I'm not RW's problem by a longshot. You popped up here to troll and stir shit; you trolled and stirred shit. Do us all a favor and leave it be so we can end this pointless pissing match. Nutty Roux 17:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Not that my words will count much for you, but wouldn't it be easier to just let it stay there and let people think for themselves? You know, cause most can...
And may I ask why you are calling me "Hate" all of sudden? --Ullhateme 17:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


Here. Reading it again might refresh your memory.
Do you honestly believe anything after "I'm sorry, but there is no sense in having a discussion with somebody who thinks you are a dishonest person. If you get that trust restored we can continue were we left off, but until then there is no reason to do so." was meant as a real argument? No. It wasn't. I threw wrong stuff at you to make you angry, I made fun of/trolled you to piss you off and use ad hominems so that you would attack me for using them, while pissing you off made you use ad hominems yourself. Then I dismiss what you say by claiming you are a dishonest person — remember this?
"If you get that trust restored we can continue were we left off" is still the position I hold, did it work? Can we now have a real discussion? --Ullhateme 12:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Evidence and logic work, Hate. You've had a solid day to have a "real" discussion that you filled with taunts and nonsense instead. Can you justify your claims about me or not? Answers, not more sideshow. I don't have any more time for your games. Nutty Roux 14:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
If you hadn't time you wouldn't have reacted at all, either that or you are too obsessed with what other people are thinking of you to be able to keep your calender in check.
If you are not able to say that "I don't believe you because you are dishonest" is basic logical fallacy, I can't help you. It's an ad hominem and it's paranoid to speak of somebody holding a grudge against you.
As soon as you are able to commit to the most commonly used forms of logic, you will get an answer. If you can't or won't do that, it is your fault that you don't.--Ullhateme 15:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You made an affirmative factual claim about me; you bore the burden of proof regardless of who I am, what my intellectual abilities are, and whether I took the bait and satisfied these irrelevant conditions you keep throwing up. I asked the same question of you for more than a day and got nothing but increasingly incoherent rants and insults. I'm not interested in having any discussion with you or messing around with this peculiar side show you've got going on; I just wanted an answer. You refused to give one for so long the only reasonable conclusion is that you have none. If after all this dissembly you can't man up and take responsibility for just this one single statement, you gotta have a screw loose to think you can credibly deny you popped up here to take a baseless partisan shot at me just like you've been doing to me and others on RW for months. I'm satisfied with the record I made of your behavior. Take care, UHM. You're an awfully strange person. Nutty Roux 01:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Above section really is tl;dr... but I'd like to know what it's about, so I can give my almost worthless opinion, lol. so could someone plz summarize in a few points what's going on here? seriously, what's the prob? Refugee 18:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Ullhateme nominated me for Least Effective Mod. I objected because I believe it was due to a grudge. He said he made the nomination because "because instead of stopping HCM you've been participating in it." I denied the claim and said it wasn't an honest criticism based on the facts and definition of "HCM." He said "HCM=Bad shit going down. "participating"=making shit going down" and then flipped out and started insulting me. I asked him for evidence of me "making shit going down." He refused to provide any and became increasingly unhinged insulting me and jumping all over the place. I withdrew satisfied that the record shows his criticism was dishonestly made solely on the basis of his grudge against me. Nutty Roux 18:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the propanganda…
I nominated Nutty for least effective mod, he wanted to know why and said doubts my honesty. I asked how I could give a reason if he doubts my honesty (because he could just dismiss my answer as dishonest), he says that doesn't count (or something like that) and wants an answer. I try to show him why it dosn't work, by trolling him and dismissing his answers outright, Nutty behaves hypocritical about ad hominems (although undoubtedly he would disagree). I tell him that I will give him an answer as soon as he stops holding the "you are lying"-card in reserve but he calls me a pussy and just smearing for no good reason. There's also an ongoing bitch fight between brx and Nutty but that is usual completely unimportant "You're and ass!" "No! You're an ass!" stuff. I hope I was of help? I tried to be neutral...--Ullhateme 18:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


Nutty being his usual pitiful self... yawn. Maratrean 08:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Predictable bullshit artist is predictable. Nutty Roux 10:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Worst criticism

Should really have a link to the actual criticism. -- Nx / talk 18:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. --Ullhateme 19:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering, could Worst Criticism include non-members, like Markuze? Frankenstein Created Woman 21:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Well....

Well. It seems to me as though there are too many negative categories and not enough positive awards. Can we un-nominate people.. because some categories really have too many, and personally, I don't think Ace McW's name belongs in "most annoying" or "least effective mod" especially since he isn't a mod. Also "least missed" category seems a little mean-spirited. Just my two cents give or take a penny. Refugee 08:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

oh, I should add a disclaimer: I haven't actually read the above discussion about awards, so if I'm repeating anyone's comments or refuting them, sorry. I just like sticking my foot in conversations without knowing what went on before... But anyway, weren't the awards kind of in a more "fun" spirit last time, or am I remembering things the way I want them to be rather than they were? Refugee 08:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd have to agree, that there arn't enough positive awards. And I wasn't here the last years, soooo---I don't know how that went.--만두 08:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Last year's was exactly as bad as this year's. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 10:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The reason Ace is under "least effective Mod" is that he was a mod, and by nominating all current and ex-mods t once we can cut down on the drama. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 11:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should add "Worst HCM" (even though this year will be a shoo-in), "Friendliest," and "Most Insightful" (or some variant, for the editors whom elevate discussions with particularly intelligent, nuanced posts). Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 10:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Have at. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 11:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks HJ/RA! That's along the lines I was thinking of.. more positive! Refugee 18:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC) (and sorry ADK, I stuck my comment in here out of order, how rude of me... :p)
Shoo-in, you say? What I have planned for May 2012 will blow that out of the water! Armondikov 01:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] So...

who do you have to fuck around here to get a nomination? Psygremlin 15:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Likewise. Can't we have a biggest twat award? At least I could win something. Crundy 15:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Ironclad

I'm looking for a category for Ironclad. His rebuttal of Andy's history lectures has been a work of dedication and scholarship which merits rewarding. So, most dedicated, I think not, there are others more dedicated to the wiki as a whole. Inciteful? Surely in his field but, again, not across the wiki as a whole. Most Friendly, he most surely is but that's not what I'd reward him for. Has anyone any thoughts or am I alone on this. Bob Soles 17:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Most interested in CP, he can run against Psygremlin. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 17:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Mr McP got there first with 'Anticonservapedian' which suits fine. Of course, what he really wants is 'best bod' but I don't think that one's in the running, somehow. Bob Soles 17:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] In fact

If people are piling on the nominations, I'd like to see why. There's already been discussion of the specific criticism (and I've added two that I can think of) but more are needed. Armondikov 01:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

One Clear Advantage of this system is that people can Nominate Themselves. At the Moment I must be a Clear Winner in my category. If not I can put more adjectives in my Nomination or make it more Explicit in Other Ways to ensure Victory. For instance "Best editor called "Tolerance".--Tolerance 17:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] I'm curious

As to why I'm nominated for nearly every category and why my user space place holder article for pit bulls was nominated for best essay. Actually, I'm not so much curious as I am confused.--68.230.64.189 00:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Because you're a talented writer and a popular guy. Take a bow sir, you deserve it! Flep Hendersen 00:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
And a pure delight to all and sundry. Nutty Roux 13:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
That essay changed my life. SuperJoshFor no reason whatsoever 22:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


I still don't get the joke with me being nominated for all categories.--Brxbrx 12:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I do have an active account on Conservapedia. You know, it's a good thing the trolls here are too stupid to create an actual vote bot.--Brxbrx 13:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
You were nominated for those categories by the leader of the RationalWiki Silly Person's Society. It had less to do with you and more to do with Josh being his rightfully silly self. Punky McPunkersen 14:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
It's no surprise to me you don't see any joke in it Brxbrx as you're about as much fun as a fucking car crash. SuperJoshFor no reason whatsoever 18:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Quorum

Some of these categories are a little odd and may have been created so that users can guarantee themselves an award. Might I suggest that a certain minimum vote count needs to be passed in respect of a particular category before an award is actually conferred?--False Flag 17:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Say ten votes? Should we do runners up this year, a few are stiff competitions in my mind. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 23:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Since this is a low-use Wiki, I'd say a quorum of 7 would work. Also, runners-up is also a good idea, IMO. Punky McPunkersen 23:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. Just so that somebody can't just invent a category, vote for themselves, and then get an award. People should be aware taht if they think a category is just plain silly the best thing to do is ignore it. Are we going with 7 then? (Of course - as usual - socks and IP's confuse the issue.--False Flag 12:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
7 seems good, I'll keep a weather eye out for vanity categories. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 13:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Ideas

How about a least annoying, a most respectable, a most loved, a most serious, a most snarky award, and a most intelligent award?

Sure I guess. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 15:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] So are we just voting for opposites?

Is that it? Joke votes? I mean, I'm not a fan of Nutty Roux but he's not an authoritarian, he's just a douchebag. I voted for ADK as most authoritarian because he blocks and locks at the first sign of dissent. Actually, that's the only one. The others make sense. But I'm really confused by the results of Most Authoritarian. Also, did a fairy come and fix RWW? It's working marvelously.--Brxbrx 20:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think something is wrong with your brain. Parasitic infection is my guess. Or possibly syphilis. Ace McWicked 22:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
If you really think Trent looks like a fairy..... Though, knowing computer and server issues, all he probably had to do was reboot the damn thing or make a hot pocket to fix it. Punky McPunkersen 22:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
If I were you Brx I would stop eating turnips I found in the street. Ace McWicked 22:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
He pretends to moral authority, I suppose. The "Most Authoritarian" award tends to go to people who get their way by throwing their weight around, not necessarily people who explicitly use their authority. Liveware Problem 22:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I just looked at the votes for the first time.. I am very sceptical as to the results - some categories have more than 50 votes... we don't even have 50 people who come here! So what's up with that? Oh well.. it is what it is. Refugee 23:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Brx leading "most promising"? I call shenanigans bullshit. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 00:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty sure we're getting vote bombed. I'm tempted to reset everything. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 01:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
What? Brx isn't leading "greatest potential," and never has been. Liveware Problem 01:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right -- but even second place is total crap. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 02:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Pretty sure that like 95% of what goes on on this site is hate filled sniping bullshit anyway. Nutty Roux 03:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Guess what new quote is going at the top of your paaaaage?  :D Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 07:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Nutty Roux 15:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I think we should give all the awards to Brxbrx. Liveware Problem 03:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 04:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Do it. Do it. Do it. Sam ® 05:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Socal Sam~ DO IT--만두 05:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
@Tyrannis: Just subtract 10 votes from Brxbrx in every category. That's consistently how many "extra" votes he seems to have gotten in each category. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 07:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record: I can't believe Tottie's beating SusanG. Susan was a likable spitfire and actually did shit, while Totnes... what did Totnesmartin do again? And what the heck did Weaseloid do to earn him first place in "Least Effective Mod"? I like Weaseloid—he's a sensible moderate when it comes to site politics, even when I disagree with him. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 07:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Brx as the most humourous? Jesus, if that is so RW has taken a serious dive. Ace McWicked 07:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
He's humorous in the sense that people go to the zoo to laugh at the mange ridden crippled syphilitic ape glued to the floor of his cage by the dried plasma that oozed from a massive hemorrhoid he couldn't stop scratching and squeezing. And when he sniffs his fingers and looks around in shame hoping nobody saw we burst into applause and remind him that negative attention is better than no attention at all. Nutty Roux 15:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Bwahahaha me most authoritarian. The awards use to be fun but RW really slipped into the gutter this year with so many of these votes being a joke, reflecting the views of a few people with proxies, or simply making no sense. Congratulations to whoever managed to turn this into a shit sandwich. Nutty Roux 16:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


So, has it ever crossed anybodies mind on here, that because brx was nominated for every section people are taking the piss out of the vote by voting for him? OTOH, I'm probably lying about my intentions to post this, so nevermind what I'm saying… --Ullhateme 18:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Block and lock at the first sign of dissent? I hate to slay a beautiful hypothesis with an ugly fact I must try harder. Perhaps I'll block and lock before the first signs of dissent show. Now THAT would be AWESOME. Armondikov 10:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Let's solve this

How about giving Bricks every award he was nominated for, and treating the rest legitimately? Liveware Problem 23:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean redo the voting without him, considering he was nominated for pretty much everything. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 00:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
No. The folks that made the bed by edit warring over it should now lay it in. If you don't like it, well, tough shit. Also the results will still be visible. --Ullhateme 00:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I think Brx should just be banned as an awful unwanted editor as well as Maratrean. But unfortunately, like herpes, he just won't go. Ace McWicked 00:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with UHM, however, we shouldn't all be screwed over by a couple edit warriors. I think redoing them with Bricks only in the running for most annoying and most worst criticism of RW is an appealing option; otherwise we should just discard the ones where Bricks messed up the result. Liveware Problem 01:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Will do in a few if no complaints. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 01:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Livewire, too. Stop being so sensible, Blue! Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 05:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't blame this on me. I didn't fuck the vote. And removing me for every category except for the ones you think I belong to (which are, of course, two negative categories) is pretty fucked up. Instead, just find the one or two editors that put me in for every category and isolate their edits (superjosh was one, there was another).--Brxbrx 06:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree with UHM here. If you don't think Brxbrx qualifys for an award, then the solution is simple: DON'T VOTE FOR HIM!!! Easy, right? I thought so. Punky McPunkersen 07:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the part where this became serious enough to warrant such a discussion... Armondikov 10:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
ZOMG our precious vote is being vote-bombed and people are taking the piss out of it by voting for Bricks because we nominated Bricks for every category, no matter how irrlevant (hey, it seemed funny at the time)!!!!1! We should do something! I know, how about only those with more than 1000 edits and an account older than 3 months can vote? -- Nx / talk 10:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
No, how about an account older than 2 years. Yeah, so the noobs that are writing articles for us now are not able to screed their shit and make it look like it's a community opinion! --Ullhateme 11:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
We should set up a vote to establish those who are eligable to vote on a poll of who is eligable to vote on a poll of who is eligable to vote on a have I made my point yet? Bob Soles 16:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Being the individual who nominated Brxbrx for every category (and adding him several times after being removed) I am not pleased that he has been removed almost at random from various categories for which he was nominated, including the ones he was not eligible for, i.e. most effective mod, best essay, most humorous, etc. While he deserves each and every award for various and also no reasons whatsoever, I think people should be free to vote for whomever they want as they so please.
As an aside, I'd just like to say I'm proud my antics are the subject of the biggest discussion thread in the history of RWW. There should be a category put forward for that. SuperJoshFor no reason whatsoever 16:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] How the FUCK is it possible?

Brx? "Most insightful." "Most humorous." "Greatest potential." "Least annoying." "Best cook." "Favorite Conservapedian." "Goat." This is some bullshit. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 21:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Its a farce. Ace McWicked 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Seems the sad little attention whore couldn't help click botting the election. Probably berst to ignore him and pick whoever comes second. --Psygremlin 13:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Clickbots are beyond my stunted capabilities. Not me.--Brxbrx 17:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] This section is specifically designed to annoy Nx

It's always great to see that people read the stuff others have been posting on the same page before them. --Ullhateme 21:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Fuck you. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 23:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] FDACS

I think we've been vote boted by DMorris or the Cheerleader troll obsessed person. Someone give 'em a ring. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 13:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the votes are wildly skewed now, so much so as to be meaningless. What started out to be just a fun little activity and recognition of editors on RW has devolved into pretty much a waste of time. I vote to dump the awards, or alternatively, allow voting only by people who have posted in the last 6 months or so... publicly, one vote per person. Or just forget the whole thing. :p Was fun while it lasted, no point to it now. Refugee 16:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. Can we call off the awards, now? Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 17:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Han's and Sexy minx Refugee. Ace McWicked 19:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
As suggest above we need to dump the current votes and then have people vote openly using their RW user names.--False Flag 21:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I like that idea. Nembus 21:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
(EC) Open voting will result in a flame war, again. How bout I reset the voting without Brx everywhere, then lock the page to prevent him being added? TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 21:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I like Ty's idea. I would go a bit further and ban Brx outright though. Ace McWicked 22:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You should also set a floor limit of contributions/time registered for eligible voters. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 23:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

How would they be enforced? We won't have server access until January at the earliest, and I don't know if an extension exists that would allow that. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 23:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
They do it on RW, so maybe Nx has some code in his pocket? RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 23:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Nx doesn't have server access anymore, Trent does. Trent is apparently very busy. Ergo until Punky moves us to another server there is naught to do. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 23:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
(EC) God, this has become depressing. How about banning everyone for a few days and/or trying just a little bit harder to remember why we're here? Liveware Problem 23:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly amused at how, less than a day after I vote-spammed the page to knock Brxbrx down to second place, he's suddenly leading by 12+ votes again in every category (that he wants to win in). Ohohoho, so that's how you wanna play, eh, Bricks? I'll have you know that my classes are done, so I can dedicate entire days now to making sure you lose. Bring it on. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 23:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you've vote spammed yourself, that definitely fucks it up. Is that how I've mysteriously raced out in front of Neb for "most insightful"? Because I'm convinced that's just not right. Armondikov 13:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
@Mondo - what's the big deal? You might actually be insightful. What's also interesting that some of the people that little prick has had in his sights for months jumped way ahead by more votes than we have readers. I think I'm leading authoritarian and angry. Lol. Nutty Roux 14:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Fuck that. SuperJosh nominated me for every category. I don't know how to vote bomb. Don't blame this on me, Hans.--Brxbrx 18:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I swear it wasn't me, but that's not to say it's not someone with an obsession with me. 184.7.157.90 04:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

I slapped a delete tag on this because it is totally farcical. Ace McWicked 19:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you think of other critical terms to use besides "farce" and "farcical?" How about "sham?" Liveware Problem 19:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't flipped my word of the day calender for awhile. How is "travesty" or "cluster-fuck"? Ace McWicked 20:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Reset poll

[edit] Yes

[edit] No

  1. It'll just happen again. I think delete it and replace it with:

[edit] Is Rationalwiki a steaming pile of shit

Yes18Vote
No8Vote

Ace McWicked 20:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Is Rationalwiki a steaming pile of shit, fixed

Yes18Vote
No8Vote
Brxbrx7Vote

-- Nx / talk 22:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Solving the problem

Having nominated Brxbrx for every category I have now removed him from any and every category anyone nominated him for, thus solving the problem.

You're welcome. SuperJoshFor no reason whatsoever 00:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It was a honest effort, but the poll is concerned with what line things are on, rather than what is on them. Unless Brx was the bottom choice on each, the votes merely got more screwed up. Noob. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 00:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know what any of that means. Here's a picture of a kitten. SuperJoshFor no reason whatsoever 00:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
^_^ All is forgiven. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 00:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Lol as long as I'm most angry, abusive, and authoritarian. Nutty Roux 04:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's still bullshit. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 04:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
SQUEEEE~ Kitty.--만두 06:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] That's it!!

This was the first year evah I was nominated for a RW award (although personally I think Jessica deserves "Hottest Conservapedian Lifetime Achievement award) and look what happens. At the moment I'm so dejected it's a toss up between slitting my wrists and leaking all the Cabal's posts via my blog... Psygremlin 12:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

LEAK, LEAK, LEAK, LEAK, LEAK!!! ACORN of RWW 08:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] reset

If you want to reset the other ones go on ahead. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 04:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Good plan, though Nx will probably come revert it all. Ace McWicked 04:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry guys. What is needed is voting with something like real names. Just glancing at the current position one of the categories has over a hundred votes. Is this likely? No, it's absurd. It is far more likely to be sock and reset voting. Delete the lot and have people vote publicly with RW names, real names from face book or forget it.--False Flag 17:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Totally agree with False Flag. Delete it all, it's meaningless now. Fun idea, just didn't work out due to multiple votes per person. Refugee 18:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
It's pathetic that we even have to talk about this. Even after the "reset," some of these categories still look more like a battleground than a legitimate reflection of public sentiment. Nutty Roux 18:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
This has become far more trouble than it is worth. Nuke the lot. Mbwun 18:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
(EC+500 error) Agree with Refugee. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 19:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree with False Flag. Liveware Problem 19:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree and will pull the trigger. Until Nx comes around and has a hissy fit. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 19:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as nobody is blaming me for this, I don't care what happens.--Brxbrx 20:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
"How can I make this about me?"--Brxbrx 21:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, a number of posts on this very talk page implied that I was the one who vote bombed it to go in my favor. I was displeased with these accusations, and expressed my relief that they will no longer be an issue. Jackass.--Brxbrx 23:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh come on Brxbrx, you or someone in support of you very obviously were vote bombing on here, and now it's ruined it for everybody. This sucks, to be honest; I say the whole deal ought to be cancelled for this year because now these awards won't hold any weight. 184.7.157.90 04:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't know why whoever was doing this was ballooning me (DMorris) for most respectable. Maybe it's not Brxbrx after all; maybe it's just some random troll. 184.7.157.90 04:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Someone with ACORN must have been here

Someone with practice from the 2008 Presidential Elections must have taken a sudden interest in Rat-Wiki-Wiki. PCHS-NJROTC 04:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's the "New Kulcher" that Bricks and Mara bang on about. Bob Soles 10:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Practicing your prepared excuses for next November, when none of the turkeys that have presented themselves for the nomination will be able to come through and beat Obama? RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 14:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
What if Obama doesn't even run? PCHS-NJROTC 22:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Jesus Christ. Are you simple? Were you dropped on your head as a child or something? RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 01:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
And why wouldn't he run? Nembus 00:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] This could work

Seriously it could. I know I made this point above but there are two options:

  1. Have people sign in with their RW user names and make some eligibility requirements. I know it's a pain but it would make people more honest.
  2. Have people use their facebook identities. This would mean that people would be even less likely to be utter idiots when posting as their friends and families could see what sort of jerks they were on line.

I know that we are not going to do it, but it would solve the problem.--False Flag 20:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's going to want to use their Facebook names since that's basically giving away their real identities which I don't think most will be comfortable with. Your first idea's probably the best but I'm not sure how keen everyone else is on continuing the awards thing. Nembus 21:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
That would only mean I'd have to create a whole bunch of Facebook Identities to go with all my socks. Bob Soles 22:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
What is this "Facebook identity" thing you speak of? Mjollnir.pngListenerXTalkerX 05:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I say y'all should continue the awards thing; otherwise you let the troll win. PCHS-NJROTC 05:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Very simple. You vote here, and then you post some sort of "I voted" template that has the relevant difflink embedded on it on your RW user page for verification. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 05:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That would appear to be way more trouble than it's worth. Even I don't care enough about these awards to do that. Liveware Problem 05:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Wait a minute. Are we going to restrict the franchise in this vote to RationalWiki editors in good standing? Mjollnir.pngListenerXTalkerX 05:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone else give a toss about this place? RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 05:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Certain RationalWiki editors who are not in good standing, but that is hardly the point; this is supposed to be a place for critiquing RationalWiki from without. Mjollnir.pngListenerXTalkerX 05:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. & Users can have different pseudonyms from their RW identity if they want to. As for posting difflinks, I don't see how that would work with this voting extension thingy. Weaselicious Bite Me 01:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's a novel idea: do the RationalWiki awards on RationalWiki, and have the voting be done like a straw poll. Disqualify any votes from obvious socks. TravisM 22:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed revamp of the awards

I've made a possible revamp for future, and perhaps this, RationalWiki Awards, and I would appreciate your input on it. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 02:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I like your revamp idea Hans. If you want to put it into action for this year's Awards, I have no objections. Punky McPunkersen 16:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I think that looks great! Here is a suggestion: why don't we limit the number of nominees per category? Last set had way too many nominees per each category, can we keep it to a reasonable number? Maybe no more than 6 per category? (Even less might be better). Refugee 17:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... let's see if we can be more grown up than five year olds this time. Bad Faith 17:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
That reminds me... how do we prevent the vote spamming we experienced last time? It's possible to vote more than once, or in some cases dozens of times, thereby rendering the whole process useless. Refugee 17:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't nominate Bricks for every category. -- Nx / talk 18:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Status of the awards

Are the awards officially cancelled, or what? Are we not going to do the awards anymore? PCHS-NJROTC 16:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

We'll do them here eventually. As I'm sure you're aware, we had some server issues this month that caused lots of delay. Punky McPunkersen 16:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Voting using RW account name

  1. You didn't specify any eligibility requirements, so it's just a matter of creating a sock on RW and then creating a sock with the same name on RWW and then voting.
  2. Also, RW users have to confirm on RW that it's indeed them voting here on RWW
  3. And finally, I think it's a bad idea to ditch anon voting. The whole thing will just degenerate into bickering.

-- Nx / talk 11:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree, but I'm desperate to head off vote botting. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 11:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
So, are there going to be eligibility requirements? -- Nx / talk 11:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
"Been around for a while, has more than a few edits." Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 11:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Define while and few. -- Nx / talk 11:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Been around longer than HJ, has more edits than Ty. That should focus the electorate somewhat. Rennie McGreet 12:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
...Hans has been around since January 2008 and Ty has over 15,000 edits. That leaves, like, three users. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 12:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
How about this: they've been around since before the awards started. That would allow everyone to vote (just like before), but would eliminate the bot voting. 87.236.194.158 15:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
@Hans - that many? Damn! Rennie McGreet 22:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
That would leave only human, as everyone else who has more than me signed up post hans. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 02:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Been around for 3 months or more? Has 20 edits or more? Or can we do it like RW does? After you vote on RW, it says "you have already voted" if you go to the polls again.. if I remember correctly, it didn't do that here. Refugee 04:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Editors' choice

If this award is similar to the Lifetime Achievement awards at the oscars etc, I'd like to nominate Genghis Khant and Bob M, two site stalwarts who leave every talk page thread a better place than before they contributed, have squillions of good article edits and yet are not lulzy/annoying enough to get a specific award. Rennie McGreet 12:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I second Bob M being added, though I'm not sure about Genghis. I always found him rather, well, innoncuous (no offense, Genghis, if you're reading this). What do the rest of you think? Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 12:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I like both additions. Go ahead and add them. I'll let you guys add the reasons. Punky McPunkersen 14:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd actually add Bob because he always makes me think about atheism in a lot better and broader detail, if I shoot off on a tangent he will tend to bring me back into the real world very easily. Armondikov 15:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to add WfG. When everyone else is in HCM and only editing the Coop or EIM she's there improving quality main space articles. She also tirelessly rebuts trolls with patient and well reasoned responses. Bob Soles 23:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Seconded. WaitingforGodot is dedicated, friendly, and keeps her head above HCMs. Anyone else want to weight in? Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 23:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Armondikov? He/She's pretty insightful, knowledgeable, clear-headed, and nice to be around. Nembus 00:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
RLY? You wouldn't think it from looking. Armondikov 00:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I had joined yet when that happened so I'll let you off the hook. Nembus 00:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

She's in my top-three, no doubt. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 23:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've always found MarcusCicero to be an insightful, clever and humorous observer of RWian events who doesn't deserve the ungrateful treatment he has received. Any thoughts? 86.41.228.134 01:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, fuck off back to your burger stand. Rennie McGreet 09:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Favorite Conservapedian

I'd just like to point out that I have an active account on Conservapedia, and I would like to nominate myself for that category, because I'm awesome. This is my account, and it's good faith! Not a parodist.--Brxbrx 15:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That's CamilleT though, not Brxbrx. If nominated for that, it should be for CamilleT, not Brxbrx! 80.237.226.75 16:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Considering what happened last time, shouldn't we ban Brxbrx from self nominating himself for anything? 173.254.216.66 16:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, but last time, it was SuperJosh that nominated me for every category.--Brxbrx 16:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
You're still an attention whore. 204.8.156.142 17:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
"And you're still fat/a geek/a girl/not as cool as I am!" what are you? 14? yawn --85.182.145.82 16:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
And whoever the fuck you are, you are obviously an asshole inconsiderate of the feelings of others.--Brxbrx 17:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Whaaaa! Whaaaaa! Go to your room and cry! Brxbrx is Alyssa Bryant reincarnated!
Operator: 911, what is the nature of your emergency?
Caller: HELP! I need a WHAMBULENCE for Brxbrx!
Operator: What is your location?
Caller: RationalWikiWiki
Operator: Help is on the way.

204.8.156.142 17:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey! No fair using IP's! I can't follow who is arguing with whom. :p Refugee 07:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Removing nominations

Unless they simply don't meet the basic criteria for the award in question (like when I was nominated for every category), nominations should not be removed. Let democracy take care of the rest. This isn't a popularity contest, the popularity contest comes once the voting starts--Brxbrx 21:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Bumping this. Hans has been swinging his dick around, and I think it's kinda silly. See my post on his RW talk page for a more detailed and reasoned explanation that doesn't involve metaphorical pendulous genitalia--Brxbrx 05:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] When's the vote?

When do we get to vote on this, and how exactly do we vote on this? PCHS-NJROTC 04:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We will never have the vote. We will simply continue to discuss having a vote sometime in the future. To reference a book I haven't actually read, the 2011 RW Awards will be the perpetual war to the Hans Johnson's Big Brother. Liveware Problem 04:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
heeee! :-D "We will never have the vote. We will simply continue to discuss having a vote sometime in the future." funny! Or "Jam yesterday, and Jam tomorrow, but never Jam today..." (Alice through the Looking Glass) Love you all, weird Refugee 07:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I propose we start voting on this coming Friday (January 6th). Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 08:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
can we vote on what date to have the vote on? Rennie McGreet 10:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Most certainly. What good is a bureaucracy without pointless voting??? Punky McPunkersen 10:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Was any decision actually made on whether the voting would use the same process as last time, or a different one this time around? For if not, there is nothing in principle to stop the same happening again (although I guess less silly nominations might discourage some people... maybe...) Maratrean 11:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, but we should hold a vote on that. So, I vote we hold a vote about voting on the voting process used to hold a vote on the actual voting process. All in favor??? Punky McPunkersen 11:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
we ned to vote on whether "all in favour" is done openly or by a secret ballot. Rennie McGreet 11:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Once again we are being pushed head first into precipitous decisions without first considering the underlying processes. After all, something as down right important as the RWW Annual Awards should not be taken lightly. I would suggest that we set up a working party consisting solely of bona fide members of good standing who should meet - electronically - over a period of time and return with a white paper outlining a number of suggestions that may be put to the electorate. Only then will we be in a position to choose who may become the choosers and under what circumstances they may make these decisions. For far too long this site has suffered under a corrosive culture of back biting and mud slinging with neither accountability nor recourse to proper procedures. Unless we start to take ourselves seriously we might well end up descending further into farce and - oh fuck it, who the hell cares. Bob Soles 19:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
We should start voting tomorrow with signed individual votes from members who are not suspended and who had been members of the site for six months at the 31st of December 2011. The vote should be open for five days and somebody should mention it at RW. If any members of RW will not be able to vote because of the above voting requirement then that is their problem for not being members of this site.--False Flag 22:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Is that a serious suggestion? Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 22:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I say we establish a RationalWikiWiki Foundation where we must order from and mail back to excessively complicated ballots. Nembus 23:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I second False Flag's idea. Punky McPunkersen 06:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
A member of RW for 6 months, or RWW? Nembus 07:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Of RWW. Punky McPunkersen 08:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 14:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the idea of accounts having to be six months old; one didn't even have to be a registered user in the past; I think two or three months should keep the single purpose socks away. 141.0.8.230 19:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Have the vote on RW proper, and have people sign their names. No fraud. Sure, people will see each other's opinions on other users but at this point it seems to be the only way, short of hijacking the stv protocol (which would make these awards rather tedious)--Brxbrx 14:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not what RW is for. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 15:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Well if only RWW people can vote, the results will come off as rather odd.--Brxbrx 18:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
This is not elections for moderator, the Iowa Caucus or the Oscars - it's a little, light hearted seasonal fun. Well, it was every other year. This year it's been blown out of all proportion. The results of the poll don't matter. Not one jot, not at all. It wouldn't matter if we limited it to users who stand on their heads because it couldn't matter, it doesn't matter. It's not serious. Bad Faith 19:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Some people seemed pretty upset with the original results, though--Brxbrx 19:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

can we just get this done instead of dramaing and wrangling about nominations and stuff? It's just a bit of meaningles fun but it's been blown out of all proportion by drama queens. There have been no new nominations (except one by a troll) this year so c'mon, let's just say nominations over, time to vote, anyone kvetching about the result gets laughed at for kvetching about a fun poll. Rennie McGreet 20:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. Truth be told, I have little understanding about why people are worried about the sock vote. It's not like socks swinging the vote will do irreparable damage to our site's policy or anything. Punky McPunkersen 20:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's get it done, shall we? TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 20:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
This drama and voting fraud is as pathetic as drama and voting fraud with who gets what superlatives in the high school or middle school yearbook. Wait, no, it's even more pathetic! PCHS-NJROTC 23:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] So now the question is...

When does the voting close? PCHS-NJROTC 23:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

When it looks like everybody who wanted to vote has voted? When nobody's voted in 24 hours? (assuming no technical glitches of course). Rennie McGreet 23:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Aww, man...

I can't be nominated for biggest n00b just because I've won it for the last two years? That's really, really gay. SuperJoshFor no reason whatsoever 20:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no shame in being a dude who likes other dudes. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 21:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] My opinion on some of the awards, or, my Kanye West impersonation

[edit] Most Insightful

I didn't vote for Armondikov because even though he offers good critique when it comes to site politics, outside of that he can be very stubborn and obtuse. He also has a method of stifling dissent which has led me to occasionally call him Mr. Block&Lock.

[edit] Third Wheel

Hans Johnson wouldn't let me nominate WaitingforGodot which is a shame because I think she fits this award perfectly (though I'd likely be the only one voting for her). She butts in fucking everywhere. There isn't a thread on the Saloon Bar she won't make a lengthy comment on, there isn't an article she won't lay her fingers on, regardless of her expertise or relevance on the matter. I think that if somebody were to count up the amount of times she's popped up to offer her opinion and compared it to the amount of times I have, she would more than double my count of intrusions.

--Brxbrx 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Shut up Brx. -- Nx / talk 18:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
WfG generally adds good things with her comments, rather than, as you do, jump and down going Look at mee! look at meeeee! Rennie McGreet 18:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
It's a subtle difference, but an important one. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 19:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
WfG consistently makes good and relevant points, is a well liked and respected member and is currently leading in the "Editors Choice" Award. Brx, you are leading in both the "Third Wheel" and "Drama Queen" Awards...I think you need to rethink your approach because it isn't working despite your efforts. Ace McWicked 19:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wrap the voting up?

nobody's voted in days. Rennie McGreet 18:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 18:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 18:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I just handed out all of the awards, except Most Entertaining since I wasn't sure whether to give it to Ace or not, considering he wasn't supposed to be in the running anyway. PCHS-NJROTC 21:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Why wasn't I supposed to be in the running? I have never won a "most entertaining award" before. Ace McWicked 21:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Think of it this way: the 2011 awards represent a clean break from the backbiting, trolltastic RW Awards of old. All of the awards are "new," even if they share the same name as awards from 2010 and earlier, so nobody is actually ineligible on account of winning previously. tl;dr Yes, Ace gets the most entertaining award. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 23:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
damn fucking right I am the most entertaining. Also the most egotistical and borderline narcissistic sociopath. Ace McWicked 23:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
And here I was thinking that Ace reminded me of Sean Connery in a bear suit. Cuddly, yet oddly badass.--만두 05:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Cuddly? Ace McWicked 06:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Yep. --만두 07:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hans, you wouldn't let me nominate people...--Brxbrx 12:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
My heart grieves for you. Bob Soles 12:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate that--Brxbrx 14:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you really think people would have voted for you for anything other than what they did? PCHS-NJROTC 16:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't going to nominate myself, but other people, some for categories in which I was present, some not.--Brxbrx 17:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://rationalwikiwiki.org/wiki/Talk:2011_RationalWiki_Awards"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox