Players of the Month

[Baron]

The reason that he asked about Staff Member of the Month is because the staff have to be segregated from players in those sorts of things. Otherwise, non-staff would never get a look in because the most helpful, most active and friendliest people on the server tend to be staff. Hell, it's a big part of why they were offered the role in the first place.

That, and it's hardly fair considering the varied roles staff take. A loremaster would be much more visible than the equally important backend admin keeping the server up. Some staff members' jobs are almost entirely player interaction stuff.

 

[Somnastra]

My point remains. They should be selected by most popular nomination.

Player of the Month isn't intended to be a popularity contest.

 

[pyrocide]

Player of the Month isn't intended to be a popularity contest.

I'm glad to hear that. I'm curious, as far as the staff selecting the winner process goes. How does that process work?

Apologizes if this has already been covered, I may have missed it.

 

[7632]

I'm glad to hear that. I'm curious, as far as the staff selecting the winner process goes. How does that process work?

Apologizes if this has already been covered, I may have missed it.

You aren't the only one confused. I asked about it too, and I got a disagree for it...

 

[Somnastra]

Sorry about the delayed response. I do the preliminary selection, based on the reasons provided (with as little personal opinions as possible). I cut out nominations where the only stated reason is "they're a good person" or "they're really fun" or something like that. Then I take all of the nominations and summarize them into a few sentences, so staff are not swayed by the amount that was written. Then staff discusses the nominations, based on past infractions of the rules, current behavior, stated nomination reasons, etc. Then, whoever's left standing is voted upon.

More or less.

Incidentally, February nominations are open. PM me if you've got 'em!

 

[7632]

Sorry about the delayed response. I do the preliminary selection, based on the reasons provided (with as little personal opinions as possible). I cut out nominations where the only stated reason is "they're a good person" or "they're really fun" or something like that. Then I take all of the nominations and summarize them into a few sentences, so staff are not swayed by the amount that was written. Then staff discusses the nominations, based on past infractions of the rules, current behavior, stated nomination reasons, etc. Then, whoever's left standing is voted upon.

More or less.

Incidentally, February nominations are open. PM me if you've got 'em!

Are names attached to the summaries given to those involved in the selection? I'm not saying it's good or bad either way, just curious.

Edit: That purple though. It's miraculous. I'm going to assume that was done on purpose in concurrence with February's gemstone, which is Amethyst (a purple gemstone).

 

[NIAH]

I'm also curious if the voting staff are aware of who put the nominations forward. I love my anonymity.

 

[Somnastra]

Are names attached to the summaries given to those involved in the selection? I'm not saying it's good or bad either way, just curious.

Not having names attached makes it difficult for staff to discuss. They know who is being nominated, and for what, yes.

I'm also curious if the voting staff are aware of who put the nominations forward. I love my anonymity.

Another reason for my summaries! Nominers (totally a word. totally different than nominaters) are anonymous. Except to me, of course!

 

[7632]

Nominers (totally a word. totally different than nominaters)

Different than nommers? And noms?

Nommers would be a great cat name

 

[NIAH]

Not having names attached makes it difficult for staff to discuss. They know who is being nominated, and for what, yes.

Another reason for my summaries! Nominers (totally a word. totally different than nominaters) are anonymous. Except to me, of course!

Weee! Good to know the staff won't know that I've nominated George Washington 12 times.

 

[Somnastra]

Since I'm a bit behind on this (real life, yo), I'll keep nominations open for a bit over a week, then staff'll have a superquick discussion~

 

[Jaypate]

This would be good with some sort of player of the month wall of fame

 

[HogoShi_Kitsune]

Player of the Month isn't intended to be a popularity contest.

Just saying, isn't that what nominations are? Even if it's the President of the United States, it's a popularity contest. He/She is the most popular person in America at that time.

EDIT: The above idea is taken from Robert Wuhl's Assume the Position

That being said, I believe your point is that we should not be nominating someone for PotM because they are popular. Instead, we should nominate them for what they contribute to our community. If they are popular because of what they contribute, then so be it (and I'd say that's probably a proper reaction).

Secondly, on the Staff of the Month issue, I agree that we should not have a separate poll specifically for that. Instead, I feel that if someone wishes to nominate a staff member, they should look to the second word of that term: member. You guys are as much a part of this community as anyone else, so I feel that if a player deems that a staff member is worthy of a nomination for PotM, then they should be able to nominate them.

Food for thought...

 

[7632]

I agree with half your post...

Just saying, isn't that what nominations are? Even if it's the President of the United States, it's a popularity contest. He/She is the most popular person in America at that time.

Read about the Bush v. Gore elections in 2000. Basically what happened was Bush lost the popular vote but won the electoral college. Also, I think, in the year 2000, neither Bush nor Gore was the most popular man in America. Perhaps one of them was to be most popular man to be President, but not necessarily.

To borrow a quote from you... "That being said,"

That being said, I believe your point is that we should not be nominating someone for PotM because they are popular. Instead, we should nominate them for what they contribute to our community. If they are popular because of what they contribute, then so be it (and I'd say that's probably a proper reaction).

Secondly, on the Staff of the Month issue, I agree that we should not have a separate poll specifically for that. Instead, I feel that if someone wishes to nominate a staff member, they should look to the second word of that term: member. You guys are as much a part of this community as anyone else, so I feel that if a player deems that a staff member is worthy of a nomination for PotM, then they should be able to nominate them.

Food for thought...

I agree with all of this, and that's why last month I nominated a staff member for player of the month. All staff members are players to some extent and many staff members are deserving of the award. We try to integrate staff and players, yet we separate the two on threads like this.

The problem is staff decides who wins POTM, so if everybody is eligible, there would likely be a conflict of interest. I don't see any way to get around that without using a random selection tool or a third party.

 

[NIAH]

After seeing how this has been rolling, will this continue indefinitely?

 

[Somnastra]

Probably for a while at least!

 

[Paint]

-waits patiently to see the results-

 

[NIAH]

-waits patiently to see the results-

So excite to see who gets it this month.

 

[Somnastra]

So excite to see who gets it this month.

Is coming sooooooon. I promise.

 

[Paint]

Is coming sooooooon. I promise.

-mashes the refresh button over and over-