<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom Henrik @ Jan 10 2007, 12:44 AM) [snapback]274101[/snapback]</div>
Quote:
Couldn't we try to avoid those negatively charged "awards"? 
I mean, sure it might not be a serious vote from the voter, but does the winner know? Like "Most Annoying Member". Just being nominated for that category can tick the wrong person of - and the result might end up as "The Feud of 2007". Especially as each voter is mentioned by name, and someone who is honestly hurt by such a nomination would be quick to start to defend him/herself by various means.
Nominating someone for "Best member of the Year" is good and will only have positive outcomes. Nominating someone for "Most annoying member of the Year".... not so much.
[/b]
|
Nah, I think the negatively charged awards are what makes it fun. Besides, the members I saw nominated for 'most annoying of the year' should be pretty much okay with it. Take, for example, UBC (yes, I'm mentioning names, sue me). He long ago accepted that he was an annoying spammer, and didn't get touched by it. Hell, he even made it his trademark! Or Blood Piggy, just to name someone else - he's weird, sure, but it's just part of him. No one can ever explain his jokes, but they're still funny. And he knows he's weird and he's cool with it.
Also, the feud thing. I'm not gonna pull this out of the dirt again, but do you think they would've happened if all of you had reacted like you should have? I mean, big deal, someone opens a thread about why the-admin-that-I-won't-name-here is such a big fat jerk and all that. Just close the thing and PM him. But keep it polite, set a
good example of how to behave, don't explain in three acts why the user opening the threads is a big, fat jerk himself. Come on, you all have common sense,
use it!
Sorry if that was too harsh, but the bossy, pseudo-mature tone of your post just ticked me off.