^ brilliant
Concerning [deleted]heart's idea: I think the weekly member of the week a is bit too time consuming, maybe it should be done quarterly with those results used in the semi-finals and finals at the end of the year.

:laughing:

Good point Ki but I think 99.99999% of us here are mature enough not to do that. Also, I feel that --- assuming the idea were taken up --- any sort of protracted behaviour of that sort (you gotta let em celebrate once or twice if it means a lot to them) should perhaps result in first a warning and if that doesn't work they can be, well, stripped of their title. If THAT doesn't work, then they could be banned from being included in the nominations for a specific time, maybe a month, though of course that would lead to bad feeling and be negative.

But I don't feel anyone will go lording it over everyone (unless it's our very own Batlord --- "I'm MOTW bitches! Swoon in the light of my glory!" etc ), just think it's more about people working to be the kind of member who can be chosen as MOTW by doing "good" stuff here, so in this case if it worked the means would in fact justify the end.

Also, if people feel smug about it then you can't control anyone's feelings. Just as long as they don't start looking for a sceptre and crown! That'd be extra! ;)

Also: @ Black Francis: the difference I see in the MOTW vs a +1 or Like system is that in the latter you don't have to say WHY you're adding your single digit or liking the post. To become MOTW (or month) as I've already explained you can't just vote for your mates UNLESS you have a valid reason why they should win it. So in former case, let's pick poor old Jansz again. People like his posts because he's a nice guy and has been known to offer free beer. Everyone Likes or plus-ones his posts. His popularity or karma or whatever goes up, but there's no clear indication why. Maybe these are all his mates. Maybe he's asked people to do it. Who knows? No paper trail as they say.

In my system, if implemented, eople vote for Janszoon. Commitee says why? Member says "cos he defused drama yesterday in political thread". Committee nods, marks down, agrees. That sort of thing makes it much harder for anyone to abuse the system or indulge in gartuitious, for the sake of another word, Liking. And I think that could work better.

Also, other members see this and it pushes them to do something good, nice or clever, to contribute. Everybody wins. Except me. I'll probably exclude myself from being chosen, to counter any claims I might be just doing this for personal glory.

I know I come across as a negative ned but you want to reward people for doing simple things that they should be doing on their own regardless of if there is a reward dangling in front of their face?

I just have an issue with constantly needing to reward people all the time. It's almost like you are treating people like that are pets and they need a treat as reinforcement for good behavior when it's something they should either be doing on their own or learning to do over time.

I agree. It's too close to the karma or rep system for me and we all know how I feel about that. People are going to find ways to achieve Member of the Week status just to get their ego stroked.

I´d just like to applaud the atmosphere in this thread, which feels so much more comfortable than some recent embarrassments.

I´m pretty much with Ki about the member of the week/month idea; if people take the trouble to set it up and contribute, it could be fun - especially for members who are constantly dipping into all the forums.
EDIT in response to BD: You´re right about the karma issue, but I´m thinking that if it´s only member for a week, are people really going to bother gearing up into cliques to claim such a transient reward ?

I agree with VEGANGELICA that there is a significant difference between calling someone a troll (i.e. insulting their person) and accusing them of trolling (i.e. criticising their behaviour). How that subtle distinction can be policed, I don´t know. As I think Jans and Urban mentioned, banning the word "troll" would be ineffectual. The moment a member posts, "You´re green and you live under a bridge!" it would become a worthless ban.

I support the red editing by mods too, though I don´t know how complicated that might be to operate.

Finally, this is no biggy, and may seem like a band-aid in order to fix a broken leg, but I have twice suggested that tore´s Weekly Theme thread be revived. So far nobody has dignified this suggestion with a reply - at this stage, even a rejection would be welcome !!

I must have not been reading the posts correctly. I thought we were just talking about using the word troll LESS. not banning it completely. I think that would be silly.

The red editing was a joke and it was applied by Neo. Not the mods unless they did come along later on and edited his post.

I'm really not bothered about the MOTW/M idea; if it's adopted fine if not then also fine. I do feel that there's a measure of negative reaction against it, but would refute DJ and BD's contention that it's a reward for good behaviour alone. It's not. It's meant to foster good behaviour and show people that they can be recognised at the end. Sort of like when you get good grades and your parents buy you a car or whatever. If you know that's on the horizon do you work harder and more diligently than otherwise?

I understand that people should not need inducements to behave properly, but the reality is some people will not do so on their own. Of course, these people may not do so even with a system like this in place. It was more an idea that those who take the time or put in the effort to make the place a better environment would get some recognition, in some small way. And a ham. But if everyone thinks it would lead to a stupid competitive atmos, then by all means don't implement it.

On Lisnaholic's point on tore's weekly themes, I have to say, I don't get it. I looked and all I saw was some posts leading to Wiki articles. Can someone please explain this to me, as as it stands I simply don't see what's being done.