|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Forum:Rationalwiki awards
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Antony made this comment which I think sounds like a damn good idea. Expand the "CP Biggest idiot award" into an award for the biggest idiot from all the cranks out there, and there a lot. CP is getting a bit too small these days. Acei9 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- The awards from last Conservapedia Day are here, although we should add some like "most blatant abuse of science" and such. MARCVS ANTONIVS 09:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Best defense of science" would be another good one. Acei9 09:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I assume we can stick the brackets around the metallic brains to give pretty awards, and then we can have different classes, like for defending science against the cranks. The Blender material library should also make it easy to create other versions of the brain. MARCVS ANTONIVS 10:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- So we will have "positive" awards as well? Sounds like fun. This place loves nothing more than protracted voting and discussion, followed by copious creation of brilliang templates. ħuman
10:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is the problem of giving awards to non-wiki sites, although we can always email the award itself to people and possibly get our friends to post it on their sites. MARCVS ANTONIVS 10:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- We can do ANYTHING we are LEGION. ħuman 10:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK, so now that I have the Blender file for the brain from Nx and have mastered the art of loading materials and hitting the render button, I can toy with altered logos for this. The materials library is here, if you want to make suggestions. MARCVS ANTONIVS 12:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- This idea is good and more people should be commenting. Assholes. Acei9 20:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this, but can we outsource the rewards we give to RW members to RWW, like we did for the CP day awards? Among other things, it seems better to use the "good" awards for the various bloggers and such out there. MARCVS ANTONIVS 09:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Watch it with that logo, it is copyrighted. ħuman 11:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Bleurgh, I forgot. I suppose we're allowed to upload variants to this site, though? And I won't be redistributing the Blender file or anything. MARCVS ANTONIVS 11:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, here, it's fine. I don't know how "strict" we'd be about using derivatives on other sites. I was just being a bitch, but pointing out something to keep in mind. ħuman 13:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think the license is officially that it can be used by any registered RW user for any purposes on RW - at least that's my license for the icons and stuff, but I based it around something that Trent said about the logo when it was redone. It comes down to this idea of "branding" while still maintaining a lot of freedoms for what we can do with this stuff - otherwise creativity would be stifled. I assume copyright will be relinquished to the RW Foundation whenever that starts just to cement the idea a bit further.
pathetic 14:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think the license is officially that it can be used by any registered RW user for any purposes on RW - at least that's my license for the icons and stuff, but I based it around something that Trent said about the logo when it was redone. It comes down to this idea of "branding" while still maintaining a lot of freedoms for what we can do with this stuff - otherwise creativity would be stifled. I assume copyright will be relinquished to the RW Foundation whenever that starts just to cement the idea a bit further.
- Yes, here, it's fine. I don't know how "strict" we'd be about using derivatives on other sites. I was just being a bitch, but pointing out something to keep in mind. ħuman
- Bleurgh, I forgot. I suppose we're allowed to upload variants to this site, though? And I won't be redistributing the Blender file or anything. MARCVS ANTONIVS 11:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Watch it with that logo, it is copyrighted. ħuman
- I'm not sure about this, but can we outsource the rewards we give to RW members to RWW, like we did for the CP day awards? Among other things, it seems better to use the "good" awards for the various bloggers and such out there. MARCVS ANTONIVS 09:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- This idea is good and more people should be commenting. Assholes. Acei9 20:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK, so now that I have the Blender file for the brain from Nx and have mastered the art of loading materials and hitting the render button, I can toy with altered logos for this. The materials library is here, if you want to make suggestions. MARCVS ANTONIVS 12:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- We can do ANYTHING we are LEGION. ħuman
- There is the problem of giving awards to non-wiki sites, although we can always email the award itself to people and possibly get our friends to post it on their sites. MARCVS ANTONIVS 10:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- So we will have "positive" awards as well? Sounds like fun. This place loves nothing more than protracted voting and discussion, followed by copious creation of brilliang templates. ħuman
- I assume we can stick the brackets around the metallic brains to give pretty awards, and then we can have different classes, like for defending science against the cranks. The Blender material library should also make it easy to create other versions of the brain. MARCVS ANTONIVS 10:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Best defense of science" would be another good one. Acei9 09:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Award ideas[edit]
OK, some award ideas, although not necessarily good ones. Feel free to change.
The good[edit]
For people we like.
- Most valiant defender of science
- (Obvious)
- Uber Pwner
- For winning an argument or debate against a crank in particularly spectacular fashion.
- Nice guy
- For being a pleasure to be around
- We miss you!
- Favourite retired user
- For The Cause
- User most dedicated to rationalism
- Writing award
- For clear writing contributions to the wiki
- The Joker
- Presenting us with the most humourous links
- The Researcher
- For contributing the most interesting links
- Snark Machine
- Providing the best one-liner (voting for comment — winner will be revealed at the end)
The bad[edit]
For people we don't like. A lot of the CP awards can be used here, but we can add some others.
- Waste of intelligence
- For being very nearly sane, but missing.
- Groundhog Day Debater
- For citing "facts" and making claims that are methodically and soundly refuted, yet moving to the next debate and reusing the same erroneous facts and claims as if the previous debate had never happened. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 17:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I like this one. ħuman 11:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I like this one. ħuman
- Liability award
- Essentially the TK memorial award. I nominate Neveruse for being the most outright troll, and probably the main user behind MC. pathetic 19:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'll second that; particularly if we can use D&D alignments. I think Neveruse rolled a chaotic neutral toon. --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 09:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Essentially the TK memorial award. I nominate Neveruse for being the most outright troll, and probably the main user behind MC.
- Black Helicopter Award
- Broken Record
- For picking a single topic, and debating it incessantly until everyone wants to kill them and / or themselves. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 11:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- The Recursive Algorithm Debater
- Because we need at least three awards for the same thing. (See also Groundhog Day Debater and Broken Record) Bondurant (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh I thought Groundhog day was for "moving onto the next topic" using the same facts? I was talking about sticking to the same topic. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 13:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, you could be right. I thought it was moving on to another debate on the same topic. Or, like Earthland, coming back from a break and starting all over again. Bondurant (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- If they are the same then Groundhog Day would be better. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 13:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, you could be right. I thought it was moving on to another debate on the same topic. Or, like Earthland, coming back from a break and starting all over again. Bondurant (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh I thought Groundhog day was for "moving onto the next topic" using the same facts? I was talking about sticking to the same topic. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 13:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Because we need at least three awards for the same thing. (See also Groundhog Day Debater and Broken Record) Bondurant (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Award design[edit]
OK, so I made 2 clicks and 3 key presses in Blender and I made a version of the logo with the brain in gold rather than grey. I was also thinking that we should use a different logo for the "bad" awards, perhaps using a mud texture. MARCVS ANTONIVS 13:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Standard logo, gold brain.
- Yes, please to create "standard logo, shit for brains". Also see copyright discussion above. ħuman 02:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Revive[edit]
As the consensus of opinion at the CP awards page seems to be that we want to make it more generic to the internet, I think we should properly revive this. pathetic 13:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I say we create an project page for this, we just need a name. Clogosphere awards? - π 13:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)