2010 Hall of Fame Nominations discsion

[mistaken]

Last year I skipped the nomination step. This year I want to return to it. BUT I put this to you. Since we have DOTM records uninterupted for 2 years, should points be awarded for DOTM entry?

 

What are your thoughts?

 

I am thinking of kick this off Saturday morning.

 

My current plans (subject to change, or complete abandonment)

 

One point toward top 10 for each time a write had a diary nominated (not rookie)

One point toward top 10 for each time a writer won (not rookie)

Then each nominator can nominate 3 each vote worth one point.

 

then I will throw the top 10 up on survey monkey, and we will see who gets into the hall of fame.

 

(Writers are only eligible if they have posted before 12/31/2010.)

[Dragonmack]

I don't have a problem with using DOTM info to make a hot list of nominees. Although odds are half of the winners are already in the HOF. Also, it might be a good idea to either list or link who actually IS in the Hall currently just to save time and effort of people nominating writers already there, but they weren't aware of it.

 

While the DOTMs could make a starting list of Noms, we should also be able to add nominees to make a case for someone who perhaps wasn't lucky at getting nominations or wins, but still had a big impact.

 

Instead of points though, I prefer the idea of number of wins and DOTM nominations to be more of a resume of why someone is considered hall worthy, sort of a list of accomplishments like they use for sports HOF's.

[BHK1978]

Maybe you could do something where you have DOTM be a certain % towards getting someone in the HOF, have the current HOF members that are still active have a vote and maybe use that as a % towards getting someone in, and then use the voters on the board to come up with the other %.

 

 

Basically what I am saying is:

 

DOTM= 25%

Current HOF's Votes= 25%

Board Voters= 50%

 

You would need to hit a certain number to get in say maybe 70%.

[mistaken]

under the proposed system, DOTM would give the writer an advantage, but not be the only means of making the list.

 

top 10 points get into the voting.

 

voting would still be

1

2

3

 

With 1 getting 3 point, 2 getting 2 and 1 getting 1 point

[angeldelayette]

If you ask my personal opinion, I don't believe that the DOTM should be used for the Hall of Fame voting. They are already getting lauded for the DOTM. But technically getting the DOTM doesn't necessarily mean you are a hall of fame writer. One month could have been weak. Though that is a rareity to say the least. Plus someone can win DOTM one or two months in a row and then just drop away. But I think it should be left up to the voters with the hall of fame voters getting a better point system than the regular voters.

[Greg McNeish]

I'm in agreement with a couple of the previous gentlemen, in that DOTM and the HOF should be seperate institutions, even though they have the same caretaker. DOTM winners have already received their reward for those honours. There's no need to give them a new benefit.

[The Final Countdown]

I'd have no problem with factoring DOTM awards into the process, so long as it's not the only factor.

[Self]

If you ask my personal opinion, I don't believe that the DOTM should be used for the Hall of Fame voting. They are already getting lauded for the DOTM. But technically getting the DOTM doesn't necessarily mean you are a hall of fame writer. One month could have been weak. Though that is a rareity to say the least. Plus someone can win DOTM one or two months in a row and then just drop away. But I think it should be left up to the voters with the hall of fame voters getting a better point system than the regular voters.

 

Well the system suggested above would nullify that, surely. For example, I ran a diary for about a year, and was involved in the DOTM stuff pretty consistently. Based on the above thing, I might have 9 points (3 wins, about 6 nominations). On the flip side, you were writing before me, you're still writing now, so that's at least 16 months of (what I expect to be) consistent nominations. You may have gathered 15 points. Despite how brightly I shined (who rules?) I was a flash-in-the-pan, and the suggested system seems to handle that.

 

... but yeah, voting should also play a part. Gotta be interactive with the audience. I like the inclusion of the points system though. Mathematics!

[Greg McNeish]

Mathematics!

 

No single word can win me over to an argument, with such certainty, as "mathematics".

 

Math = |Fun|

 

For the uninitiated, those fancy bars mean "absolute value". Look it up. It's grand.

[mistaken]

Well the system suggested above would nullify that, surely. For example, I ran a diary for about a year, and was involved in the DOTM stuff pretty consistently. Based on the above thing, I might have 9 points (3 wins, about 6 nominations). On the flip side, you were writing before me, you're still writing now, so that's at least 16 months of (what I expect to be) consistent nominations. You may have gathered 15 points. Despite how brightly I shined (who rules?) I was a flash-in-the-pan, and the suggested system seems to handle that.

 

... but yeah, voting should also play a part. Gotta be interactive with the audience. I like the inclusion of the points system though. Mathematics!

 

A perfect diary would pick up say 36 points, that is 24 straight nods for DOTM and 12 wins, one every other month. There is no diary cloe to that. But please point out where a diary with that much recognition would not have a writer that belongs in the hall of fame.

[angeldelayette]

-bumps this back to the top so everyone can have their fair say-

[Bigpapa42]

I don't think the idea of using DOTM stuff as one portion is wrong. It would be wrong if that was the primary factor. I don't think that would be severely handicapping someone who should get in...?

[mistaken]

<table><tr><td>JamesCasey</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>DSE81</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Tigerkinney</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>PhantomStranger</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Angeldelayette's</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Nevermore</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Tristram</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>BigPapa42</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Dragonmack</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Infinitywpi</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Wildfire1324</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>FinalCountdown</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>oldschool</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Eisenverse</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>iMac</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>MarcelFromage</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>No-Neck</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Self</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>FINisher</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Keefmoon</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Mistaken</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Nobby_McDonald</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>YuuOnuki</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>BoomKing</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>JWForever</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Zeel1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>BYU14</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Togg</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>BHK</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Comradebot</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>D_W_W</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Derek_b</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>G-prime</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Jhd1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>JohnCena</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>J-silver</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>MadMatt</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>McShamrock</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Olympia</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Rathen4</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Rob490</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Sesby</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Tizzyt</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Totti</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Actarus</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>clabobby</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Eayragt</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>EricAdams</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Foolinc</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>GartnerFTW</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Genadi</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Greg2511</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Jingo</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Mad5226</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>maskedpropaganda</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>MikeyG</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>PraguePride</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Remianen</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>SasoreGatame</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Scapino</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>ShipShirt</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>TakerNGN74</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Terminator</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>trekkiemonsta</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>YaIt'sMe</td><td>1</td></tr></table>

[mistaken]

Ok so there are the number 1 point for a nomination since the release of TEW 2008, 1 point for a win (makes up for the month you could not be nominated, essentially only points go to nominations)

 

You must be nominated, nominations will be blind, I will put up a new thread soon.

 

It will have the list WITH OUT the Hall of Famer's numbers in it.

[ampulator]

<p>I also wanted to mention the idea of "wasted" votes. I'm not sure how much this applies, but what happens if a winner ends up like this?</p><p> </p><p>

Winner: 35%</p><p>

Loser 1: 33%</p><p>

Loser 2: 32%</p><p> </p><p>

Can we conclusively say that the "Winner" won? seems to close to call. We need some way to resolve this if this happens.</p>

[mistaken]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ampulator" data-cite="ampulator" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="28536" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I also wanted to mention the idea of "wasted" votes. I'm not sure how much this applies, but what happens if a winner ends up like this?<p> </p><p> Winner: 35%</p><p> Loser 1: 33%</p><p> Loser 2: 32%</p><p> </p><p> Can we conclusively say that the "Winner" won? seems to close to call. We need some way to resolve this if this happens.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> not sure I follow as top 3 get in, if it was down to one point for 3->4 I might allow 4 in. but 1,2 & 3 usually account for 75+ percent of the vote.</p>

[ampulator]

Never mind then. <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /> I thought it was a single-winner thing.