[Unofficial] HALL OF FAME

[lokisgal]

HMM

I think I should be on the committee- series of checks and balances eh blitzy

[Blitzaholic]

Ok, I posted the thread for you, Blitz.

To everybody, please keep in mind that I am not a judge. I was asked to gather the volunteers and create the poll, and I accepted because I agree with Fruitcake that this idea has the potential to be great. I'm essentially just a typist and data gatherer here.

nice job Master Fenrir

[Blitzaholic]

or maybe the 2nd committee only has 7, 9, or 11 members?

[jpcloet]

Or have 2 sub-committees

1 Overall Committee Leader
7 Members in a Player's Selection Committee
7 Members in a Veteran's Selection Committee

[Blitzaholic]

Or have 2 sub-committees

1 Overall Committee Leader
7 Members in a Player's Selection Committee
7 Members in a Veteran's Selection Committee

oh, wow, that is a good idea JP, would you be interested in either committee?

[Master Fenrir]

Poll options: Place each option on a new line. You may enter up to 12 options.

That I know of --only 12 options can be added to a poll--you may want to find out if this can be expanded.

Alternatively, votes can be PMed to me. I can save screenshots of each PM to a word document to be provided for proof of accurate vote-tallying in the event it be needed.

I would like to volunteer myself. However, if it's seen as a conflict, I have no problem withdrawing.

P.S. Thanks for the edit, Andy. I should have thought the add the "unofficial" part. You kinda make me look like a nimrod, though, with that "4" in there.

[HighlanderAttack]

I think I would prefer to be a judge--my knowledge of players is more focused toward tourney players. I can always do the research when voting on the actual selections.

[Blitzaholic]

I would be interested in being on a committee to nominate and vote.

I took HA off the 1st committee as he has expressed interest in the 2nd committee.

[Fruitcake]

I see what has happened, but I think you may have slightly gone adrift.

The thread posted in GD asking for volounteers should be either for those who wish to be considered for the Judges (or Jurors) panel (to award the HoF membership) from which a global membership vote takes place, or the committee that puts the various rules and criteria into some form of easily followed way...decided upon, not by the membership but by other means. See my quote from earlier:

You must start organising a committee to meet in a private part of the forum Blitz. I suggest you task in the following way:

1) Ask Andy/Admin to proffer some suggestions as to whom they think should be on the list (whilst asking them to set up the forum area)
2) See if those people will serve on said committee
3) Create the thread in the area with all the multitude of ideas
4) Set the ball rolling on discussion
5) Act as liaison between ideas coming in from the general populous and the committee (in that you act as the conduit for those ideas)
6) Appoint a Chair in the committee who is able to keep the distilled list updated for proffering to the forum as a whole at a future SET date (otherwise it will go on for ever)

Caveat: Should there not be enough willing to serve on said committee, you will then need a list of reserves (not Juror reserves, this would be different)

As I mentioned previously, this then ensures the least subjectivity possible by the Judges/Jurors panel when it comes to awarding.

Presently there is a long list of various ideas for criteria. There has been no decision, as of yet, as to which criteria should be applied, how many should be applied, or how some one qualifies. By having a panel of members who put the names forward opens the whole situation, once again, to accusations of favouritism etc. Perhaps now that this has moved to this point you can see why I have been banging on about the risk exposure if you don't have this first (ad hoc) set of people who actually set the rules.

Having said all this, there is no reason why you cannot move forward with accepting nominations for the future Jury, but seriously, you cannot have a committe who decide the law/rules to follow set by popular vote, they really do need to be nominated by those in authority (Lack/Admin) as they can be utterly impartial.

Sorry guys, but I fail to understand the need for 2 committes both doing halves of the same task. That, in itself, opens you to the risk of conflict.

[Gold Knight]

Wouldnt mind being part of this, though dont know if my view is broad enough on all types of the criteria listed, nor do i use map rank. If i see enough interest from players i feel are better qualified ill pull my name from this.

[denominator]

Blitz, I think this has moved beyond the need for one big public thread.

Last I was aware, the actual determination process hadn't been decided, and there were 4 options on the table.

also, i thought there was an idea of 2 commitee's of 12? now I am lost.

As I understand it (and I will openly admit that I may be wrong on this), there are 3 ideas currently on the table for the actual selection process (not including selection of jurors or criteria):

1) There is a committee of (12/15) that nominates the potential Hall of Famers, then a second committee of (12/15) that chooses from the nominees who makes the Hall of Fame.

2) There is a committee of (12/15) that nominates the potential Hall of Famers, then a poll is put up to all of CC that chooses from the nominees who makes the Hall of Fame.

3) All of CC can nominate potential Hall of Famers, then a committee of (12/15) chooses from the nominees who makes the Hall of Fame.

ok, let me think on these.

Then the thread got de-railed yet again by a whole plethora of people expressing discontent with the whole idea. In my opinion, the idea of a Hall of Fame is sound, and with a site like CC it is bound to come about eventually, but I want to see it done right. Which is why I've been following the thread and haven't bailed on the whole concept as of yet. But I will warn you that I'm close to doing so.

So here is my suggestion. If we do decide (note "we") to go with the 2 committee concept, it is still WAY too early to begin putting together either committee. What you are going to end up with is 2 committees of judges and jurors who will both have lost interest in the whole idea by the time it comes down to actually putting people in the Hall of Fame, and your whole idea will fail. You need a clear concept of the "criteria" or "recommendations" that you are going to hand to the judges/jurors before you set that up. Right now you're not even close.

Right now, it's glaringly obvious the people that care enough about this to put the time and effort into it to make it work, and glaringly obvious the people that don't want a Hall of Fame, and glaringly obvious the people that just don't want you in charge. Frankly, I don't care who is "in charge" of the whole situation as long as they are willing to listen to different opinions, and in this matter, Blitz, you're doing better than I have expected (I still feel like you're not giving up enough control, but hey, you're getting there). The role of the person "in charge" is to guide discussions and become the public relations guy - not the dictator.

Andy hit the nail on the head. This is exactly like the newsletters - meaning CC wants the users to set it up and show they care before they step in and make something official out of it. So if it's ever going to become official, we have to do it right.

Right now, I think the best course of action is to create a usergroup. This is the group that will come up with the rules for how the whole process works. Anyone can be in it, so long as they are there to put positive contribution to the Hall of Fame. At this point, this whole discussion is too big for one thread and it so often gets derailed for whole pages by people coming in here to bash the concept or flame Blitz. This usergroup will decide how Hall of Famers get chosen, the process by which they are chosen, the criteria upon which this is based, and potentially, the judges/jurors. Anyone in the criteria committee is not eligible to be a judge or juror, for the reasons Fruitcake posted. They need to be kept separate. I think this, Blitz, is where you fit best. Pick up anyone else you want and run this group.

Then we can actually get something positive going forward. Selecting jurors at this point is putting the cart ahead of the horse, when we don't even know how we'll be picking Hall of Famers. Get a committee together and get this hammered out properly.

[lord voldemort]

I think cake hit it on the head...Anything decided by popular vote is going to be average and just fall apart.

[HighlanderAttack]

Poll options: Place each option on a new line. You may enter up to 12 options.

That I know of --only 12 options can be added to a poll--you may want to find out if this can be expanded.

Alternatively, votes can be PMed to me. I can save screenshots of each PM to a word document to be provided for proof of accurate vote-tallying in the event it be needed.

I would like to volunteer myself. However, if it's seen as a conflict, I have no problem withdrawing.

P.S. Thanks for the edit, Andy. I should have thought the add the "unofficial" part. You kinda make me look like a nimrod, though, with that "4" in there.

No problem with that and I doubt you need to keep a screen shot of each pm.

[AndyDufresne]

Haha, sorry for the "4" --- I tried my best to keep your title intact. Could shorten Volunteers to "Vols." but I'll leave that up to you.


--Andy

[jpcloet]

I'm fine with volunteering for the group that judges.

Still think you need to clearly differentiate with

1. HOF Evaluation and Nomination Committee

2. HOF Selection Committee

[lokisgal]

I think cake hit it on the head...Anything decided by popular vote is going to be average and just fall apart.

[chipv]

Interesting development.

Just for Blitz' benefit (and I hope some of the other people mis-reading Fruitcake's posts and mine also take note)
we are actually in favour of his idea - that is why we are spending some of our free time posting in the thread.

Once again - nice idea Blitz, we agree, and are attempting to help not hinder - please read all posts carefully, it does
appear that several posts are being skim-read which is somewhat unfortunate.

In order for this idea to proceed to fruition, Fruitcake's proposition is by far the most sensible course to take to avoid
any semblance of impartiality - you have 2 groups, one to set the criteria, and a second group of jurors to apply them.

The criteria group makes the rules, the jurors apply them. Both groups should be mutually exclusive.

You cannot have the criteria group up for public vote, this renders the whole exercise pointless.
Secondly the jurors should not have anything to do with selecting criteria - they select Hall Of Famers using the criteria
set out already by the criteria group - that then removes one level of potential impartiality.

Commendation for taking on board that 2 groups are needed but this thread is not separating both jobs properly so you
are merely splitting the same problem into 2 identical smaller ones.

So the name of the thread is encouraging, that did seem things were going in the right direction, but the criteria needs to be
divorced from candidate selection.

If, however, the meaning of the first post in this thread is changed to specify that this is a thread for jurors (and nothing to do with criteria) then that is a good step forward and would gain full support from many including myself.

Current wording of head post:

there would be 2 committees needed to do this: one committee to select and nominate players into the Hall of Fame, and a second committee of judges to cast their votes on those players nominated.

This is splitting nominations from HOF selection, that's all.

It's not far off, actually, just make sure this group has nothing to do with criteria, and it looks good.

With any luck this post won't be seen as a flame, but I won't be holding my breath.

[Blitzaholic]

Blitz, I think this has moved beyond the need for one big public thread.

Last I was aware, the actual determination process hadn't been decided.

As I understand it (and I will openly admit that I may be wrong on this), there are 3 ideas currently on the table for the actual selection process (not including selection of jurors or criteria):

1) There is a committee of (12/15) that nominates the potential Hall of Famers, then a second committee of (12/15) that chooses from the nominees who makes the Hall of Fame.

2) There is a committee of (12/15) that nominates the potential Hall of Famers, then a poll is put up to all of CC that chooses from the nominees who makes the Hall of Fame.

3) All of CC can nominate potential Hall of Famers, then a committee of (12/15) chooses from the nominees who makes the Hall of Fame.

note: what we have right now is unofficial.

The idea of a Hall of Fame is sound, and with a site like CC it is bound to come about eventually, but I want to see it done right. Which is why I've been following the thread and haven't bailed on the whole concept as of yet. But I will warn you that I'm close to doing so.

So here is my suggestion. If we do decide (note "we") to go with the 2 committee concept, it is still WAY too early to begin putting together either committee. What you are going to end up with is 2 committees of judges and jurors who will both have lost interest in the whole idea by the time it comes down to actually putting people in the Hall of Fame, and your whole idea will fail. You need a clear concept of the "criteria" or "recommendations" that you are going to hand to the judges/jurors before you set that up. Blitz, you're doing better than I have expected (I still feel like you're not giving up enough control, but hey, you're getting there). The role of the person "in charge" is to guide discussions and become the public relations guy - not the dictator.

Andy hit the nail on the head. This is exactly like the newsletters - meaning CC wants the users to set it up and show they care before they step in and make something official out of it. So if it's ever going to become official, we have to do it right.

Right now, I think the best course of action is to create a usergroup. This is the group that will come up with the rules for how the whole process works. Anyone can be in it, so long as they are there to put positive contribution to the Hall of Fame. This usergroup will decide how Hall of Famers get chosen, the process by which they are chosen, the criteria upon which this is based, and potentially, the judges/jurors. Anyone in the criteria committee is not eligible to be a judge or juror, for the reasons Fruitcake posted. They need to be kept separate. I think this, Blitz, is where you fit best. Pick up anyone else you want and run this group.

Then we can actually get something positive going forward. Selecting jurors at this point is putting the cart ahead of the horse, when we don't even know how we'll be picking Hall of Famers. Get a committee together and get this hammered out properly.[/quote]

We need 11 Jurors and 2 committee's and some reserves, a poll will be provided later by Master Fenrir, revamp # 41 and put close to 15 hours in collecting data. This group will make up the 1st committee of scouting eligibility of cc players and referring them to the 2nd committee for voting. To make this crystal clear the 1st panel of jurors are HOF Evaluation and Nomination Committee and 2nd panel of jurors is the HOF Selection Committee

do you suggest, we have 3 committee's? a panel of 11 or so to pick the criteria? and another 11 to evaluate and nominate players and a 3rd panel of 11 to select which players make it?

I can ask if I can create a user group and help work on criteria and or be liaison to it if I am hearing you correctly.

Blitz, you're doing better than I have expected (I still feel like you're not giving up enough control, but hey, you're getting there). The role of the person "in charge" is to guide discussions and become the public relations guy - not the dictator.

Thx and I have been trying too. Just remember, we are still ironing things out and this is all unofficial so far, so, let's have patience and we all come together to make this work out right. One issue I am thinking of is if you get too many cooks in the kitchen it is hard to get anything accomplished.

[comic boy]

I admit to a bias here in that I consider both BOB and 1 v 1 games to be an abomination , consequently I would fall foul of several of the criteria due to not playing enough games and failing to chase medals. I trust therefore that there will be some flexibility shown in respect of judging potential candidates, should Pele have been left out of the football hall of fame for playing in just the one position and playing for the same club most of his career

PS Win percentages should definitely not be part of any criteria, in the overwhelming majority of cases they serve only as an indication of how much a player has farmed lesser opponents.

[denominator]

do you suggest, we have 3 committee's? a panel of 11 or so to pick the criteria? and another 11 to evaluate and nominate players and a 3rd panel of 11 to select which players make it?

I can ask if I can create a user group and help work on criteria and or be liaison to it if I am hearing you correctly.

In short, yes. You need 3 mutually exclusive committees, one to set the criteria, a second to nominate potential Hall of Famers, and a third to choose from the nominees.

Your first committee can also set the criteria upon which the jurors and nominators are chosen, or choose those people if need be.

I suggest that you lead the criteria committee. By definition any one person can be on only one of the 3 committees to prevent bias. You have done all the work collecting data to this point, and are most involved, and I think your current position best fits being on the criteria committee. So yes, see if you can create a usergroup where we can create many different threads about the criteria. It should be open to all members, but if you join the criteria committee at any point you cannot be a part of the selection committees. I don't think you need to set a cap on the number of people that can be on the criteria committee, but we need a place to discuss this so we aren't spamming the general discussion forum with threads about this and we can have multiple threads for the complete discussion instead of cramming it into one thread.

Blitz, you're doing better than I have expected (I still feel like you're not giving up enough control, but hey, you're getting there). The role of the person "in charge" is to guide discussions and become the public relations guy - not the dictator.

Thx and I have been trying too. Just remember, we are still ironing things out and this is all unofficial so far, so, let's have patience and we all come together to make this work out right. One issue I am thinking of is if you get too many cooks in the kitchen it is hard to get anything accomplished.

That's exactly why we need to get this out of general discussion. This thread can (and should) stay here so that the rest of CC can get updates on it, and new people with new ideas can still take part, but at least half of this thread is negative feedback or flames against Blitz, which is a waste of everyone's time.

[Blitzaholic]

thx Chip, to keep you in the loop, this was the latest suggestion:

You need 3 mutually exclusive committees, one to set the criteria, a second to nominate potential Hall of Famers, and a third to choose from the nominees.

Your first committee can also set the criteria upon which the jurors and nominators are chosen, or choose those people if need be.

I suggest that you lead the criteria committee. By definition any one person can be on only one of the 3 committees to prevent bias. You have done all the work collecting data to this point, and are most involved, and I think your current position best fits being on the criteria committee. So yes, see if you can create a usergroup where we can create many different threads about the criteria. It should be open to all members, but if you join the criteria committee at any point you cannot be a part of the selection committees. I don't think you need to set a cap on the number of people that can be on the criteria committee, but we need a place to discuss this so we aren't spamming the general discussion forum with threads about this and we can have multiple threads for the complete discussion instead of cramming it into one thread.

[Blitzaholic]

ok, do I have this right now?

We need around 11 Jurors for each of the 3 committee's and some reserves, a poll will be provided later by Master Fenrir, revamp # 43 and put close to 16 hours in collecting data. To make this crystal clear the 1st panel of jurors are responsible for setting forth HOF established criteria, 2nd panel of jurors are HOF Evaluation and Nomination Committee and 3rd panel of jurors is the HOF Selection Committee. No member can be on more than committee to keep it impartial.

fruitcake says one committee I think, chip says 2, denominator says 3, lol, I mean even you 3 can;t agree.

Now which is it?

[chipv]

Fruitcake says 2 - I think that is a bad sign if you think he said 1.

[Blitzaholic]

Fruitcake says 2 - I think that is a bad sign if you think he said 1.

what does this mean then?

Sorry guys, but I fail to understand the need for 2 committes both doing halves of the same task. That, in itself, opens you to the risk of conflict.

?

[Fruitcake]

ok, do I have this right now?

We need around 11 Jurors for each of the 3 committee's and some reserves, a poll will be provided later by Master Fenrir, revamp # 43 and put close to 16 hours in collecting data. To make this crystal clear the 1st panel of jurors are responsible for setting forth HOF established criteria, 2nd panel of jurors are HOF Evaluation and Nomination Committee and 3rd panel of jurors is the HOF Selection Committee. No member can be on more than committee to keep it impartial.

fruitcake says one committee I think, chip says 2, denominator says 3, lol, I mean even you 3 can;t agree.

Now which is it?

No Blitz. I have said time and time again. You need to separate the responsibilities/committees....let's not try to make out what patently isn't the case.

1) A Committee needs to be formed off GD in an ad hoc group. This needs to be limited in some way. It also needs to be led by some one who can keep things moving. It needs to have a cut off date where it issues a set of criteria/requirements to be included in any HoF. At this point this committee produces a thread in GD and asks for feedback. After another set period of time the thread is locked and said committee go back into session. They then produce a final list which becomes the template. They then disband as a committee as their job is done and finished.

2) While this is happening there is no reason why a second set of SEPERATE people put themselves forward as the Jurors. They will then implement the criteria and rules created by the committee mentioned in (1).

Now this is where I and others differ as I foresee problems in halving the task of choosing nominations. However, should the general consensus be that there should be two then I will keep my own counsel.

Should there be 2 'public' committees, one will nominate, the other approve or reject the nominations (this is where the conflict could arise). If there is one, this risk is negated. However, should there be just one 'public' committee, then a system of nomination needs to be resolved. I am of the opinion this is simply done by public recommendation (say 1 proposer with at least 3 seconders). Should this be achieved, the name is put to the committee formally. The first job they have is to check the templated criteria to see if qualification is valid. Then, should this be so, they have a duty to explain themselves should they reject said nomination.

Taking this the next step on, there are questions such as over nomination (too many for a set period of time) this, and other questions, can be sorted by the 'public' committee and explanations given to those proposed.