[Unofficial] HALL OF FAME

[Fruitcake]

To be honest, to do this properly is quite a major task. If you get it right at the start then it will run a great deal easier than if you make up the rules as you go along.

I would also suggest the following (this is not exclusive; I am sure many other aspects need addressing but the basic format of the make up of the committee is the primary requirement):

1) As previously, the committee that decides the template/criteria required to even be considered for an HoF nomination to succeed does not necessarily need to be a voted panel. History proves that the best bodies of this type are generally those chosen for their skills rather than based on a popular vote. Remember, their job is pretty thankless as they have to disappoint many whilst attempting to drive a path that will be the fairest and most equitable that can be done. QED you need skills not popular votes.

2) The number of the committee above is limited, often through natural selection (lack of required skills in many). However, I would suggest an even number is chosen with 1 Chair who only votes (in the committee on what criteria are being implemented into the template) when there is a split decision. The Chair is mainly responsible for keeping order and for ensuring the subject matter is moved along by setting deadlines etc.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

The 'Public' Jurors/Committee (PC) is chosen through vote. They will have set criteria they can work to so subjectivity is hugely reduced. The reason they exist I have mentioned in my earlier post...so do keep up please.

This PC will also require a Chair who again, would not vote unless a split decision is reached. His/Her duties would be much the same, keeping control, discipline etc.

The decision making process of the PC is primarily controlled by the template introduced by the now disbanded committee above. This reduces the risk of conflict hugely as they cannot be held responsible should some one not fulfil the requirements set.

[denominator]

Well said, Fruitcake.

[chipv]

Excellent , looks like all 3 of us are on the same page.

So, Blitz a quick summary would be

Fruitcake and I are in favour of 2 groups:

1. Criteria
2. Jury

Denominator has split group 2 into 2 parts:

a)Provision of nominations
b)Decision on nominations

I think there is merit to this, but my feeling is have a single group, as we would then need 2 public votes.

Group 1 should not be public whilst group 2 should be.

[Fruitcake]

The first committee (that which sets up the template) we'll call CTC (Criteria Template Committee) for this exercise.

It needs to resolve the criteria, and what weighting to give each criteria (so reducing future conflict in the case of over nominations mentioned above).

It needs to produce a list of criteria that debar any nomination. However, the PC (mentioned above) do have the availablity of over ruling this but again must give their reasons why.

It needs to give absolute definition to each crieria so there can be no argument in the future (ergo the reason for certain skill sets required as this would need to be written carefully to avoid ambiguity).

It needs to listen to what the public cc are asking for...the reason for this is simple, the public cc are what wil make this work AFTER they have disbanded.

I would suggest strongly that Admin are asked for input as to the members of the CTC as they are impartial and have a different focus (that of creating a community that, in many ways, is self policing, especially in something as emotive as this could be if done incorrectly.)

[rabbiton]

Just for Blitz' benefit

just for non-blitz' benefit... the thing to understand is that blitz is a, well, blitzaholic. it's right there in his name, yet time and time again all parties fail to to comprehend this seemingly obvious point.

he blitzes things you see...

he blitzes through turns in games (i've seen this, he does!), he blitzes through threads and posts and criticisms and arguments and witticisms and ironic diatribes... he blitzes them all! when he gets home of a day he blitzes the grass with a mower. if he has children he blitzes them within an inch of their lives. if he is a child he blitzes the socks off his parents. he's a goddamn furious force of nature and he is a blitzaholic. i mean, get it straight-up, home-dawgs. stopping, considering deeply, pondering... these are not the acts of a blitzaholic!

hence, he blitzed all your arguments and let the shreds of them that spewed forth fall where they may.

and when you stop and consider... really ponder... you will realize that this was the only way to get this done.

i hope this brightens your beans and helps you understand the blitz just a little.

also, new criteria for hall of fame: established hall of fame.

[laughingcavalier]

However, should the general consensus be that there should be two then I will keep my own council.

Oh dear - now we have got 11 committees of 15 and Fruitcake is going to keep his own council too!

Well done, Blitz, for persisting, through the baits and the flames. You have pulled together a remarkable amount of consensus. I am sure it would be possible to start a Hall of Fame without a thread like this, but it would not be half so true to CC.

Off to your usergroup. FC has some very sensible suggestions for running it - yes you must set yourselves a clear goal, a structure, and a deadline, and allow that same creativity to flourish that has in so many of the community enterprises the banana mentions.

Looking forward to hearing from the usergroup when you have refined this Hall of Fame idea.

Someone somewhere a while back mentioned a mission statement, and I like that idea, a brief encapsulation of what it is a Hall of Famer must be - just one of the things that might come out of your disussions.

The biggest contentious item you have left to deal with is that somehow you have let newsletter writer slip from automatic qualification to a "nice to have". Shome mistake shurely?

[Fruitcake]

However, should the general consensus be that there should be two then I will keep my own council.

Oh dear - now we have got 11 committees of 15 and Fruitcake is going to keep his own council too!

Bloody hell, I don't believe I did that....sorted (thanks for flagging it up, we wouldn't want to confuse people would we)

[lokisgal]

I know - lets make this even more fun

How about we set up a CC poll to see if the general community even wants a hall of fame? If there isnt a lot of support then no one has to do any of this work

Id say make a quorum number of 1/3 of active members to make it an official vote.
Once thats decided then what and how many committees can really be decided. I only see a handful of people repsonding on here so one of 2 things is going on
A -no one cares or
B no one knows

Id say figure that out first before you spend to much time on this

[denominator]

Denominator has split group 2 into 2 parts:

a)Provision of nominations
b)Decision on nominations

I broke it into two simply because that seemed to have been established by Blitz a while back.

[Blitzaholic]

Excellent , looks like all 3 of us are on the same page.

So, Blitz a quick summary would be

Fruitcake and I are in favour of 2 groups:

1. Criteria
2. Jury

Denominator has split group 2 into 2 parts:

a)Provision of nominations
b)Decision on nominations

I think there is merit to this, but my feeling is have a single group, as we would then need 2 public votes.

ok, so we are thinking 2 committee groups now?

1. for criteria and admin to oversee in a user group private forum?

2. evaluation of eligibility and selection and to be done in public? not sure about that?

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.

fruitcake we spent 3 years off and on, mostly off until recently over last week or so ago asking for feedback, we produced the thread, this is it? I got all the criteria from the feedback of cc players, around one hundred or so responded in one way or another. What makes you think more cc players will respond if we do it again? A lot of the foundation is already laid down. I sent for a user group and ask andy (banana) to help me.

Group 1 should not be public whilst group 2 should be.

so use the criteria group in private? ask for feedback from GD in public? we already done this. only a few of you think it was from popular votes, but, many others posted there ideas that I never thought of and I added them. I could just ask admin to oversee the criteria or guidelines. That may be best to ensure all is impartial.

[Donkey]

I know - lets make this even more fun

How about we set up a CC poll to see if the general community even wants a hall of fame? If there isnt a lot of support then no one has to do any of this work

Id say make a quorum number of 1/3 of active members to make it an official vote.
Once thats decided then what and how many committees can really be decided. I only see a handful of people repsonding on here so one of 2 things is going on
A -no one cares or
B no one knows

Id say figure that out first before you spend to much time on this

[Fruitcake]

OK Blitz, do it the way you want.....sigh

[Fruitcake]

Just for Blitz' benefit

just for non-blitz' benefit... the thing to understand is that blitz is a, well, blitzaholic. it's right there in his name, yet time and time again all parties fail to to comprehend this seemingly obvious point.

he blitzes things you see...

he blitzes through turns in games (i've seen this, he does!), he blitzes through threads and posts and criticisms and arguments and witticisms and ironic diatribes... he blitzes them all! when he gets home of a day he blitzes the grass with a mower. if he has children he blitzes them within an inch of their lives. if he is a child he blitzes the socks off his parents. he's a goddamn furious force of nature and he is a blitzaholic. i mean, get it straight-up, home-dawgs. stopping, considering deeply, pondering... these are not the acts of a blitzaholic!

hence, he blitzed all your arguments and let the shreds of them that spewed forth fall where they may.

and when you stop and consider... really ponder... you will realize that this was the only way to get this done.

i hope this brightens your beans and helps you understand the blitz just a little.

also, new criteria for hall of fame: established hall of fame.

You really do talk a load of absolute hogwash sometimes.

[Mr Changsha]

Just for Blitz' benefit

just for non-blitz' benefit... the thing to understand is that blitz is a, well, blitzaholic. it's right there in his name, yet time and time again all parties fail to to comprehend this seemingly obvious point.

he blitzes things you see...

he blitzes through turns in games (i've seen this, he does!), he blitzes through threads and posts and criticisms and arguments and witticisms and ironic diatribes... he blitzes them all! when he gets home of a day he blitzes the grass with a mower. if he has children he blitzes them within an inch of their lives. if he is a child he blitzes the socks off his parents. he's a goddamn furious force of nature and he is a blitzaholic. i mean, get it straight-up, home-dawgs. stopping, considering deeply, pondering... these are not the acts of a blitzaholic!

hence, he blitzed all your arguments and let the shreds of them that spewed forth fall where they may.

and when you stop and consider... really ponder... you will realize that this was the only way to get this done.

i hope this brightens your beans and helps you understand the blitz just a little.

also, new criteria for hall of fame: established hall of fame.

You really do talk a load of absolute hogwash sometimes.

Also he missed what is surely the key point...the 'holic', as in addicted to himself.

[Blitzaholic]

OK Blitz, do it the way you want.....sigh

I am trying to listen to many people fc, it sounds like 2 committee's, criteria, then nominations and selections.

also was going by what denominator suggested, to keep this thread and continue to leave in open for public in GD for criteria suggestions. I also will get a user group and discuss with members, we will then put it back in here for all to review.

[Blitzaholic]

try to focus on interest of volunteers.

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.

nothing wrong with throwing your name in the poll. gl

[chipv]

You're still not listening, it is hurting your own idea, Blitz.

Criteria should not be public, how many time do you have to be told.

Of course do it your own way if you please, but you can expect to lose a lot of support if you continue
to appear to ignore people's suggestions. That is what it looks like.

[Blitzaholic]

You're still not listening, it is hurting your own idea, Blitz.

Criteria should not be public, how many time do you have to be told.

Of course do it your own way if you please, but you can expect to lose a lot of support if you continue
to appear to ignore people's suggestions. That is what it looks like.

chip you are confusing the hell out of me now? Look at your post just yesterday m8.

Excellent , looks like all 3 of us are on the same page.

So, Blitz a quick summary would be

Fruitcake and I are in favour of 2 groups:

1. Criteria
2. Jury

Denominator has split group 2 into 2 parts:

a)Provision of nominations
b)Decision on nominations

I think there is merit to this, but my feeling is have a single group, as we would then need 2 public votes.

Group 1 should not be public whilst group 2 should be.

yes and you said right here group 1. Criteria should not be made public.

[chipv]

Exactly what is confusing you??

[Blitzaholic]

Exactly what is confusing you??

ok, so then I get a user group and discuss, then after awhile do we make it public and continue discussing or is it hidden the whole time and only open to the players the public votes for in polls or once the criteria is established, do we open to public at later date? or no? open it to admin's? also, I deleted all the members on criteria committee for now.

[AAFitz]

happy to join nominations committee, if needed

[Blitzaholic]

happy to join nominations committee, if needed

ok, I will take you off the criteria committee then. thx for your interest.

[Gold Knight]

Was just thinking of an idea that could come into play while watching some NCAA basketball...:

For the committee that actually judges on and votes the specific players in, perhaps if a system of "blind resumes" was worked into play it would further decrease any bias of the judges towards certain players. So when the players are submitted, we could have a group put together the complete breakdown of each player to present to the selection committee, though they would leave their name off. I know whenever i see those on ESPN and see how some of the lesser known names actually can be more impressive than the "popular" names of the sport. Not sure if this should have been put in this thread or the Hall of Fame thread, but figured id throw the idea out there.

[Lindax]

Quite some time ago I volunteered to be a judge. I'm still up for that. If I understand it correctly, that precludes me from the selection and criteria commissions....

Lx

[Gold Knight]

Was just thinking of an idea that could come into play while watching some NCAA basketball...:

For the committee that actually judges on and votes the specific players in, perhaps if a system of "blind resumes" was worked into play it would further decrease any bias of the judges towards certain players. So when the players are submitted, we could have a group put together the complete breakdown of each player to present to the selection committee, though they would leave their name off. I know whenever i see those on ESPN and see how some of the lesser known names actually can be more impressive than the "popular" names of the sport. Not sure if this should have been put in this thread or the Hall of Fame thread, but figured id throw the idea out there.

Posted this in the other thread, believe it goes along with Denominator's idea of splitting the 2nd committee...

Im also getting lost with all the public and private matters in this... I think we are going for a private group to set criteria, with the public option to nominate players, put then back to a closed private group to actually select the players. I agree with this if this is what we were going for.