Friday, February 26, 2010

HoF -- what next?

If you still want to comment on the viability of any of last year's candidates, go to the previous thread. There were so many comments, and some of them were just the same vitriol (I promise to delete any post that I feel detracts from the thread; you can disagree with me, just don't be a boor), that some felt it wasn't worthwhile to add their comments.

How would you like to see the HoF process change?
SCALE: What do you think of the concept of a voter giving a number for each category and adding them up? How would you structure such a scale?
TRANSPARENCY: Consider the ramifications of your suggestion, but what level of public display should the votes and discussions have? The selection process is public (though not too many appear to know all the steps) but all votes and vote totals are hidden. Should the Peer Review totals be publicized? Peer Review voters?
MONEY: This receives zero funding from the UPA and receives little or no effort from paid staff of the UPA. Should staff be involved in this?
VOTERS: In the first year, a small group that came up with the idea made the elections. Afterwards, there was an appointed committee (the Vetting Subcommittee, the ones who do the grunt work) plus all HoF members who cast the final votes. What would be a viable alternative?

Comments welcome.

7 comments:

Corey said...

OMG. Enough with this. Don't worry, Jim, you'll get into the HoF regardless of what the process is!

Anonymous said...

Please, add a rating factor for "narcissism" and "desire level of wanting to be remembered as a psuedo-athlete". You might want to research how church softball leagues recognize the backyard "Babe Ruth" types after their prime...

Hall of Fames are for paid athletes, and the Olympics (mostly) are for the amatuer greats.

Anonymous said...

It looks as if there is just a straight up open vote over on rsd (as per kens' induction), where there isnt a bunch of yappin about this, that or the other.....and it seems like the consensus is pretty much the same as it here.....unanimous.

parinella said...

This isn't about Ken. I'm in favor of his induction. Enough said.

Anonymous said...

Yes, i know, this is about "spirit"(and it's overemphisis). Either way, go cast your vote if thats your stance.

Anonymous said...

I'd say it's more about the voters understanding that they just got it wrong......no matter what the "process" is.

Anonymous said...

酒店兼職 酒店打工 打工兼差 台北酒店 酒店兼差 酒店經紀 禮服酒店 酒店工作 酒店上班 兼差 酒店應徵 酒店 打工兼職 打工