How to set up elections...

[Wildfire]

So what do y'all think.. there are a couple choices that I can see:

1) We can do it like baseball, and all vote for whoever we think, then anyone getting 75% of the votes is in. I like this better than a straight poll, so you could vote for more than one guy, or none as you see fit.

2) polls with different groups, winner gets in

3) someone could nominate a guy, then do a poll yeah or nay.


I'd favor the 1st option, breaking the guys up into eras (I.E EC/ 2087-2090, War Games, etc) and voting on each in its turn.

[LWPD]

wildfire said:

So what do y'all think.. there are a couple choices that I can see:

1) We can do it like baseball, and all vote for whoever we think, then anyone getting 75% of the votes is in. I like this better than a straight poll, so you could vote for more than one guy, or none as you see fit.

2) polls with different groups, winner gets in

3) someone could nominate a guy, then do a poll yeah or nay.

I'd favor the 1st option, breaking the guys up into eras (I.E EC/ 2087-2090, War Games, etc) and voting on each in its turn.

I'd suggest a staggered version of option one with each game year first being discussed by the group comprehensively in individual threads before any open ballot voting takes place. This would provide a chance for characters that rarely get mentioned on this board to get some 'exposure'. We have enough posters here who are familiar with the sets to the point that we can create some very nice content for newer players.

From there I suggest that we can set up by era 'nomination cut offs' (a vote on who from say the Early Classics-2086 era can appear on the 'final ballot' at the end). This would give us a chance to separate the 'good' from the 'great' so that only the best from each era have a chance to make the final cut. Proceeding to each new era after a nomination cut off vote would give the process a churning system which may inspire those contributors who's favorites 'didn't make it' to post more vigorous about candidates in the next era. Having a 'final induction' vote from those making the final ballot would be suspense and tie everything together at the end. Those are my suggestions.

With regards to pacing I suggest that we need to be flexible. This is a hobby and we all have limited amounts of time. I'll personally make an effort to reach out to those who I feel are capable of making substantive contributions...but may not have the ability to be actively involved beyond submitting a quality ballot when necessary. I'd rather see 'as much' of the history of various sets being comprehensively addressed by as many knowledgeable contributors as possible at a slow pace...than voting being completed at a fast pace with people missing out on participation and little in the way of substance coming out of the process. I suggest as an ideal that the quality of a finished project is more important than it's timeliness.

LWPD (I'll post a CotG HOF Candidate List thread so we can start to discuss issues like number of candidates from each 'era', cut off points, etc)

[Joe]

lwpd said:

I'd suggest a staggered version of option one with each game year first being discussed by the group comprehensively in individual threads before any open ballot voting takes place. This would provide a chance for characters that rarely get mentioned on this board to get some 'exposure'. We have enough posters here who are familiar with the sets to the point that we can create some very nice content for newer players.

From there I suggest that we can set up by era 'nomination cut offs' (a vote on who from say the Early Classics-2086 era can appear on the 'final ballot' at the end). This would give us a chance to separate the 'good' from the 'great' so that only the best from each era have a chance to make the final cut. Proceeding to each new era after a nomination cut off vote would give the process a churning system which may inspire those contributors who's favorites 'didn't make it' to post more vigorous about candidates in the next era. Having a 'final induction' vote from those making the final ballot would be suspense and tie everything together at the end. Those are my suggestions.

With regards to pacing I suggest that we need to be flexible. This is a hobby and we all have limited amounts of time. I'll personally make an effort to reach out to those who I feel are capable of making substantive contributions...but may not have the ability to be actively involved beyond submitting a quality ballot when necessary. I'd rather see 'as much' of the history of various sets being comprehensively addressed by as many knowledgeable contributors as possible at a slow pace...than voting being completed at a fast pace with people missing out on participation and little in the way of substance coming out of the process. I suggest as an ideal that the quality of a finished project is more important than it's timeliness.

LWPD (I'll post a CotG HOF Candidate List thread so we can start to discuss issues like number of candidates from each 'era', cut off points, etc)

I agree with Paint's idea about breaking the nominees down into eras and then going from there. This method will give us a chance to discuss each potential inductee at some length. It will also keep potential inductees from getting overshadowed by the guys who are always mentioned at the top of the "all-time great" discussions.

[Wildfire]

I agree breaking the guys down into eras is the way to go as well...

anyone disagree?

If not, I'd say the next step would be to identify the eras.

[Eliath]

GWF
Classics
Original 2087
Invasion 2088-2090
War Games 2091-2093
Sudden Death 2094-2095
Revolution 2096-2098
Civil War 2099-2100
Mega Tournament 2101-2102
Sudden Death 2103-2104
CPC 2105-2108
The End 2109-2111
Takeover 2112
Sudden Death 2113-2114
Revelations 2115-2116
Centra Uprising 2117
Entropy 2118
New Beginnings 2119
Subversion 2120-2122

CPC
Classics 2109, 2112
Conspiracy 2113-2114
Deception 2215-2117
Savagery 2118-2120
Cataclysm 2121

aCe
Battle for Centra 2119
Reinforcement 2120

[theringmaster]

Eras here seem the way to go and I like the whole "baseball HOF" idea 75% and they are in rather then any kind of Poll.

[sickman]

I love the idea of 75% of the vote to be placed in the HOF. I love the idea of doing it by era.

This suggestion is for how to come up with a nominee. I think personal feds have to come into play. Maybe not a huge statistical breakdown. But more so memories. Who were the big guns in your fed? Did they make an impact?

[Chewey]

if we do the 75% ballot for election, we would also need to determine some sort of BBWAA-type of group on who gets to vote. Not to exclude any promoter who wants to participate - anybody who wants to participate whould be allowed to - but in order to decide which wrestler actually met the 75% threshold, and which ones didn't.

[Dragon Breath]

Another way to set up the election is to create a pool of retired wreslers, and allow each promoter to vote for a number of wreslers in the pool.

For example, each promoter could vote for three wrestlers, with a first place vote worth 3 points, a 2nd place vote worth two points, and a third place vote worth one point.

At the end of a month (or a week, or however long makes sense) the top two wrestlers would be enshrined to the Hall of Fame, and the process starts over again.

Here's a link to a website that uses a very similar system to "do over" the Baseball Hall Fame, in case anyone is interested.

www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/

[mikefortune]

I like the 75% deal like Baseball but what are the parameters for the vote. I did rig the voting system about 10 years ago to show that it was flawed. I got Count Necros in because I liked the character. He never did anything in my fed but I liked him and I wanted to see if I could mess with the system.

Now I can say I wouldn't do this now but if and when a voting poll does happen is there a way to stop ballot box stuffing and what are the parameters. If we go but "official game and promoter stories" Then Alpha Force would get my vote but if we went in your own fed, Alpha is a barely .500 wrestler with 1 title.

[Wildfire]

That's a good question, and one that deserves consideration.

As to vote rigging, I'd say if we keep the voting to PM instead of a thread, it would be really hard to do... It would be pretty obvious if there were suddenly 5 new accounts, all voting in the HoF ballot. We COULD specifically invite certain people to vote, but I think that would be bad. But making it 75% of all votes, I think they'll be enough people who are voting 'correctly' to cancel out any person or small group trying to rig things.

As to what you base you vote on, that's up to you, and that's why this is a good idea, IMO. Sounds like Alpha Force isn't a HOF'er in your fed, so don't vote for him... I'm sure he is in many feds, but maybe not enough to being in, we'll see when we get there.