HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread

(21-12-2021 20:54 )Kingsmind Wrote:  

(21-12-2021 10:04 )Charlemagne Wrote:  22 of the 24 girls nominated meet the 10 years criteria.

I didn't have to make a separate group for the 10 years and over as Groups A & C consist of girls who meet the 10 years rule.

I just used the tournament format.

Thanks for clearing this up Charle i was confused to.

But if that's the case going by the first sentence quoted above , how can we get 3 different Hall Of Famers from different years if nearly all of them meet the 10 years criteria.

I think by its nature a Hall Of Fame will always reward longevity, the confusion for me was the nomination opening suggested the 10 year category would be a standalone thing which it isn't.

(21-12-2021 21:14 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  He meant 12 ties without any groups. Straight knock out format.

I can't understand why me spliting the knockout format into 3 groups of 4 ties is any different to a 12 ties contest.
It still leaves a winner in the top third of the format, one in the middle and one at the bottom.

Because all the babes would have equal chance of being drawn against each other in the subsequent rounds.

There doesn't need to be a top, middle, and bottom section if the criteria for each group is just the same.

This is a tournament format. This way the number of nominations that a girls receives counts in their postion in the tournament.

(21-12-2021 21:21 )eyres42 Wrote:  

(21-12-2021 20:54 )Kingsmind Wrote:  

(21-12-2021 10:04 )Charlemagne Wrote:  

I think by its nature a Hall Of Fame will always reward longevity.

I believe that this is a key point, a HOF should, in the main reward longevity, but there will always be exceptions. In this & previous years there have been a handful of babes nominated, that fit the criteria, but have had a relatively short, yet highly successful career. I couldn't really argue against some of these babes getting inducted ahead of ones that had many more years but less spectacular, some that have just coasted along, & have been overly praised.

(21-12-2021 14:41 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  

(21-12-2021 14:28 )Charlemagne Wrote:  Voting means that at some stage at least 50% are chosing a girl.

Are they? Or are they just being forced to choose the 'least worst option' in some of the ties? That is certainly the case, as far as I'm concerned.

I think, once you go down the seeding/knockout type of format, it will always throw up, scenarios were 2 of your personal favourites come head to head & maybe 2 babes that you don't rate or have never even watched, come head to head. Also consider a match-up were you have to choose between one babe that you like, against a babe retired before you'd seen her. Is it right or fair to vote against a babe that maybe, arguably better, just because you've only seen the other ? In a case like this, opting out of a vote on such a match-up would be fair, but is that always the case.
If you look at the registration dates of the members that have voted in the knock-out stage, so far, generally the members that have been here the longest have voted on all ties, the handful that have opted out of one or more ties, seem to be those with less years on the forum, & therefore it's probable their reason for opting out on some of the ties, is that they include babes that they have never watched.

(21-12-2021 22:02 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  I believe that this is a key point, a HOF should, in the main reward longevity, but there will always be exceptions. In this & previous years there have been a handful of babes nominated, that fit the criteria, but have had a relatively short, yet highly successful career. I couldn't really argue against some of these babes getting inducted ahead of ones that had many more years but less spectacular, some that have just coasted along, & have been overly praised.

I agree. It’s about the definition of ‘longevity’. Is it her ‘staying power’ on the channels, or the lasting impression that she made?

This is where I think the 10-year rule does the trick and is a welcome addition.

Danica Thrall is a a possible case-in-point. She wasn’t on the channels for very long, but she always pops up in the mix. If it has been so long and we still remember her that fondly, then she must have done something right and should be worthy of contention.

Anyway, I’m just grateful that some of you are willing to invest the time and energy needed to run these competitions, and then have the patience to graciously endure all our suggestions for how to do it better.

I’ll stay out of the fray this year. When the time comes to actually build the Hall of Fame, I will gladly serve on the site selection and design committee.

I had a concern, last year, that there was a danger that the veteran babes could get overlooked. With each passing year. older members leave, newer members join, & even with the 5 year qualification period, the veteran babes chances of induction would decrease, as the demographic trend of the forum is younger. Other members, shared a similar view, which was taken onboard, & a new format is in place.

What has surprised me, this year, is the amount of babes that have fallen into the 10 year category, but maybe the lack of newer members nominating, is a reflection of that. Ideally, to get the best result, you have to engage with both the young, & less young forum members, & deliver a format that everyone is happy with. The more members that nominate & vote, the better the outcome.

Whilst knock-out tournaments are generally more exciting, they are also the most controversial, & I do wonder if it's the case, that more members are driven away because of this.

This year's new HOF seeded group format probably works something like this.

12 knockout matches in Round 1.

6 knockout matches in Round 2.

3 knockout matches in Round 3.

Round 1
Group A
Seed 1 v seed 24
Seed 4 v seed 21
Seed 7 v seed 18
Seed 10 v seed 15

Group B
Seed 2 v seed 23
Seed 5 v seed 20
Seed 8 v seed 17
Seed 11 v seed 14

Group C
Seed 3 v seed 22
Seed 6 v seed 19
Seed 9 v seed 16
Seed 12 v seed 13


Round 2
Group A
Seed 1 or 24 v Seed 10 or 15
Seed 4 or 21 v Seed 7 or 18

Group B
Seed 2 or 23 v Seed 11 or 14
Seed 5 or 20 v Seed 8 or 17

Group C
Seed 3 or 22 v Seed 12 or 13
Seed 6 or 19 v Seed 9 or 16


Round 3
Group A
Seed 1, 24, 10 or 15 v Seed 4, 21, 7 or 18

Group B
Seed 2, 23, 11 or 14 v Seed 5, 20, 8 or 17

Group C
Seed 3, 22, 12 or 13 v Seed 6, 19, 9 or 16

(21-12-2021 23:10 )Goodfella3041 Wrote:  

(21-12-2021 22:02 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  

I agree. It’s about the definition of ‘longevity’. Is it her ‘staying power’ on the channels, or the lasting impression that she made?

Lasting impression, you've nailed it.

I decent analogy would be the Sex Pistols, 2 & a half years, one album. Undeniably made a lasting impression, voted into the Rock and Roll hall Of Fame, but refused to attend the ceremony, calling the museum "a piss stain".