HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread

(16-12-2023 21:18 )ShandyHand Wrote:  I appreciate the thought and effort of all involved in putting this stuff out there. It's hard to get critiqued when all you're looking to do is make improvements. But not all thread suggestions (whomever they come from) are necessarily good ones. And deciding which options to take forward is the truly difficult task...

That said, the current choice on how to get the right nominees for the HOF seems the wrong one to me. To explain...

First off: I'm glad I found this thread's discussion because without explanation the "panel" thing, as (scantily) referenced in the voting thread itself, comes over as a little high-handed on there at best. I feel the other thread sorely needs a link to this one so that prospective voters know the thinking behind what is being trialed .

My central reservation with the "panel" idea basically comes down to the thought that little good generally comes from excluding people from such selection processes they were previously part of. The optics. The optics. For instance..

(05-12-2023 15:38 )forum awards Wrote:  It's not just the long established member who can vote it's open to all of you who joined before the awards commenced.

It's always good to see new member or little posting members get involved.

(IIRC, this is the second year we've had such a post about voting for these awards.)

You don't encourage newer forumites to vote in the central major awards on here by making this one (probably the biggest annual babe-orientated affair) more of a closed shop! Although, I can see from this thread that this wasn't the intention behind the change, it still gives the impression of a favoured few being in an elite group of members making decisions for the rest. Not a good thing. The impression of exclusion and 'the great and the gpod'.

Dubbing popularity award winners of the old guard "best qualified" to judge on HOF noms is all well and good... but does it actually follow that they would have the best knowledge re. pioneer babes?! Better than average, most likely. Truly the best we could invoke? Less likely. The advantage gained by having a panel seems to me like it could be gotten another way without the dodgy perceptions involved currently.

Similarly, I'd think there are other better ways of getting early years babes into the HOF. Some kind of vote weighting system perhaps (in favour of babes long since retired). Or how about more babes getting into the HOF each year with half (or more) of those babes having to be those that have been retired from the shows for a certain number of years? Let's experiment with these sorts of things first...

(16-12-2023 16:21 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  The trade off is do you exclude some forum members, or continue to ignore/exclude Pioneer babes.

This is not a true 'either-or'. There are surely multiple ways to offer up a proper selection of suitable babes without excluding members from bits of the process.

Overall, the proposed change simply feels the sort of thing we need to be quite careful over to me. When the prevailing wind from babeshow insiders looks increasingly to divide fandom up between those deemed worthy and those not, it's hardly a good look to see the supposed unifying force of the forum joining in.

Whilst I respect your response, I feel that you have taken my words out of context. Pulling a sentence out from a post gives the impression I'm making some sort of statement of fact which is not the case. I don't like that.

Here's a statement, there has to be some form of exclusion in the lost babe years, giving nominations to people that weren't around at the time & didn't watch would be stupid & brainless. Would you ask someone to review a film that they hadn't watched or write a synopsis on a book they haven't read.
I don't take part in the WWE prediction comp, but I don't feel excluded because I know fuck all about it.

Really helpful, when members pull, your posts to bits, highlight what they see as negatives, ignore & choose not to highlight the positives, & then offer little or nothing in return. That's one sure fire way of excluding members, deterring them from posting.

In many ways this forum's dead to me. I might just stick around long enough to delete the reps & thanks I've given in good faith.

Far too many agendas going on for my liking, debate is dead. I have no ego myself, but there sure are some big ones in play, some hidden.

Excuse my late night loony bin ramblings but if there was a way of creating a list of babes operating between certain timescales for the wider forum populous to nominate from that would be tremendously helpful in order to allow forgotten names of the past to re-enter the consciousness.

Maybe even introduce a category specifically for babes operating between a relatively early timescale period to allow for early years legends to take their acclaim.

I appreciate the construction of such a list may take time however.

My only concern here is my perception of the democracy element to things.
It is fine if others disagree with me as it always has been to my mind.
I have my principles and will steadfastly stick to them just as I would happily respect the right of others to do likewise.
I am not going to sit here and say I'm right about everything.
Heaven knows I have made that many stupid mistakes in my life I know I am in the wrong an awful lot. But I speak from the heart.

Sorry but I do.

^^ Yeh great idea snooks, lets make a list & in the interest of democracy make it open to the masses to nominate/vote, regardless of whether they have ever seen or heard of them. That would be the essence of stupidity, but it appears to be the direction we are heading towards.

I too have principles, your version of democracy is one-side, it's inclusive to members but exclusive to a percentage of babes. Both the babes & members deserve an equal & fair chance.

I view your initial post in this thread as overreactive. The parallels you drew with politics were off the mark & your thanking in this thread displays & siding with views that are anti me. I expect more from a member of your stature, so easy to take your bat home & not partake rather than trying to help to solve this in a constructive way. Your above post is too late to the party for me. You've already taken sides. Perhaps add me to your ignore list.

I would like to think that logic would prevail and only those who had seen the said babes would cast their selections from such a list but anyway....

I don't accept your characterisation of my views.
At no point have I ever said any babes should be denied a place in the HOF.
If you choose to see my views expressed in that manner that saddens me but I take it on the chin.
I am perfectly happy to see babes from any era inducted.
I just don't see why a small minority of people should dictate to the overwhelming majority of rest who the options should be.
And on the back of that I am not willing to vote on the back of a process I don't believe in.
That is my opinion and I'm entitled to it.
There is no agenda. Just an opinion albeit a strongly held one.

I am not going to get into an argument about overreaction.
That seems pointless to me.
I expressed an opinion. You disagree.
That's fine.
The thanking of posts uttering opinions in line with ones own is not uncommon and certainly not unique. It is in the nature of a forum to a large degree. To reduce this to an allegation of being anti anyone seems rather bizarre to my mind. There is surely always a reason for thanking or not thanking a post on the basis of perception about the point it makes.

The constructive solution point is one I cannot accept in general terms given my creation of the Competition formats thread where I have submitted detailed posts on competition formats.
https://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=79618
But anyway I digress.

With the utmost sincerity and certainty I can say I am most definitely not anti you. There are people on here I ignore.
You are not and never will be one of them.
Whatever your views of me in the light of this do not change my respect for you which remains very high.
So no you will not be going on my ignore list even if I resolutely stand by my views initially expressed.

I am deeply saddened that this one disagreement over one subject has ended up in this scenario. This is obviously a subject about which you feel very strongly and I respect that. It is nothing personal from my perspective however. It is purely a difference of opinion on one particular issue.
That is all.

29 members nominated in the initial stage of last years HOF, all members were eligible to vote in the 3 categories, it tells it's own story. not many give a toss. Ironically it amounts to nothing more than a large panel on randoms.. I'm one of the few who do. Plenty here who stick their ore in & don't partake, just happy to stir the shit.

It's time to walk away from this discussion.

I suggest we just let the Pioneer award run it's course and then we can look at the feedback.

I'm finding all this arguement draining and distracting from what should be a fun event.

Absolutely right, discussions become arguments when posts get taken out of context & comments twisted.

Oh ffs. You don't log in for a few days and all hell breaks loose

I started to read through all this and lost the will to live (a bit like scrolling down the voting post in the Forum Awards thread)

I gather it seems to be a done deal this year, so I'll read through it when I've more time and try to make sense of it.

Having read thought all this having been away for a couple of days I have mixed views on what has happened,
I honestly think the committee idea is the correct one , it's a idea I proposed last year as a way of making the HOF more legitimate in my eyes in having some of the most important girls in the history of the shows in it, I just think they have set the committee up in the wrong way,
The criteria used to select the committee is to random , you will have people in there that don't want to vote, people who were not watching the shows 20 years ago , people who only follow a small number of babes or one channel so don't have a wide knowledge of what different girls have done,
The way I would have done things would have been to create a committee thread were members could put there names forward , this could have as many people in it as want to be just needs to have some simple critical like we're you a watcher of the shows in there first five years,
Then us old timers could have had out heritage babe award and don't think anyone would have been upset by it as those who want to vote could have ,

^ I know what you mean SM. I had a very early night last night as a result of a very late night on Friday. Woke up this morning to find 2 of my most favourite people on the forum arguing and England shocking me by winning a T20 match.

I can see merits in both points of view & I don't doubt for one second the good intentions of the Mods to come up with a reasonable way of rightly recognising "Pioneers" (even though as a I have previously said I don't feel qualified to nominate any).

I kind of think that if Snooks & Boomer had discussed options over a couple of pints they'd have come up with a joint approach which some other silly buggar would have found a reason to argue with

I won't presume to ask Snooks and Boomer to kiss and make up but gentlemen "T'is the season to be jolly" and "goodwill to all men" so I hope peace and friendship will be swiftly restored.

Now highlights of the England T20 win are on Discovery+ so I'm off to gloat about how yet again a Yorkshireman restored Englands pride!