+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: UK Babe Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Hall Of Fame (/forumdisplay.php?fid=359)
+---- Thread: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread (/showthread.php?tid=80446)
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Goodfella3041 - 03-01-2022 19:02
Excellent format that produced a right result, IMO.
Fernanda was never my cup of tea, but her popularity in this Forum was unquestionable, so it was always just a matter of time. I’m pleased for her and her fans.
Dionne has a lot to answer for. One of the first girls that I was ever moved to call and certainly the first girl that I called on a regular basis. If it was a single entry this year, she would have got my nomination and my vote.
I run hot and cold with Ashley. One of the most stunningly beautiful inductees for sure, but I never found her that engaging on the phones. Then again, I reckon Snooks could take me in a fight, so I voted for her just to be safe.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Boomerangutangangbang - 03-01-2022 19:30
I've recounted the nomination votes, in an attempt to establish what outcome we would've had without the head to head group knockout stages. I've made no secret of the fact that I'm not a fan of head to head knock outs, despite best efforts to seed ties in a fair manner, it almost always kicks out babes prematurely, who've gained more votes than others at the nomination stage, giving babes with less votes the chance to progress further into the comp, & with a potential chance to win.
What actually happened this time was that the 3 babes with the most votes at the nomination stage, were the same 3 babes that were eventually inducted.
On average, roughly 40 members voted at each stage, the majority of which voted in every round. You can assume that as your nominated babes progress through to the next stage, you will continue to vote for them, if 2 of your picks come head to head then you may have a tricky choice to make.
The nomination round had the most members voting, the final had the least. Is this an indication that some members didn't bother to vote in the final, due to their picks being eliminated ?
What do I mean by an unfair draw ? In the round of 4, Leigh Darby wasn't among the 12 babes, despite being equal 4th in terms of votes after the nomination stage. Sophie Lares also failed to make the round of 4, after being ranked equal 10th after the nomination stage. Holly James got through to the round of 4, with 15 babes receiving more votes after the nomination stage.
Putting more meat on the bone, as to why Leigh Darby ranked =4th, didn't progress beyond the Round of 8, & Holly James ranked =16th made in to the round of 4. Holly only gained 3 nomination votes to Leigh 6, however all 3 of Holly's nominators, voted in the round of 8, Leigh had 2 nominators who failed to register a vote for her in the round of 8. Holly beat Leigh by just 2 votes. The 2 voters that failed to re-vote for Leigh prevented what could've been a tie. In this event under the rules, Holly would've still progressed by virtue of receiving the first vote in the round.
Maybe a more suitable tie-breaker would be a countback of votes, from the nomination stage, which would've put Leigh through.
This years voting has allayed my fears somewhat over the many wonderful veteran babes, yet to be inducted, being constantly overlooked in favour of babes that have qualified more recently for nomination, & therefore at the forefront of many peoples minds, more importantly more potential new members to nominate them.
I still think this situation needs to be monitored, to protect the integrity of the HOF, & ensure that the past stars take there deserved place, sooner, rather than later.
The other, elephant in the room, is the domination of the Nightshow babes. We now have 10 nominees. Did Paige Tyler, or Fernanda Ferrari get in my virtue of their Dayshow performances ?
Without intervention, will we ever see a Daybabe in the HOF ?
My conclusion is that the knockout stage serves little if any purpose, other than to drag it out, over complicate & create controversy.
The members had already found the top 3 babes at the nomination stage, & they were all comfortably ahead of the babes tied for 4th place.
Sometimes simple is best.
Thanks to Charle for all your work, even if some of it could've been avoided imho. Hindsight, & all that.
& thanks to Lovebabes56 for your efforts. The HOF is a tough gig.
Hope this post will be helpful.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Goodfella3041 - 03-01-2022 20:00
Respect for doing the maths, mate! — I’m down with OCD (…with apologies to OPP)
There is one argument for a two stage competition though — irrespective of format.
We don’t all have instant recall or encyclopaedic memory of all the babes we’ve seen or called over the years. I always have “oh yeah” moments in the nomination thread — as in, “oh yeah, I remember her! Good shout.”
So there are some girls who will get my enthusiastic vote in a second round that I never would have thought to even nominate in a first round. Funnily enough, Holly James was one of those “oh yeah” girls for me this year.
I don’t think any one member’s memory is good enough to remember all the girls that have graced the channels over the years. But the collective memory of 40(ish) members must be pretty reliable.
I will leave it to the wisdom of others to determine whether later stages should be head-to-head knockouts, in whatever groupings, seeded in whichever way. But I definitely think there is value in multiple stages rather than a straight vote in a single round — if only to account for the “oh yeah” factor.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Charlemagne - 03-01-2022 20:10
^ Thank you for the feedback Boomer. Spreadsheets come into their own when working out who had what nomination.
Lovebabes couldn't front these awards but he's back on the forum in the next couple of days.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Boomerangutangangbang - 03-01-2022 21:18
Might I suggest an alternative to head to head knockout rounds. What if you opened up the nominations for a given time, say 10 days, & then have a rolling vote, were the top 32 or 24 babes are revealed at a set point, allowing others to continue voting, for a shorter period, before the top 12 or 8 are left to be voted on by anyone who still hasn't voted, before finally announcing the inductees.
I would also allow some flexibility around how many nominees are inducted. For instance, with what I would consider an average voting turn-out of less than 50 members, then 3 inductees would be about right. But what if in excess of 100 members voted, maybe 5 would be more appropriate, providing each of the 5 gained a decent amount of votes.
Wouldn't this possibility encourage more members to vote ? Imagine the opposite, with only 30 members voting, 3 inductees seems almost to many in that instance.
I could always road-test this format by maybe trying to run a Legs, or even Feet of the Year comp, I feel these body-parts have been overlooked.
Not sure that these would deliver a large enough sample-size to prove my point, or if Admin would welcome the pool of annual comps to expand beyond it's current saturation-point. Think I'm putting in a good case to be the next Cunt of the Year.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Charlemagne - 03-01-2022 21:32
Please no more body part competitions
I take in your flexible number of inductees idea.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Snooks - 03-01-2022 21:38
Eyebrows of the year.
Ear lobes of the year.
Armpits of the year?
Toenails of the year?
Knees of the year?
Nose of the year?
Tongue of the year?
I'll get my coat
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Boomerangutangangbang - 03-01-2022 21:47
(03-01-2022 21:38 )Snooks Wrote: Eyebrows of the year.
Ear lobes of the year.
Armpits of the year?
Toenails of the year?
Knees of the year?
Nose of the year?
Tongue of the year?
I'll get my coat
Don't even ask me why I know this, but yeh not my thing whatsoever, I do tend to remember random stuff.
Anyway Axillism is an act were you basically fuck armpits. I have literally no clue as to how anyone got to this point.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - winsaw - 03-01-2022 22:19
I think this year has been a good result 3 deserving babes have made it in I think ,
I think it was a much improved format this year over previous years it made for a more interesting contest I think and produced a good result,
I would hope this seeded knockout format continues going forward , I think others have already talked about the strange bs awards this year where not focusing people on a short list of names produced some surprising results,
If I was to make one change it would be to make to 3 places more clearly defined,
Group 1 for the night girls in the 5-10 year on shows
Group 2 for the night girls over 10 years ago on the shows
Group 3 for day girls more that 5 years on the shows , ( so many less people watching the day show think it's the only way some will ever get in )
Well run content Charlie
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Boomerangutangangbang - 03-01-2022 22:23
(03-01-2022 20:00 )Goodfella3041 Wrote: Respect for doing the maths, mate! — I’m down with OCD (…with apologies to OPP)
There is one argument for a two stage competition though — irrespective of format.
We don’t all have instant recall or encyclopaedic memory of all the babes we’ve seen or called over the years. I always have “oh yeah” moments in the nomination thread — as in, “oh yeah, I remember her! Good shout.”
So there are some girls who will get my enthusiastic vote in a second round that I never would have thought to even nominate in a first round. Funnily enough, Holly James was one of those “oh yeah” girls for me this year.
I don’t think any one member’s memory is good enough to remember all the girls that have graced the channels over the years. But the collective memory of 40(ish) members must be pretty reliable.
I will leave it to the wisdom of others to determine whether later stages should be head-to-head knockouts, in whatever groupings, seeded in whichever way. But I definitely think there is value in multiple stages rather than a straight vote in a single round — if only to account for the “oh yeah” factor.
Brilliant point, I looked at my previous years nominations, & added 2 new choices, as Caty Cole was one of my picks.
But knowing full well that there must be someone that I'd overlooked.
We've all accidentally forgotten to vote for a babe. Take Rammy for example, he made a quite extensive post in the A-Z thread on Kelly Bell, I was relying on him for a nomination,
to get my No.1 through, but for some reason Kelly didn't make Rammy's top 6, but she squeezed through to the next round which Rammy then failed to vote in, & she narrowly missed out to Lucy Summers. I've got her number, I should really have a word,
I've made it my mission, she still owns me, it's a permanent situation, 
I wont rest until Kelly gets inducted into the HOF