+- 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 - 2015watcher - 10-01-2023 02:27
(03-01-2023 22:56 )The Silent Majority Wrote: It was a clumsy post but I don't think Lovebabes meant anything by it.
(03-01-2023 15:35 )ryuken Wrote: But Paige, Fernanda and Lilly aren't because they were born in South Africa, Brazil and Romania.
Paige was actually born in Zimbabwe, if we're being picky today.
ZimBABEwe probably more apt
Hall of Fame Discussion Thread - Charlemagne - 16-12-2023 09:51
We were looking at a way to acknowlege the winners of the Forum Awards and it's been mentioned in posts on this thread that we should use an established panel of members to vote for earlier Babeshow babes.
So this year for one category we are trialing a new way making nominations by only allowing last years Forum Awards winners to make their nominations, and afterwards the whole forum will vote for these nominations.
We wanted to make the category for babes who worked on the shows before the forum was created but made an allowance till the end of 2009. The name Pioneer came from one of the members on this thread.
All those who are eligable to nominate in this category have been messaged. For every win they get one nomination.
Other members can make suggestions on the Forum Winners nominations thread.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Snooks - 16-12-2023 12:37
Well I have to say that is one of the most appallingly undemocratic ideas I have ever come across.
To deny the monumentally large majority of forum members nominations is a nonsense. It feels just like a Tory leadership contest
.A nomination private members club telling the rest of the forum who they are allowed to vote for
.As a former forum award winner myself I would have been appalled to receive a pm inviting me to nominate on behalf of everyone else and would have declined such an opportunity as a matter of principle.
In effect regular forum members may well end up feeling like second class citizens by not having power to nominate. Further to this they may end up having cause to feel disenfranchised by virtue of having no preferred options to choose from at voting stage.
Furthermore I see no relevant connection between forum award winners and the ability to identify who should be a candidate for the Babes Hall of Fame.
I for one shall not be voting at voting stage.
It is a matter of principle for me as this system is fundamentally undemocratic and grossly unfair on the unprivileged majority.
I should make it clear btw this is no reflection on the people who are eligible to nominate. They are folk I have the highest respect for and hold in very high esteem. It is the principle I have a problem with NOT the people eligible to cast nominations.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Charlemagne - 16-12-2023 12:52
^ It's a one year trail.
The Nomination, knockout voting way was just one way of getting into the Hall of Fame.
Requests have been made in the past to have a panel, and nominate some of the earlier babes. So to show that we listen to members we are trying it out. And it was good to use the Forum Award winners because it's a excellent was to acknowledge them.
And it's often good to refresh the way we do things.
The old way isn't without flaws. The knockout voting doesn't always mean the the best girl wins.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Snooks - 16-12-2023 12:58
^ I take the points you make even if I vehemently still disagree with what I perceive to be a grossly undemocratic way of running it.
And I don't agree that forum award winners are the right people to make these decisions on the basis that it still constitutes a minority of people deciding the voting options.
But it is what it is.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Goodfella3041 - 16-12-2023 13:17
Not against the principle of a panel.
This debate springs up like clockwork every year, so it makes sense to try new things. Mince pies, Xmas parties, and babeshow Hall of Fame debates … tis the season!
My first thought, however, is around the maths of it all.
The biggest issue with looking back, I find, is not about taste or preferences for this babe or that one, but just plain memory. Every year the HOF nominations process throws up names that I had completely forgotten.
There have been hundreds and hundreds of girls on the shows. No one can remember them all. The individual’s memory is limited, but the collective memory of the Forum is pretty infallible.
Will a panel of only 10 previous winners have that same infallible memory?
I’d say, stick with the panel idea, but maybe include all of last year’s nominees, and maybe throw in all the Mods too. It remains true to the idea of recognising the contribution of valued Forum members, but makes it a slightly larger sample.
Just a thought.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Charlemagne - 16-12-2023 13:20
From what I'm seeing already there are babes nominated who should have already been concidered for induction into the Hall of Fame in previous years.
At the end of the awards I'll pass it back to the membership for feedback. If it's a success then it could run again, if not then we'll cut it.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - SecretAgent - 16-12-2023 13:40
I think this is an interesting idea/experiment but from a personal point of view as someone eligible to provide a nomination I won't be doing so. I joined the Forum in December 2012 and my "misspent youth" did not exist before that date. I therefore have no knowledge of girls on shows from the previous decade unless they continued post December 2012 in which case I'd have had the ability to propose them for earlier HoF votes
Good look to all concerned
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Charlemagne - 16-12-2023 14:16
^ That's a shame.
There were about 100 babes who started before 2009 and were still on the Babeshows in 2012. There's still about 20 babes on the Babeshows at present who meet the criteria.
And a lot of the existing babes should be concidered even if just for longevity.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Boomerangutangangbang - 16-12-2023 15:21
Ok, so I'm take some personal responsibility, as someone who has been highly critical of the omission of many past stars from the HOF.
From my point of view, it dilutes the value & esteem of the HOF by the absence of babes that were of equal class at least to those already inducted.
It would be easy to not try to find a solution & just crack on & ignore the pioneers as we are calling them. I praise those involved to try & right the wrongs as I see it.
I would trust a panel of mods & with help from members who pre-date the forum to come up with a decent list of pioneers. To a certain degree, in order to get worthy HOF Pioneers inducted, the process involved will have to exclude those members who didn't see the babes from that era.
The important point here is that this is just 1/3 of the HOF nomination process, the bulk of the forum can nominate & vote on the other 2/3's.
This is all about getting the best qualified people to come up with the best babes.
I'm bored of saying this after 3 years but the big flaw to the current system is that so many babes get nominated that are on or around the 5 year qualification threshold, the further back you go the numbers decrease. The babes that are at the forefront of our memories have an unfair advantage imho.
I don't have any numbers to back up my view, but the members who are still active on this forum, lets say 2 or 3 years either side of it's birth, have decreased & I expect are outnumbered by active members after these years.
Under the current format & I'll use a football analogy, Messi would be in, but no Pele, Maradona, Cruyff, Beckenbauer & Best.
I'd be happy to see a percentage of members excluded from nominations & voting if the outcome was that the HOF inductees had some proper balance, because as it stands it is way out of kilter.
The trade off is do you exclude some forum members, or continue to ignore/exclude Pioneer babes. The fact is your only excluding members who don't have the full knowledge to make a decision on one specific, but important aspect of the HOF.
There will be former babes, who if they looked at the current HOF list of inductees, would be in shocked & in disbelief regarding the glaring omissions of many of their peers.
The integrity of the HOF is at stake, imho, as it stands, I will have to seriously consider my involvement going forward if the landscape doesn't improve..