+- 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 - Skyline - 16-12-2023 15:35
Shiate!!! Going back before the forum the only two babes I can remember is Sophia Knight and Mica Martinez (though Mica misses out by 1 month) - I'll go with it but the competition is becoming a bit confusing imo, with lots of reasonable posts from the more respected forum members....I still stand by my choice of nominating Sophia Knight as my choice but yeah, perhaps all members should've been given a chance to vote - I mean I only started to properly interact once I saw Evelyn lol but I understand the concerns that have been raised by the more experienced members.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - SecretAgent - 16-12-2023 15:56
I admit I'm pretty single minded in my channel watching. Have never watched or was even aware of earlier channels so I just don't feel qualified to nominate. I had a quick look at the A-Z thread which is an excellent resource but its enormous & I don't know of a resource that breaks down the girls who would qualify as Pioneers.
If such a resource existed then I'd recognise some of the names but could only reasonably nominate someone who performed after December 2012 AND who'd I'd seen (whilst waiting for Danni Levy to appear
) As an example I think Tori Lee would qualify but then she has been much more current.I respect the idea about recognising earlier girls but as has been said the forum members who remember them is a diminishing number.
I'm selective about which other end of year awards votes I take part in because if I don't know the performers I don't vote.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Boomerangutangangbang - 16-12-2023 18:23
It is worth pointing out that generally & without exception, an authentic HOF is decided by a panel. So what we have here is already more democratic than the norm.
Does this make what we do better, I am yet to be convinced. A case of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Giving the masses the power to vote/nominate on something that are not fully equipped to make the best judgement on will more than likely result in an unsatisfactory outcome.
Democracy is overrated, look how well it has worked in electing our Prime Ministers.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - ShandyHand - 16-12-2023 20:18
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 14:38 )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.(IIRC, this is the second year we've had such a post about voting for these awards.)
It's always good to see new member or little posting members get involved.
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 15:21 )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.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Tumble_Drier - 16-12-2023 20:51
So, if this forum Star Chamber is to be made up of the previous year's awards winners, how would you address the problem of someone like me, who in spite of being around for a while does not possess the near Encyclopedic knowledge of babedom that others do and has practically no idea who any of the new faces in the last 5 or so years actually are? I seem to remember being nominated last year so it's not beyond the realms of possibility.....
I'm sure there will be 1 or 2 who are positively salivating over having "HOF Selection Panel Member" in their signature but it's not something i'd want to be part of.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Tumble_Drier - 16-12-2023 20:54
(16-12-2023 18:23 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: Democracy is overrated, look how well it has worked in electing our Prime Ministers.
We don't. They're selected by a relatively small group as leader of their respective party. They assume the role of PM when their party wins a majority....
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Doddle - 16-12-2023 20:59
Talking about authenticity or integrity seems a bit OTT when judging who's got the nicest criteria for inclusion.
Why not just cut to the bloody chase and induct the lot of them?
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Boomerangutangangbang - 16-12-2023 22:15
(16-12-2023 20:54 )Tumble_Drier Wrote:(16-12-2023 18:23 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: Democracy is overrated, look how well it has worked in electing our Prime Ministers.
We don't. They're selected by a relatively small group as leader of their respective party. They assume the role of PM when their party wins a majority....
You've just proved that selection by committee is a shit idea
It's a form of democracy, members of parliament are voted for by the public in local elections. The public vote in general elections, & still make poor choices.
Very good, that's one example of selection by committee not working well, that doesn't always have to be the case.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - Boomerangutangangbang - 16-12-2023 22:58
(16-12-2023 20:51 )Tumble_Drier Wrote: So, if this forum Star Chamber is to be made up of the previous year's awards winners, how would you address the problem of someone like me, who in spite of being around for a while does not possess the near Encyclopedic knowledge of babedom that others do and has practically no idea who any of the new faces in the last 5 or so years actually are? I seem to remember being nominated last year so it's not beyond the realms of possibility.....
I'm sure there will be 1 or 2 who are positively salivating over having "HOF Selection Panel Member" in their signature but it's not something i'd want to be part of.
Lol, When you say how would you address the problem of someone like yourself, who is you aimed at in your question ? I can only assume you're asking the forum team that decided to give forum award winners a nomination in the HOF.
Personally I've already stated that I would hand over the responsibility of inducting a Pioneer into the HOF to those best qualified, regardless of them being mods or regular forum members. Basically those who were around in the years in question with good knowledge of the babes in that era.
Ironic that I've voted for you on more than one occasion in the forum awards & again this year.
I don't claim to have all the answers, you make a good point, that we all have different degrees of babe knowledge, but excluding this year we all had the right to nominate & vote on babes from 5 years back & more regardless of whether we were watching the shows at that time, or were even born. Obviously most discerning people will nominate & vote on who they actually remembered, & not just blindly guess.
The whole point of the Pioneer category, was to pick up on forgotten babes. the method to achieve this needs a bit of ironing out.
RE: HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread - ryuken - 16-12-2023 23:40
This is my favourite award to vote in on the forum, and the adjustments to include day babes and pioneers was perfect.
Personally, I'm not a fan of a panel inducting pioneers (fka legends). I'd prefer it if that was still open to all forum members.
But I'll still participate in the voting process and congratulate whoever the panel decides to induct as this year's pioneer.
Maybe all award voting processes could be simplified to whoever gets the most nominations, wins. Just like the ones Eyres42 does.