Discussion Hall of Fame

[boncer34]

Because it's a huge waste of time if Any Bear, for example, has already been nominated to a suitable level.

Disagree. If you want to nominate someone you should be ok with taking the 10 minutes it takes to type up a nomination.

If you feel doing that is a waste of time, do you really want them in the HoF? Really, wanting to piggy back on someone else's nomination reads to me that you just want the nomination to be a petition. Happy to put your name to it but not to do anything about it.

 

[Harvey Manfrenjensenden]

Because it's a huge waste of time if Any Bear, for example, has already been nominated to a suitable level.

Wouldn't more people nominating a person present a more compelling case for those voting? You don't sound like you want ANtbear to get in, just a suitable nomination is enough?

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Because it's a huge waste of time if Any Bear, for example, has already been nominated to a suitable level.

BRAB

 

[manangatang]

The Admin is not the League.

The admin is responsible for administering the league and all its functions, yes.

 

[boncer34]

The admin is responsible for administering the league and all its functions, yes.

Which he has done by delegating this to me?

 

[manangatang]

Shouldn't you be doing SOMETHING though? Stop piling work on KP and get your hands dirty for once.

You really must see to getting your underwear unwrinkled. It's causing you to post irrationally.

 

[manangatang]

Which he has done by delegating this to me?

Is that a question?

 

[boncer34]

Is that a question?

Maybe?

 

[boncer34]

Headless as I said mate. Happy to do it, doesn't bother me which way we go, I'm not gatekeeping this, my intention is for the process to be open to all.

Just seems a lazy way for people to participate to me.

 

[Headless]

Disagree. If you want to nominate someone you should be ok with taking the 10 minutes it takes to type up a nomination.

If you feel doing that is a waste of time, do you really want them in the HoF? Really, wanting to piggy back on someone else's nomination reads to me that you just want the nomination to be a petition. Happy to put your name to it but not to do anything about it.

Wouldn't more people nominating a person present a more compelling case for those voting? You don't sound like you want ANtbear to get in, just a suitable nomination is enough?

This isn't my understanding of the process, though to be fair it's unsurprising that confusion exists.

Surely those voting are voting because they have been deemed to be capable of making a judgement call based on a) the nomination, and b) their understanding of the league. The nomination itself should be sound and comprehensive. It shouldn't matter if one or five or ten regular members have also put their name to it - the actual details of the nomination, which is then presented to the committee, is what counts.

And as it stands, there's no way of seeing how comprehensive those nominations are.

 

[Headless]

Headless as I said mate. Happy to do it, doesn't bother me which way we go, I'm not gatekeeping this, my intention is for the process to be open to all.

Just seems a lazy way for people to participate to me.

How is it lazy? I've presented detailed nominations in the past, and will do again if necessary.

But it's impossible to tell if it's necessary.

 

[boncer34]

How is it lazy? I've presented detailed nominations in the past, and will do again if necessary.

But it's impossible to tell if it's necessary.

Its lazy because you're putting zero effort in, a quick read and "yep good enough" is pretty lazy, if you want someone in then put some effort in. I know if I was nominating someone I'd be prepared to write a nomination myself, I wouldn't piggy back off someone else.

I would argue no nomination is unnecessary though. That's where we differ. But I'm not clogging the thread up with this, happy to post all nominations once they close. I won't be accepting new nominations after this but I will accept additions to current nominations.

 

[Headless]

Its lazy because you're putting zero effort in, a quick read and "yep good enough" is pretty lazy, if you want someone in then put some effort in. I know if I was nominating someone I'd be prepared to write a nomination myself, I wouldn't piggy back off someone else.

I would argue no nomination is unnecessary though. That's where we differ. But I'm not clogging the thread up with this, happy to post all nominations once they close. I won't be accepting new nominations after this but I will accept additions to current nominations.

I am prepared to write a nomination, boncer34, as I have done in the past. That's the whole point - I want to see if doing that is necessary, or if I'm wasting my time because my points have already been made.

To call that lazy is misguided.

 

[boncer34]

Its lazy because you're putting zero effort in, a quick read and "yep good enough" is pretty lazy, if you want someone in then put some effort in. I know if I was nominating someone I'd be prepared to write a nomination myself, I wouldn't piggy back off someone else.

I would argue no nomination is unnecessary though. That's where we differ. But I'm not clogging the thread up with this, happy to post all nominations once they close. I won't be accepting new nominations after this but I will accept additions to current nominations.

 

[sante]

Has anyone nominated me yet?

 

[Headless]

What's the point of duplicate nominations?

If the committee is basing their approval or rejection on a public vote, what's the point of the committee?

 

[boncer34]

You've gone off on a tangent and now are arguing points never raised by anyone. Cheers for the discussion, I've given you what you want. Move on.

 

[Barrybran]

I think for public interests sake the nominations should be published in full however I'm fairly confident the Hall of Fame nomination process (still) doesn't go through the committee (and really shouldn't IMO though all clubs should have representation as they have done in the past) so publishing them for the committee's sake is redundant.

 

[Headless]

I think for public interests sake the nominations should be published in full however I'm fairly confident the Hall of Fame nomination process (still) doesn't go through the committee (and really shouldn't IMO though all clubs should have representation as they have done in the past) so publishing them for the committee's sake is redundant.

Are you referring to the general committee, or the ten person opt-in Hall of Fame committee?

 

[Barrybran]

Are you referring to the general committee, or the ten person opt-in Hall of Fame committee?

I'm referring to the general committee. What is the 10-person opt-in HOF committee? There are certainly more than 10 people in the HOF.

 

[Headless]

I'm referring to the general committee. What is the 10-person opt-in HOF committee? There are certainly more than 10 people in the HOF.

See OP. When I refer to "the committee" in this thread, I refer to the HOF opt-in committee specifically.

 

[Barrybran]

See OP. When I refer to "the committee" in this thread, I refer to the HOF opt-in committee specifically.

Right

 

[HaroLad]

Now THAT is the best CV I've come across here.

Same

 

[boncer34]

Right

I've expanded on it Baz. This discussion happened as I was editing it.

 

[Barrybran]

I've expanded on it Baz. This discussion happened as I was editing it.

All good