View Single Post
11-09-2010, 12:15 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,941
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I like all these with one huge concern about the proposed voting practice. If you make voting an open process (allowing any poster to vote or not), it might be really hard to reach a 90% threshold, considering there may be posters who are biased against certain eras, are biased against non-NHL accomplishments, or posters who simply think the Hall of Fame should have about 20 names in it and not more.

It might sound arrogant, but realistically, if you want the project to be "credible" to outsiders, you need some kind of screening process for participants (the Top 100 list had such a process automatically built in by requiring participants to first submit a Top 120 list of their own and rejecting the few lists that neglected a certain era or class of player).
Suggestions for screening, if it is decided to go with a more open process instead of a selected group:

1. Make an up-front statement of purpose that all participants must agree to. For example, if it is decided that the Hall will cover a certain time period, than all participants must consider accomplishments from that time period, and really should support at least some players from that time period. Even if they think they have a legitimate and principled argument that players from that time period are not as good as modern players, the project is honoring players from that time period and they must be considered.

2. Ballots should be public. All voters should post a brief statement with their yes/no on the ballot, indicating why they are voting for or against the candidate. This would show that participants have done at least some research and have some knowledge about the candidate. It would also allow participants to engage with one another on their ballots.

3. If the project structure allows for first-time voters to join after it has started, maybe a rule could be put in place for them to post a preliminary ballot in advance of the deadline, so the group can be satisfied that they are sufficiently informed and on board with the spirit of the project.

4. There should be a small screening committee that can challenge and disallow ballots if they appear to be poorly informed or against the spirit of the project. Although care should be taken that this is only used for the right reasons, not to threaten or chase away legitimate differences of opinion.

Other thoughts - I like the idea of going chronologically. I think it would enhance the journey, in the sense of going through history. It also adds a major level of difficulty to compare players across eras - the game has changed, and the amount and sources of information available has also changed.

Also, regarding the ballot - instead of a simple yes/no options, another idea would be a yes/no/maybe later option. A sufficient number of Yes votes would select a player, a sufficient number of No votes would drop a player from the ballot. Maybe later would be for those voters who are basically saying "I don't see it yet, but you might be able to convince me."

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote