2016 HOF Voting Thread (3 Viewers)

[Poker Zombie]

You guys did a great job with descriptions, pics etc..., and I don't envy you your task .

Just one thought, if I may. Would it be worth considering letting the owner of the nominated/considered sets write their own public blurb as well (how it originated, why it is 'worthy', etc...), and the committee member then adding their own 2c to the bottom section as to why it is considered/nominated. Sorry if this was already done/considered and I missed it, as I have not read all threads/posts avidly regarding the HOF. I was flattered to see Blades in the list, but with so much amazing work, it would have been a long bow to draw .

Cheers,

I actually had Puggy and bivey explain their sets. I then paraphrased and edited it down to the required 300 words. It's pretty much how I wrote papers in High School and college as well.

Odd really, when you consider I'm often praised for my writing talents...

 

[bergs]

I think it's a bit of an unfair advantage for chip owners to weigh in before we nominate sets for voting - because not every owner / creator can or would participate.

I do like the idea of the creator providing their write up if their set is chosen.

The committee really just put the descriptions together for the nominated sets this year to help some people understand where the sets that were nominated came from - it's particularly important for some of the older sets where the creator is no longer active here or on CT.

 

[Phantom]

I actually had Puggy and bivey explain their sets. I then paraphrased and edited it down to the required 300 words. It's pretty much how I wrote papers in High School and college as well.

Odd really, when you consider I'm often praised for my writing talents...

Haha, everyone wrote really well mate . My comment was that an additonal blurb from the owner might be cool . Not instead of .

Keep up the great writing

 

[Phantom]

I do like the idea of the creator providing their write up if their set is chosen.

^^^ this is my suggestion exactly. 'If' chosen

 

[bergs]

While I don't necessarily agree with it, but should future sets perhaps be a certain age to get nominated? I personally feel more recent sets will always get more votes than older sets as the excitement over the sets is still relatively fresh. Reading the write ups I completely agree a set like JMs should probably make the cut, but isn't going to get the appreciation it deserves when sets with new colors and spots is its competition.

I think the committee tried to only nominate recent sets that had a consensus that they were truly remarkably outstanding (example - Colony Club). I think the "of a certain age" thing will largely take care of itself via the nomination process.

As a CT member since 2008, I was also happy to see some of the older sets get nominated. Without these advancements that these older sets reflected (new edgespots, colors, etc) manufacturers may not have the rich array of options that they have available today. Some recent sets have furthered that trend as well and I hope they get consideration in future years for the same reasons.

 

[Poker Zombie]

There was a suggestion to have a separate thread for each set nominated, and the owner (and others) could make comments without bogging down the voting thread, but it was determined to be too clunky if everyone voting had 14 different links to click through, and as Bergs mentioned, it would hamstring inactive members.

It's a fine line, especially in the early years of the HoF. Year 1 had 21 nominees. Year 2 has 14. I suspect in future years this number will continue to drop, and we can reevaluate what can/should be included then.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I think the committee tried to only nominate recent sets that had a consensus that they were truly remarkably outstanding (example - Colony Club). I think the "of a certain age" thing will largely take care of itself via the nomination process.

As a CT member since 2008, I was also happy to see some of the older sets get nominated. Without these advancements that these older sets reflected (new edgespots, colors, etc) manufacturers may not have the rich array of options that they have available today. Some recent sets have furthered that trend as well and I hope they get consideration in future years for the same reasons.

Conversely, there are a crapload of colors/edgespots available in the old sets that are impossible to get today which gives the older sets so much wow factor. What I wouldn't give for half-moons or the bright colors of TRK/BCC.

 

[atomiktoaster]

C U Next Tuesday
Contreras Landa
Colony Club
The Boulevard

These sets got my vote. It was a hard decision between the FDL-mold sets. They are all great.
It reminded me also how much I miss BCC. Those two sets are stunning.

Very close to my list. C U Next Tuesday was my first one out (Iron Bank made it in instead).

 

[Mr. Cheese]

Put my votes in! Some amazing sets! I'm kind of bummed Via Lactea wasn't in as I love Ben's set!

 

[bergs]

Conversely, there are a crapload of colors/edgespots available in the old sets that are impossible to get today which gives the older sets so much wow factor. What I wouldn't give for half-moons or the bright colors of TRK/BCC.

My biggest custom chip regret is not rolling the dice one-time with BCC. Their color options were amazing.

 

[Toby]

My biggest custom chip regret is not rolling the dice one-time with BCC. Their color options were amazing.

Me too. I bottled it. Wish I had ordered a set...

 

[Poker Zombie]

It's my understanding that their quality was iffy at best though. I'll take excellent chips from CPC over excellent colors at these prices.

 

[bergs]

It's my understanding that their quality was iffy at best though. I'll take excellent chips from CPC over excellent colors at these prices.

It was hit or miss and you had to pay for everything up front. Look at Abby's Lady Luck set as an example of where BCC knocked it out of the park. They weren't consistent though. There were some great designs ruined by BCC's execution, but to hold that against any BCC sets nominated now or in the future would be a travesty, as they really are the cream of the crop.

 

[jbutler]

Finally voted. No reveals but it was tough...

 

[kirchhausen]

As someone relatively new to this hobby, I really enjoy these threads as I've seen many chips sets that are new to me that probably most of you have seen before.

The one that stands out in my mind is the Steel City set. The colors and edge spots in that set are phenomenal IMO.

As a neutral (I don't own any customs myself) I would echo a few peoples sentiments about the new sets. while the ones nominated are obviously great sets, I go think it would be a good idea to let the sets marinate for at least a full year before they are eligible. Should be long enough for the newness factor to wear off. Just my 2c.

 

[MaxB]

The Old Orchard ....... if I could only vote for one, that would be the winner. That $20 color scheme is amazing (y) :thumbsup:

Suicide Queen and Colony Club are the runners up. Not sure on the 4th yet

 

[jbutler]

Just wanted to bump this to keep it in folks' minds if they've not yet gotten their votes in. Many beautiful sets here, but only 4 can make it, so make sure your voice is heard.

Thanks for everyone who has voted already!

 

[derekdd23]

Just wanted to bump this to keep it in folks' minds if they've not yet gotten their votes in. Many beautiful sets here, but only 4 can make it, so make sure your voice is heard.

Thanks for everyone who has voted already!

Instead of saying there will be 4 sets no matter the voting. I think it might be interesting to only take sets with a certain percentage of the vote.
This way only the best of the best can be in the hall of fame. Maybe we leave this as is in order to get an idea of what percentage seems to be fair for the next.

 

[Mr Tree]

Instead of saying there will be 4 sets no matter the voting. I think it might be interesting to only take sets with a certain percentage of the vote.
This way only the best of the best can be in the hall of fame. Maybe we leave this as is in order to get an idea of what percentage seems to be fair for the next.

No reason to do this. Frankly there are about five sets vying for fourth that I feel all could belong in. Excluding all of them because they sucked up each other's votes makes no sense.

 

[Lucky Dog]

Very happy to see Toad's Silver Dust set on the ballet. All of these sets are truly amazing! I also believe that sets need to stand the test of time and should not be considered for HOF in their first year.

 

[bergs]

I don't think it makes a difference with Colony Club, but I'm coming around to this as well.

 

[BGinGA]

Instead of saying there will be 4 sets no matter the voting. I think it might be interesting to only take sets with a certain percentage of the vote.
This way only the best of the best can be in the hall of fame. Maybe we leave this as is in order to get an idea of what percentage seems to be fair for the next.

I suggested this as a possible approach last year, and was promptly chastised. Still think it's a good idea.

To me, it doesn't make much sense to vote a set into the elite club when it doesn't even garner 1/3 of the voters approval. 33% seems like a good cut-off, and would really establish the exclusivity of the HOF. Deserving sets will always make it in, even if not on the first ballot attempt. No rush to fill up the empty hall.

 

[abby99]

As a neutral (I don't own any customs myself) I would echo a few peoples sentiments about the new sets. while the ones nominated are obviously great sets, I go think it would be a good idea to let the sets marinate for at least a full year before they are eligible. Should be long enough for the newness factor to wear off. Just my 2c.

I also believe that sets need to stand the test of time and should not be considered for HOF in their first year.

I don't think it makes a difference with Colony Club, but I'm coming around to this as well.

FWIW, the HOFs that I'm familiar with all have a time-related eligibility requirement (e.g., NFL, NBA, Hockey, Poker, Rock & Roll) -- their inductees have all stood the test of time. The passage of time does give us perspective, and a waiting period of one or even two years seems reasonable to me. Including a waiting period seems vaguely familiar, so it may have been considered, discussed, and eventually rejected.

As much as I enjoyed reading the backstories of the nominees, I thought that including information about the historical significance of some of the classic or pioneering sets was brilliant. The development of our hobby over the past 10 years has been quite remarkable.

I'd like to acknowledge the enormous amount of effort on the part of the nominating committee members. This is a challenging endeavor, to be sure, and you all did an outstanding job. Thank you!!!

 

[Mr Tree]

I suggested this as a possible approach last year, and was promptly chastised. Still think it's a good idea.

To me, it doesn't make much sense to vote a set into the elite club when it doesn't even garner 1/3 of the voters approval. 33% seems like a good cut-off, and would really establish the exclusivity of the HOF. Deserving sets will always make it in, even if not on the first ballot attempt. No rush to fill up the empty hall.

If you change the parameters you will also change how the voters vote. If we did that do we give more votes, the same, one? If you give more you definitely aren't restricting HOF entries. You are greatly increasing it. If you keep it the same I would argue you will increase the number of sets going through as well. People will change how they vote when they understand the parameters. You will lose a lot of the votes for sets that are obviously lagging and have people stuffing their votes into on the cusp sets if they like them. Ultimately I think you will end up putting MORE sets through not less. If you restrict it to one vote you will end up with one set going through every year when threat years Colony Club takes it in a landslide.

Ultimately changing it to a percentage does more harm than good unless we keep the votes hidden which takes out a big part of the fun of the process.

 

[Mr Tree]

FWIW, the HOFs that I'm familiar with all have a time-related eligibility requirement (e.g., NFL, NBA, Hockey, Poker, Rock & Roll) -- their inductees have all stood the test of time. The passage of time does give us perspective, and a waiting period of one or even two years seems reasonable to me. Including a waiting period seems vaguely familiar, so it may have been considered, discussed, and eventually rejected.

As much as I enjoyed reading the backstories of the nominees, I thought that including information about the historical significance of some of the classic or pioneering sets was brilliant. The development of our hobby over the past 10 years has been quite remarkable.

I'd like to acknowledge the enormous amount of effort on the part of the nominating committee members. This is a challenging endeavor, to be sure, and you all did an outstanding job. Thank you!!!

I feel like I'm coming around a little on this as well. I'm watching The Boulevard, Colony Club, and Suicide Queens kill it. While Suicide Queens isn't new it's recent appearance when Meatboy sold it to K9DR is fresh in everyone's minds. These sets are all phenomenal but I can't help but feel if Contreras Landas or C U Next Tuesday had been produced this year they would have similar numbers.

 

[stocky]

I feel like I'm coming around a little on this as well. I'm watching The Boulevard, Colony Club, and Suicide Queens kill it. While Suicide Queens isn't new it's recent appearance when Meatboy sold it to K9DR is fresh in everyone's minds. These sets are all phenomenal but I can't help but feel if Contreras Landas or C U Next Tuesday had been produced this year they would have similar numbers.

This was my way of thinking also. And with future sets also pushing the envelope I think it will be a while before older sets without fresh pRon will make it in.

 

[stocky]

Also is it out of the question to have committee members vote say 1 or 2 sets in without public voting if they see fit to include it? While JMs may not be the most out there set it was at the time. But unfortunately I doubt we will see it voted in. Imagine if we had those limitations now.

 

[stocky]

One last thing. You guys have/are doing a fantastic job. Don't want to seem like I'm criticizing what you're doing, just throwing out ideas as they come to me.

 

[Mr Tree]

Also is it out of the question to have committee members vote say 1 or 2 sets in without public voting if they see fit to include it? While JMs may not be the most out there set it was at the time. But unfortunately I doubt we will see it voted in. Imagine if we had those limitations now.

This actually was discussed at length and involving this very set.

Both in the first year and this last we have had discussion on what we coined "legacy sets". A legacy set is a founding father set of sorts. It would have to be seminal in nature and something that modern sets draw from. The idea was these are sets which are handicapped vs modern sets in terms of colors, edge spots, etc. available.

In the first year we talked about this definition but had a hard time coming up with a set that definitively matched it. This year we felt that Casino Antarctica absolutely fell under this umbrella.

Ultimately the committee decided that any set making the HOF needed to pass through the community. We just didn't feel good about putting a set straight through without having it go to vote. That probably means Casino Antarctica will never have a chance as it just doesn't have the guns to compete with a Colony Club unless people also take historical context into account. But we didn't want to co opt this from the community having their chance to have a voice in the matter.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I also agree that there should be a "cooling-off" period for new sets. While it may not be relevant this year, there could be new colors or even edgespots in future years that make us all swoon when we first see them. Then, after the 20th set with the "new" feature rolls off the line, the "wow" factor wears off and we are left with a nice, but not necessarily a HoF set.

Yes, it would mean sets like Colony Club would have to wait for their first year of eligibility. Big whoop. Look how long Puggy had to wait for the chips to arrive on his doorstep. I'm sure it wouldn't break his heart to wait a year to slip the gold jacket onto his chips.