HOF?

[Gregoshi]

It's kind of fun exercise to consider nominations and then finally voting. It is often a very difficult decision (at least for me) to vote for just one person in a category. The one year we skipped it, the HOF was really missed. Thus it returned due to popular demand.

[Bijo]

Indeed - add to that the fact that such an approach would naturally be no less subjective than the nomination/voting process that we used in the past years as all the criteria listed are not measurable but are subject to an individual's perception.

It might be true that it would take effort, but are you not already doing so more or less? You visit the forum and notice members and their posts, especially moderators and assistant moderators go through posts to make sure things are okay. What this solution would add is merely the exclusion of subjectivity and the inclusion of objectivity. It is not so difficult to ascertain what is right and what is wrong, what is 1 and what is 0, what is good and what is bad, what is on and what is off. A simple example would be a member who posts something offensive like "I hate you, you goddamn son of a *****!" It is easy to decide that that has a negative value. I don't really see the problem if it's about subjectivity and objectivity: it's a matter of knowing the difference between what is positive and what is negative and to act accordingly.

What this solution means is to just go on about business as usual, but pay more attention, be more objective, and maintain the data which can probably be done in simple efficient ways.

[Caius]

We can't discuss with you Bijo because you are Stoic and we are not. We think this HOF should be subjective because its our way to see who is helpful and who is not. You won't give the ok to this statement, but its the way its done. End of the question.

Over.

[KukriKhan]

...and maintain the data which can probably be done in simple efficient ways.

I'm not certain if that's possible with our software. If I understand Bijo's proposal correctly, he suggests a rating system for individual posts (I guess a 5 point scale:
-2 Very Unhelpful
-1 Unhelpful
0 Neutral
+1 Helpful
+2 Very Helpful)

I presume he'd allow all members to rate posts all the time, and that a running talley (the data he refers to) be kept, eliminating a yearly event with voting, like the Hall of Fame, which he eschews, apparently, as a mere popularity contest.

[Andres]

All you have to do to be nominated for an HOF award is following the link in my signature and posting "in" in the thread my signature links to.

Come on, it's easy. Just click on the word "HERE" in my sig. You'll come to a certain thread. Just post "in" in that thread and your free nomination for an HOF award will be ready in no time.

It's an offer you can't refuse

[Rodion Romanovich]

I have no problem with HoF as it has worked in the past. I don't think subjectivity is a bug - it's a feature - of the system. It's about whether the contribution was memorable to, and considered helpful by, other members of the .org.

[Bijo]

this post can be deleted

[Bijo]

I'm not certain if that's possible with our software. If I understand Bijo's proposal correctly, he suggests a rating system for individual posts (I guess a 5 point scale:
-2 Very Unhelpful
-1 Unhelpful
0 Neutral
+1 Helpful
+2 Very Helpful)

Well, not exactly, but it is kind of the direction. Of course, those other factors, parameters, and so on, would have to be considered. What I see here is an extreme simplification (which might be effective as well).

I presume he'd allow all members to rate posts all the time, and that a running talley (the data he refers to) be kept, eliminating a yearly event with voting, like the Hall of Fame, which he eschews, apparently, as a mere popularity contest.

To tell you the truth -- and I already stated it more or less -- the proposal would NOT allow all members to rate posts all the time, but for those fit for it and available to simply keep tabs. If all members would be allowed to rate we would more or less maintain allowance of what is attempted to be eliminated in the first place or at least maintain the possibility of subjectivity which has its apparant flaws.

And I only checked Factionheir's words -- and others seem to verify -- to state that the system we are speaking of appears -- or at least has good chance -- to be about popularity. The possibility exists: that is too much room or chance for "error".

But sure, sure.... go on about the business as usual. Just know that what I propose is fair, more objective......... and LOGICAL

Now if you'll excuse me... it is monday morning (unfortunately).

[Mikeus Caesar]

Can i win a prize just for being awesome?

[TinCow]

You don't need a prize. Being awesome is its own reward.

[Andres]

You don't need a prize. Being awesome is its own reward.

It would be awesome if you would all sign up for Capo de Tutti Capi II...

[Mikeus Caesar]

It would be awesome if you would all sign up for Capo de Tutti Capi II...

Get out of here with your fiendish self-promotion!

[Devastatin Dave]

I nominate my dong...

[Papewaio]

To tell you the truth -- and I already stated it more or less -- the proposal would NOT allow all members to rate posts all the time, but for those fit for it and available to simply keep tabs. If all members would be allowed to rate we would more or less maintain allowance of what is attempted to be eliminated in the first place or at least maintain the possibility of subjectivity which has its apparant flaws.

But who gets to chose the members that can rate others? Surely this is a subjective first step which will make all the outcomes from such subjective...

I think you need to read up Intelligent outcome via dumb agent group.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nps/pam/si_pam.htm

[Mikeus Caesar]

I nominate my dong...

We would all like to nominate our dong's, but bias by Tosa Inu's huge dollar always stops our dong's being noticeable.

[Bijo]

I already left this thread to rest, but you just HAD to step in and ask questions, hm?

But who gets to chose the members that can rate others?

Why, why.... the one (or ones) capable? If I could only find a smilie with a dunce cap. Those who look at the cold hard facts, quality, quantity, who recognize the parameters mentioned before, and so forth, and who are not lead by "personal opinions", popularity influence, personal preferences, and so on. Can it be even more clear? If I would receive an HoF award based on mere popularity I would immediately reject the award.

[AntiochusIII]

We would all like to nominate our dong's, but bias by Tosa Inu's huge dollar always stops our dong's being noticeable.

The Dutch don't do dongs and dollars.

Bijo: It's just a fun popularity contest. No need to get serious over it.

[TinCow]

I think we all know there is only one man who truly deserves a HOF award.

[Mikeus Caesar]

I think we all know there is only one man who truly deserves a HOF award.

>>>Picture of god goes here<<<

If the Chosen One lurks among us, i'm all for giving him a HOF award. Ahawhawhaw.

[Gregoshi]

Call the award a Hassel-HOF.

[seireikhaan]

Soo, when exactly is voting going to be done for this? Is HoF going to be done soon, then?

[Papewaio]

Why, why.... the one (or ones) capable? If I could only find a smilie with a dunce cap. Those who look at the cold hard facts, quality, quantity, who recognize the parameters mentioned before, and so forth, and who are not lead by "personal opinions", popularity influence, personal preferences, and so on. Can it be even more clear? If I would receive an HoF award based on mere popularity I would immediately reject the award.

Hmm challenge to find a dunce's cap:

nope
nope
nope
Ah ha:

[Andres]

Call the award a Hassel-HOF.

You are teh master Gregoshi