Author Topic: Redemption Hall of Fame voting for 2009 (Read 48387 times)

Master KChief · « **Reply #150 on:** January 30, 2010, 10:37:50 AM »

ditto. i think this is pretty pointless and asinine. what exactly does it accomplish again...?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #151 on:** January 30, 2010, 11:01:38 AM »

Quote from: Master KChief on January 30, 2010, 10:37:50 AM

what exactly does it accomplish again...?

What a Hall of Fame is supposed to accomplish is to remember those who might otherwise be forgotten. We remember past accomplishments, since those who were the "greats" of their era should be remembered.

When baseball HoF voting comes up, inevitably there are young people who do not recognize the names of the nominees. My son had no idea who Tony Gwynn was!

Believe it or not, there are young baseball fans who have never even heard of Nolan Ryan!

We don't vote on active players because those names we already recognize, and will continue to recognize as they continue to accomplish great things (i.e. Brett Favre). There is no danger of them being forgotten.

People on these boards know who Justin and Gabe are, and recognize their prowess. Most people (me included) have never heard of Ron Sias. However, Ron is clearly someone who should be remembered. Justin and Gabe will continue to win and dominate. Their time for being remembered will come later.

Younger players will more likely vote for the names they recognize. This skews the voting process. The process is already undermined by the fact that proximity voting is logical. To people on the West Coast, Bany and Bryon have been the biggest contributors to their game, while Roy and John M. have been the biggest contributors to Northeasterners. This type of voting will not result in a universal acceptance of who should be voted in.

Besides, how exactly does Gabe vote? He clearly cannot vote for himself. What if he votes for Justin? Wouldn't Justin feel somewhat compelled to reciprocate?

If we are going to have a Hall of Fame, then we need to do it right: secret ballot for inactive nominees that we want to be remembered and not forgotten.

STAMP · « **Reply #152 on:** January 30, 2010, 12:44:11 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 29, 2010, 04:40:55 PM

Quote from: STAMP on January 29, 2010, 03:50:05 PM
Contributor: Rob's wife
"Behind every good man is a good woman", and I think she'd be a great person to nominate as a candidate after the voting is over. However, she isn't one of the candidates for this round. Feel free to add one more contributor to your vote.

Based on my Hall of Fame beliefs, I vote Doug Gray for contributor. So:

Automatic: Rob Anderson

Player(s): Keith Bartram, Joshua Hey

Contributor(s): Doug Gray

Master KChief · « **Reply #153 on:** January 30, 2010, 12:48:15 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 30, 2010, 11:01:38 AM

Quote from: Master KChief on January 30, 2010, 10:37:50 AM
what exactly does it accomplish again...?

What a Hall of Fame is supposed to accomplish is to remember those who might otherwise be forgotten. We remember past accomplishments, since those who were the "greats" of their era should be remembered.

When baseball HoF voting comes up, inevitably there are young people who do not recognize the names of the nominees. My son had no idea who Tony Gwynn was! Believe it or not, there are young baseball fans who have never even heard of Nolan Ryan!

We don't vote on active players because those names we already recognize, and will continue to recognize as they continue to accomplish great things (i.e. Brett Favre). There is no danger of them being forgotten.

People on these boards know who Justin and Gabe are, and recognize their prowess. Most people (me included) have never heard of Ron Sias. However, Ron is clearly someone who should be remembered. Justin and Gabe will continue to win and dominate. Their time for being remembered will come later.

Younger players will more likely vote for the names they recognize. This skews the voting process. The process is already undermined by the fact that proximity voting is logical. To people on the West Coast, Bany and Bryon have been the biggest contributors to their game, while Roy and John M. have been the biggest contributors to Northeasterners. This type of voting will not result in a universal acceptance of who should be voted in.

Besides, how exactly does Gabe vote? He clearly cannot vote for himself. What if he votes for Justin? Wouldn't Justin feel somewhat compelled to reciprocate?

If we are going to have a Hall of Fame, then we need to do it right: secret ballot for inactive nominees that we want to be remembered and not forgotten.

hmm, i understand now. sounds good.

SirNobody · « **Reply #154 on:** January 30, 2010, 08:21:09 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 30, 2010, 09:47:52 AM

We would much rather revel in our own self-glory and vote along our state/region lines, just like Nationals voting.

For this reason I am very interested to see how the voting breaks down by Region (assuming we end up with enough people voting to do that sort of breakdown).

Of course of the eight players on the list five of them are from the North Central Region, two of them are from the Midwest Region, and one if from the northeast region. Meaning six of the eight regions don't even have the option of voting for two people from their own region. Of the votes so far 6 of 13 were for two players from the same region and only 2 of 13 were for two players from the region that the voter is from.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 30, 2010, 11:01:38 AM

Besides, how exactly does Gabe vote? He clearly cannot vote for himself.

This is part of why I have not yet voted. If I believe beyond my bias that I am one of the two best, then I should vote for myself. But how on earth am I supposed to analyze myself without bias?

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 30, 2010, 11:01:38 AM

If we are going to have a Hall of Fame, then we need to do it right: secret ballot for inactive nominees that we want to be remembered and not forgotten.

While a secret ballot may improve the integrity of the vote, it would kinda undermine the purpose of the thread

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Bryon · « **Reply #155 on:** January 30, 2010, 09:04:34 PM »

Unfortunately, the list also leaves off players who were likely as good or better than those on the list, but who never got to attend a national tournament during their ~4 year playing run.

It is no surprise that there are more players from the North Central Region on the list, since there have been many more national tournaments in that Region (or very near that region).

You won't find CA players on the player list, since they didn't gain much national notoriety. Andy Siew has a lot of points on the all-time list, in spite of the fact that he's never been to a National event. I'd be curious to see how his point total ranks against everyone else, once you remove all the points they got from nationals events.

Juan and Miguel Arriaga were also extremely good players in their day. I almost always lost to those guys, yet, when I went to nationals during their heyday, I won. If they'd been able to go to national tournaments like North Central players were, they would likely be Redemption legends known nationwide.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #156 on:** January 30, 2010, 11:19:53 PM »

RNRS points are not that great of a judge, IMO. It's all based on the playgroup. I could start a playgroup of 10 people in Puerto Rico, hold a state and a regions, and win, because the others were using starter decks.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #157 on:** January 30, 2010, 11:58:09 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 30, 2010, 09:47:52 AM

We would much rather revel in our own self-glory and vote along our state/region lines...I choose not to vote.

This clearly isn't a true accusation.

Quote from: SirNobody on January 30, 2010, 08:21:09 PM

Of the votes so far ... only 2 of 13 were for two players from the region that the voter is from.

If you don't want to vote, that's your prerogative, but the negativity isn't needed in this thread.

Quote from: Master KChief on January 30, 2010, 10:37:50 AM

ditto. i think this is pretty pointless and asinine.

Again, if you don't want to vote, that's your prerogative, but the negativity isn't needed in this thread.

Can we get this thread back on topic and have some more people actually vote. Thanks to the 13 people who have already voted. I'd like to get many more votes as well. Let your voice be heard

Bryon · « **Reply #158 on:** January 30, 2010, 11:58:47 PM »

Success at nationals is not that great of a judge, IMO. It greatly favors the parts of the country that have held multiple nationals nearby.

If a player from FAR OUTSIDE of the nats region succeeds at nationals, and that player loses most of the games he plays to top members of his own region (who could not come to nationals), then his success at that nationals should go to show the strength of the region he came from. Top players from his region back home should be lauded as pros. Unfortunately, that logic is ignored by almost everyone (and I don't blame them, since it is difficult to consider things from another's position if it is quite different than yours). Instead, there is an overvaluing of players from regions who have had multiple nationals in their region and/or an adjacent region.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #159 on:** January 31, 2010, 12:23:31 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 30, 2010, 11:58:09 PM

If you don't want to vote, that's your prerogative, but the negativity isn't needed in this thread.

At least you finally acknowledged that I exist. The fact that every other comment I have made about the validity of a "Hall of Fame" you had previously ignored I find negative, especially since everyone else who had objections you did respond to. Therefore I reserve the right to continue my objections until you properly address them.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #160 on:** January 31, 2010, 12:37:28 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 31, 2010, 12:23:31 AM

At least you finally acknowledged that I exist.

#1 - I totally did not mean to single you out for ignoring and apologize for appearing to slight you personally.
#2 - Since this seems a bit personal, I'll continue this conversation with you through PM.

As for those of you that think that RNRS points aren't a good judge, or that Nats titles aren't a good judge, feel free to use your own criteria when deciding who to vote for. But please vote

Master KChief · « **Reply #161 on:** January 31, 2010, 12:46:44 AM »

wrong place.

New Raven BR · « **Reply #162 on:** January 31, 2010, 12:49:44 AM »

whoops! XD
sry bout that all

Professoralstad · « **Reply #163 on:** January 31, 2010, 01:06:44 AM »

I bet there could be a good thread somewhere to discuss the merits/downfalls of a hall of fame vote. I'm sure it would be a great one too, full of surprise twists and heavy doses of sarcasm. However, seeing as how the other Prof U started this thread for a specific purpose, and debating that purpose is NOT the purpose, then I think it will be more fun for everyone to continue the purpose of this thread on this thread, and take other issues to other threads. After all, no Hall of Fame/Award Ceremony leaves time/space to honor the objections people have to the existence of the institution. Those who have voted have done so from a variety of motives, but no matter what the motives were, they did according to what was asked of them.

STAMP · « **Reply #164 on:** January 31, 2010, 01:16:48 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 31, 2010, 12:23:31 AM

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 30, 2010, 11:58:09 PM
If you don't want to vote, that's your prerogative, but the negativity isn't needed in this thread.

At least you finally acknowledged that I exist. The fact that every other comment I have made about the validity of a "Hall of Fame" you had previously ignored I find negative, especially since everyone else who had objections you did respond to. Therefore I reserve the right to continue my objections until you properly address them.

And once again I feel obliged to note that at least it was not a pre-ignore.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #165 on:** January 31, 2010, 04:43:45 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 28, 2010, 05:03:04 PM

Let the VOTING continue!
Day 4

Please remember to only vote for 2 people from each category. Feel free to check the first post of this thread to get a summary of each of the candidates (and links to further info about some of the lesser known candidates).

SirNobody · « **Reply #166 on:** January 31, 2010, 06:51:49 AM »

Hey,

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 30, 2010, 11:58:09 PM

Quote from: SirNobody on January 30, 2010, 08:21:09 PM
Of the votes so far ... only 2 of 13 were for two players from the region that the voter is from.
If you don't want to vote, that's your prerogative, but the negativity isn't needed in this thread.

I wasn't being negative, I was actually arguing in support of the hall of fame as it's being done. I haven't voted yet because I haven't decided who to vote for, not because I have any objections to the way this is being run.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Professoralstad · « **Reply #167 on:** January 31, 2010, 09:35:17 AM »

I don't think he was talking to you Tim; I believe he was using your quote as evidence that YMT's claim was false, and addressing his negativity. Though I realize how that could be confusing.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #168 on:** January 31, 2010, 09:49:57 AM »

Quote from: SirNobody on January 31, 2010, 06:51:49 AM

I wasn't being negative, I was actually arguing in support of the hall of fame as it's being done. I haven't voted yet because I haven't decided who to vote for, not because I have any objections to the way this is being run.

He only quoted you as a response to my snide comment. He was not suggesting that you were being negative. The sentences before and after his quote of you were directed at me.

Quote from: Professoralstad on January 31, 2010, 01:06:44 AM

Those who have voted have done so from a variety of motives, but no matter what the motives were, they did according to what was asked of them.

... by someone who does not have the authority to ask. "Hall of Fame" has official ramifications for those who view it. Was Mark officially designated to run this campaign? Was there a committee to decide what the qualifications should be, both for nominating and voting? This appears instead to be one person making all the decisions. Why is Mark that person? Because he wanted to?

Running an online tournament that has no ramifications beyond that year is not the same as running the "Hall of Fame," which is intended to have a lasting impact on all future players of this game. People are not nearly as impressed by who won the Batting Title in 1989 as who is in the Hall of Fame.

These Message Boards are not the end-all of Redemption players either. I just found out about an entire youth group here in Orlando that have already been playing Redemption, but did not know about tournaments or the Message Boards. People like Ron Sias have no presence on these boards, so we have no attachment to them or acknowledgment of their ability. They will simply not get the fair chance they deserve.

Obviously no one else thinks that a "Hall of Fame" should be more sacred than this unofficial thread, so I will stop posting. In the future, though, I think that anything of a lasting consequence should be run in such a way that it has been completely thought through by more than one person. I doubt that each new Redemption set and REG are made by one person making all the decisions while dismissing any opposition with

LET THE VOTING CONTINUE

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #169 on:** January 31, 2010, 04:19:17 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on January 31, 2010, 06:51:49 AM

I wasn't being negative

I apologize for the confusion. I wasn't trying to say that you were. The "other Prof" and YMT are correct in their interpretation of my comments.

As for the HoF having official ramifications, it does not. I was not designated anything. Someone just was talking about having a HoF and I thought it sounded like a good idea. I jump started it so we could get the ball rolling, but I do plan on opening things up in the future so that it is NOT a "one-man show".

Red · « **Reply #170 on:** January 31, 2010, 04:33:11 PM »

that was me

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #171 on:** February 01, 2010, 10:35:17 AM »

Voting will be finished soon, so here's your chance to have your say as to who deserves to get in the most

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 28, 2010, 05:03:04 PM

Let the VOTING continue!
Day 5

Please remember to only vote for 2 people from each category. Feel free to check the first post of this thread to get a summary of each of the candidates (and links to further info about some of the lesser known candidates).

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #172 on:** February 02, 2010, 09:41:44 AM »

I agree that Hall of Fame should be to remember those who have RETIRED...

As such: my vote goes to Keith Bartram, who at my first local showed me why Wall of Protection was horribly needed after the release of Warriors as he decimated my deck within 10 minutes (and began my disdain of FBTN

). My other vote goes to Josh Hey, who I think I met at Pittsburgh...my tourney career was only a fledgling then...

For contributors: While all of those great men have contributed to the game, it was Doug Gray that allowed for Redemption to be at the place where it is technologically today when he joined staff. And without recruitment we would be nowhere, and Roy Cruz will drive just about anywhere to host a tournament because he believes in this game so much. Without these two, Redemption would not be the success that it is.

The Roc_1217 · « **Reply #173 on:** February 02, 2010, 10:20:30 AM »

My votes go to Justin Alstad and Chris Bany. I agree, there should be a section for retired players.

Sean · « **Reply #174 on:** February 02, 2010, 10:35:13 AM »

Quote

Obviously no one else thinks that a "Hall of Fame" should be more sacred than this unofficial thread, so I will stop posting.

Actually, I agree probably 100%. However, I was under the impression that this was just for fun so I stopped caring and didn't argue against it. However, Mark sent me a message asking for my input so I'm here now.

Basically, I agree with YMT. This whole thing is a joke to me. Half the people who would be voted in don't even know they are being voted in. Does Rob even know about this thread? There are many people who have quit the game for a plethora of reasons that won't be voting and yet those people are more qualified to vote than half the people voting. A true hall of fame vote comes from people who know what they're talking about. Who votes for the baseball HoF? Random people off of current teams? No, established baseball writers. Did Tim Tebow get to vote for the Heisman when he was first up for the award? No, then why is Tim Maly voting for this? YMT is right that any joe shmoe perusing the message board will come upon this thread and immediately think that the people on this list are akin to Sammy Bough or Ty Cobb when in actuality, this is a bunch nonsense for the enjoyment of a small sampling of the total Redemption population. What is going to happen here would be similar to what would happen if the voting for the football hall of fame was conducted only by Redskin fans, no Dallas Cowboy would ever make it in.

Moral of the story? Be careful what you ask for, kiddies.

That said...

Let the VOTING continue!

News:

Author Topic: Redemption Hall of Fame voting for 2009 (Read 48387 times)

Warrior_Monk