Looking at the list I could see 10+ deserving persons to be in the hall of fame.
Yet it would be hard for one person out of 20 to get 33% of the vote.
With the vote now once every four years, it would seem anti-climatic if nobody
new were to get in. Perhaps the vote qualifications could be tweeked to get 1 or
2 in for sure every four years.
Perhaps the top two vote totals could get in.
Perhaps the top five vote totals could go to a runoff where say then if someone
gets 33% they are in. (but this would involve the extra work of a 2nd election)
Perhaps you could cast up to 6 votes, then those getting named on at least 70%
of the ballots will get in. (or to be sure someone gets in, just name the top
person or top two persons as automatic inductees*) This is how the baseball hall
of fame does it, with a 75% rate requirement. (you could cast 0,1,2,3,4,5, or 6
votes, so if you only felt 3 were worthy, you just vote for 3)
*I think I would favor this method the best, as it is hard to just cast one vote
when so many are deserving. I don't think adding 1-2 person every 4 years is too dilutive to the stature of the HOF.
TomSki
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bob Dancer <bobdancervp@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Hall of Fame has strange rules. The
> nominations only come about every four years and you need at least 1/3 of the
> vote to get in. If everybody casts a private ballot with more than a dozen
> candidates, the odds are against any individual receiving that high of a
> percentage.
>
>
>
> The way to make sure that at
> least one nominee receives at least 1/3 of the vote is for most of us to
> announce our vote before we cast it --- see which of the one or two are
> receiving the most announcements --- and then if one or both of those front-runners
> are worthy of induction in your opinion --- vote for one of the two front-runners. A vote for a non-front-runner is a vote that makes it more difficult for ANY candidate to reach the 33% threshhold. This isn't "Democracy
> in Action," as usually defined in the United States, but it is the way to get
> it done in this particular Hall of Fame election.
>
> I would
> happily support the vpFREE Adminstrator if he would run. This forum has changed the
> face of video poker, and basically he created it and runs it. He claims the
> rules state that he is ineligible. Of course, the Administrator himself created
> the rules for vpFREE. This means that he doesn't want the publicity. (I asked
> him to be a guest on the Gambling with an Edge radio show and
> he declined, citing the wish to maintain a private profile.) I respect his
> wishes and am looking elsewhere for candidates.
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm personally supporting Ernie
> Moody --- the inventor of Triple Play --- and recommend you strongly consider him. Ernie started Action Gaming, later known
> as videopoker.com, and that company has created a very high percentage of the
> interesting new games in the past 15 years --- like Triple Play through Hundred
> Play, Spin Poker, Super Times Pay, Quick Quads, Ultimate X, Wheel Poker, and a
> large variety of other games. Nobody else has EVER introduced such a large
> variety of interesting games in such a short period of time. Everybody has
> their own opinion as to what games are the most fun, of course, but many of these
> games rate high on my own "fun factor" list (especially Quick Quads and
> Ultimate X), and if I'm given a choice between single line and multi-line for
> the same pay schedule and denomination, I will ALWAYS pick the multi-line
> version over the single line version. Your opinion might be different, of
> course, but almost all of are glad that we at least HAVE that choice. Without Ernie Moody, we wouldn't.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (9) |
