TAFI Town Hall

[spacemt354]

Someone that comes to mind with the newer member part is @Zweiland . I'd say that Z is perfectly worthy and he's been around for a little over 2 years.

Also, with the recycling of nominees, it could be possible that one or more people could just go through the vote many times and not get inducted. I think that it would be better to select nominees based on current opinions/standards and not recycle 3/5 of the nominees every year.

I think Zweiland is an excellent nominee for the Hall of Fame

But you were kinda making me point. I only say 3-4 years as an arbitrary distinction of "a long time member" of the boards. Zweiland has been around since SA Season 1. And consistently is a part of the community since. But people from 2014 on?...I think maybe next year they can get nominated

 

[RMichael21]

Then that's not really a Hall of Fame then...

Take any one of the professional HoFs, like the MLB. People voted in have to wait a minimum of 5 years after retirement. And while Anthony Rizzo for example is really good now. If he retired at the end of next year...he wouldn't be considered for the Hall of Fame, because he only played a few years (albeit good ones)

I think the Hall of Fame should represent someone's long track record of work, not what they contributed for a few months. But that's just my opinion.

However, that's somewhat different circumstances. In baseball, there's a longer amount of time (not just in life, but in retirement) for people to have, you know what I mean? On wdwmagic, these forums are more short-term. Here, some of us (take WED), were on for 6-8 months and stopped contributing. I mean, all of us can only be around for so long. I mean, we've already witnessed people coming and going, but once time moves farther and farther away from Masters of the Parks, people will get busy and move on. That's why waiting 3-4 years doesn't seem realistic IMO. Sure, at least a year or two, but it feels almost exclusionary to have those in Masters of the Parks/earlier comps be the only ones eligible. But, like you said, that's just my opinion.

 

[RMichael21]

I think Zweiland is an excellent nominee for the Hall of Fame

But you were kinda making me point. I only say 3-4 years as an arbitrary distinction of "a long time member" of the boards. Zweiland has been around since SA Season 1. And consistently is a part of the community since. But people from 2014 on?...I think maybe next year they can get nominated

I agree, Zwei would be a great nominee. But, I feel like we're going towards that one idea where there were specific requirements for hosting/competing with the different tiers and such like we discussed this past summer. I feel like there shouldn't be a requirement as to who can be nominated, but those with a longer, withstanding and more consistent impact would be more likely to be nominated.

 

[spacemt354]

However, that's somewhat different circumstances. In baseball, there's a longer amount of time (not just in life, but in retirement) for people to have, you know what I mean? On wdwmagic, these forums are more short-term. Here, some of us (take WED), were on for 6-8 months and stopped contributing. I mean, all of us can only be around for so long. I mean, we've already witnessed people coming and going, but once time moves farther and farther away from Masters of the Parks, people will get busy and move on. That's why waiting 3-4 years doesn't seem realistic IMO. Sure, at least a year or two, but it feels almost exclusionary to have those in Masters of the Parks/earlier comps be the only ones eligible. But, like you said, that's just my opinion.

Like I said before...I only said 3-4 years as a distinction of a "long time member" Two is fine...but 1 year? Eh.

I never met WED, but since he was on the ballot last year, and clearly got a decent amount of votes, so why not let him stay on for another round? And in regards to short-term, mharrington has been contributing for many years. And on other sites like SYWTBAI...they've had 12 seasons worth of content.

The point I'm trying to make is that awards for short-term participation should be relegated to the TAFI Year-End Awards. The Hall of Fame should be more board scoped spanning years of contribution and hence more exclusive, in my opinion.

 

[spacemt354]

I agree, Zwei would be a great nominee. But, I feel like we're going towards that one idea where there were specific requirements for hosting/competing with the different tiers and such like we discussed this past summer. I feel like there shouldn't be a requirement as to who can be nominated, but those with a longer, withstanding and more consistent impact would be more likely to be nominated.

I'm fine with that...but then is there any significance to having 5 people nominated each year? Why is there a cut off?

 

[RMichael21]

Like I said before...I only said 3-4 years as a distinction of a "long time member" Two is fine...but 1 year? Eh.

I never met WED, but since he was on the ballot last year, and clearly got a decent amount of votes, so why not let him stay on for another round? And in regards to short-term, mharrington has been contributing for many years. And on other sites like SYWTBAI...they've had 12 seasons worth of content.

The point I'm trying to make is that awards for short-term participation should be relegated to the TAFI Year-End Awards. The Hall of Fame should be more board scoped spanning years of contribution and hence more exclusive, in my opinion.

Alright, I see where you're coming from. That's making since to me now.

So, here's names that have been thrown out there and some more that I'm adding to the list:

@WED99
@mharrington
@Zweiland
@Matt7187
@Sam4D23
@MaterA113
@ctxak98

 

[RMichael21]

I'm fine with that...but then is there any significance to having 5 people nominated each year? Why is there a cut off?

Well, we were discussing it and we believe that it creates consistency and that it allows for more focused voting, rather than having 7,8 or 9 people nominated.

 

[spacemt354]

Well, we were discussing it and we believe that it creates consistency and that it allows for more focused voting, rather than having 7,8 or 9 people nominated.

Hmm.. I get the consistency part. That makes sense. And it also adds to the exclusivity.

The only drawback I see is that it just adds another layer of decision making and time. First you have to narrow down the nominee field and then make a vote instead of just going right to voting.

 

[spacemt354]

@WED99
@mharrington
@Zweiland
@Matt7187
@Sam4D23
@MaterA113
@ctxak98

TBH this is a really solid list and I can't see people having many complaints with any of these nominees. I personally wouldn't see a problem with just going to vote on these seven candidates. But if the field needs to be 5 how will that be determined?

Community decision or Conservationalist?

 

[DSquared]

Hmm.. I get the consistency part. That makes sense. And it also adds to the exclusivity.

The only drawback I see is that it just adds another layer of decision making and time. First you have to narrow down the nominee field and then make a vote instead of just going right to voting.

Just from my perspective, it makes it easier for the final vote, because voters may know some people in the 6-8 spots, and voters may be torn between others. Having 5 makes it easier for the final vote.

TBH this is a really solid list and I can't see people having many complaints with any of these nominees. I personally wouldn't see a problem with just going to vote on these seven candidates. But if the field needs to be 5 how will that be determined?

Community decision or Conservationalist?

I suggest maybe conversationalist. Make it like the People's Choice Awards, or the Kids Choice Awards where a board decides on who the public will vote for.

 

[spacemt354]

Just from my perspective, it makes it easier for the final vote, because voters may know some people in the 6-8 spots, and voters may be torn between others. Having 5 makes it easier for the final vote.


I suggest maybe conversationalist. Make it like the People's Choice Awards, or the Kids Choice Awards where a board decides on who the public will vote for.

Well voters know people in the 5 slots right? A smaller pool of nominees makes more sense in terms of exclusivity rather than who to vote for.

And I'd make it a community decision. Same way the TAFI conservationalists were nominated. I'd stray away from behind the scenes decisions regarding this type of stuff as much as possible moving forward. I think that's the better way to go.

 

[Sam Magic]

Let me be honest with you, I don't think that there should be a minimum requirement, as long as they had some sort of positive contribution. WED was only around for what, 6-8 months? But it's what he did with those 6-8 months that makes him worthy of it. Same thing could be with newer members. A newer member that joined in 2013 or 2014 could be just as eligible as someone like @Sam4D23 / @Matt7187 . It's what they do to help the community grow. Quality, not quantity.

He was active for roughly two/three years.

 

[spacemt354]

He was active for roughly two/three years.

That's what I thought...

 

[spacemt354]

Also @Sam4D23 I sent you a PM about the Awards. Would love to help!

 

[RMichael21]

He was active for roughly two/three years.

Well, sorry 'bout that. For some reason, I thought it was just from Masters of the Parks to around SA Season 1.

 

[Sam Magic]

Also @Sam4D23 I sent you a PM about the Awards. Would love to help!

I saw it, I'll be responding soon! Just got back on! DSquared sent a PM too.

As for this whole thing...mharrington already is in the Hall of Fame I believe. I think he was one of the first people we voted in.

Now I think we're also forgetting some key people like LG16, englanddg, Red, Voxel, etc and I personally do not feel as though I've contributed enough on here to be fitting for the Hall of Fame.

I think we should allow four people to be put into the Hall of Fame each year. This way we can commend more people while there are still members here that remember some of those who deserve recognition. As an aside, I thought we got rid of the Conversationalists? Or is that technically still a thing?

 

[spacemt354]

I saw it, I'll be responding soon! Just got back on! DSquared sent a PM too.

As for this whole thing...mharrington already is in the Hall of Fame I believe. I think he was one of the first people we voted in.

Now I think we're also forgetting some key people like LG16, englanddg, Red, Voxel, etc and I personally do not feel as though I've contributed enough on here to be fitting for the Hall of Fame.

I think we should allow four people to be put into the Hall of Fame each year. This way we can commend more people while there are still members here that remember some of those who deserve recognition. As an aside, I thought we got rid of the Conversationalists? Or is that technically still a thing?

I believe last year was the first and only TAFI Hall of Fame vote, of which Red and jdm were voted in. mharrington, WED, and MaterA113 were the other nominees that didn't.

But you're actually bringing up a great point. I completely agree though people you mentioned deserve recognition, but I'd agree that everyone deserves some recognition for their great contributions to the board. But with the current system, to vote in all the people who deserve recognition...will take years, and I'm not exaggerating...decades.

So then...what is the Hall of Fame?

A Hall of Fame vote usually only happens when people retire and their full body of work is taken into consideration. But online...people come and go. The only 2 people in the TAFI Hall of Fame are two active players who are still around. It seems to me that the Hall of Fame is just another, more exclusive version of the TAFI Year End Awards. Yet, with the current system, people might not get in till they have left the forums in like 2020.

With so many more people on the forums, if you want to have people recognized while they are still here, it would make sense to increase the amount of people who can be voted in per year. It depends on whether the conservationalists want that though.

 

[RMichael21]

I saw it, I'll be responding soon! Just got back on! DSquared sent a PM too.

As for this whole thing...mharrington already is in the Hall of Fame I believe. I think he was one of the first people we voted in.

Now I think we're also forgetting some key people like LG16, englanddg, Red, Voxel, etc and I personally do not feel as though I've contributed enough on here to be fitting for the Hall of Fame.

I think we should allow four people to be put into the Hall of Fame each year. This way we can commend more people while there are still members here that remember some of those who deserve recognition. As an aside, I thought we got rid of the Conversationalists? Or is that technically still a thing?

I believe last year was the first and only TAFI Hall of Fame vote, of which Red and jdm were voted in. mharrington, WED, and MaterA113 were the other nominees that didn't.

But you're actually bringing up a great point. I completely agree though people you mentioned deserve recognition, but I'd agree that everyone deserves some recognition for their great contributions to the board. But with the current system, to vote in all the people who deserve recognition...will take years, and I'm not exaggerating...decades.

So then...what is the Hall of Fame?

A Hall of Fame vote usually only happens when people retire and their full body of work is taken into consideration. But online...people come and go. The only 2 people in the TAFI Hall of Fame are two active players who are still around. It seems to me that the Hall of Fame is just another, more exclusive version of the TAFI Year End Awards. Yet, with the current system, people might not get in till they have left the forums in like 2020.

With so many more people on the forums, if you want to have people recognized while they are still here, it would make sense to increase the amount of people who can be voted in per year. It depends on whether the conservationalists want that though.

As for the Hall of Fame, there's been a 2013 vote and a 2014 vote. In 2013, @BryceM and @stitchcastle were inducted. In 2014, @jdmdisney99 and @MonorailRed were inducted.

And as for the conversationalists, we actually hadn't used the PM since the whole thing happened, but I just revived it in an effort to figure out the logistics of the Hall of Fame vote. I think that it was discussed that the conversationalists would not be abolished, but toned down rather. Instead of having the conversationalists be a group of 11 creating a schedule and dominating per se over the community, it would be 3 or 5 people trying to figure out logistics of smaller things that add to the community such as Hall of Fame votes, newsletters, point rankings and the Elite Eight.

 

[RMichael21]

I saw it, I'll be responding soon! Just got back on! DSquared sent a PM too.

As for this whole thing...mharrington already is in the Hall of Fame I believe. I think he was one of the first people we voted in.

Now I think we're also forgetting some key people like LG16, englanddg, Red, Voxel, etc and I personally do not feel as though I've contributed enough on here to be fitting for the Hall of Fame.

I think we should allow four people to be put into the Hall of Fame each year. This way we can commend more people while there are still members here that remember some of those who deserve recognition. As an aside, I thought we got rid of the Conversationalists? Or is that technically still a thing?

I actually really like the idea of 4 inductees. Maybe have 7 nominees and 4 inductees? But, before we really decide on anything, I think that it would be best to get the input of the entire community, as it's really only been you, myself and @spacemt354 in this discussion.

@jdmdisney99
@IDInstitute
@Voxel
@LittleGiants16
@tcool
@Matt7187
@englanddg
@DSquared
@Zweiland
@JokersWild
@TheOriginalTiki

Anyone else that I forgot to mention, feel free to chime in as well.

 

[spacemt354]

I actually really like the idea of 4 inductees. Maybe have 7 nominees and 4 inductees? But, before we really decide on anything, I think that it would be best to get the input of the entire community, as it's really only been you, myself and @spacemt354 in this discussion.

@jdmdisney99
@IDInstitute
@Voxel
@LittleGiants16
@tcool
@Matt7187
@englanddg
@DSquared
@Zweiland
@JokersWild
@TheOriginalTiki

Anyone else that I forgot to mention, feel free to chime in as well.

Just to clarify, but what is the main goal of the Hall of Fame for here?

Is it a recognition of people's contribution to the boards or is it someone's full body of work? I say that because even with 4 inductees, if the goal is to recognize people's contributions to the boards, it would take 3+ years to induct everyone you just mentioned

That to me just feels like a long time...and if you want people to be around for their recognition, I think the TAFI Year End Awards would work better..

And as for the conversationalists, we actually hadn't used the PM since the whole thing happened, but I just revived it in an effort to figure out the logistics of the Hall of Fame vote. I think that it was discussed that the conversationalists would not be abolished, but toned down rather. Instead of having the conversationalists be a group of 11 creating a schedule and dominating per se over the community, it would be 3 or 5 people trying to figure out logistics of smaller things that add to the community such as Hall of Fame votes, newsletters, point rankings and the Elite Eight.

Ah yeah...that was the other thing I wanted to talk about. What's happening with that? I think it wouldn't be bad to have a small group of people add stuff to the forum. I probably wouldn't have described it as "dominating per se over the community" because I thought that wasn't the original intention of the conservationists. But a small group with less responsibility and simply doing things for the forum...I don't see that as a negative.