2016 HOF Voting Thread (16 Viewers)

[Jeff]

A committee whose task is to document and record the story behind a compendium of all of the sets made would be more entertaining and more significant to the hobby, IMO. At least that part of the work the nomination committee is doing to describe the sets partially gets there. I like that.

 

[k9dr]

Well, I'll be honest and admit I had a difficult time with my three other choices : No way I couldn't vote for my Suicide Queens. I would like to thank the members of the committee that deemed my chips worthy of inclusion in the Hall of Fame. Of course I love my chips, but it is nice to know that others appreciate them as well. While it is great just to be nominated, it would be freaking awesome to be selected

Special thanks to @Toby for his truly inspired write up and shameless promotion of my Suicide Queens

 

[Mr Tree]

Well, I'll be honest and admit I had a difficult time with my three other choices : No way I couldn't vote for my Suicide Queens. I would like to thank the members of the committee that deemed my chips worthy of inclusion in the Hall of Fame. Of course I love my chips, but it is nice to know that others appreciate them as well. While it is great just to be nominated, it would be freaking awesome to be selected

Special thanks to @Toby for his truly inspired write up and shameless promotion of my Suicide Queens

I don't know how anyone could not vote for their own set. That would be like rooting against your kids!

 

[jbutler]

A committee whose task is to document and record the story behind a compendium of all of the sets made would be more entertaining and more significant to the hobby, IMO. At least that part of the work the nomination committee is doing to describe the sets partially gets there. I like that.

I'm sure everyone would support you or anyone else starting such a committee to finish the task we've partially completed.

 

[manamongkids]

I'm sure everyone would support you or anyone else starting such a committee to finish the task we've partially completed.

assistant to the regional manager

 

[Psypher1000]

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.

That's a tough call - there's six sets currently within three votes of one another after the top four, and these two are in there. If you removed the current top four vote-getters and revoted on the rest, one or both still may not end up making it in.

Neither one of them were in my "first two out" for my votes.

That being said, waiting a year before being eligible to vote isn't necessarily a bad idea. I'd probably be in favor of it.

 

[72o]

Should we take a vote on whether we should vote on when to vote a set in?

In all seriousness, I would be in favor of a waiting period for possible inductees. But then we would need to decide on length of wait...year from production? or year of production? Meaning does it matter what month of the year a set is made? If a set is produced say in March of 2016, is it eligible starting in March of 2017 which probably means it misses the cut-off for being voted in for 2017? So it needs to wait for 2018 voting? I hope this makes sense.

 

[Mr Tree]

Should we take a vote on whether we should vote on when to vote a set in?

In all seriousness, I would be in favor of a waiting period for possible inductees. But then we would need to decide on length of wait...year from production? or year of production? Meaning does it matter what month of the year a set is made? If a set is produced say in March of 2016, is it eligible starting in March of 2017 which probably means it misses the cut-off for being voted in for 2017? So it needs to wait for 2018 voting? I hope this makes sense.

Nah, this is a committee issue. I think simply every set has to miss a voting cycle after it is produced to be eligible.

This year that would not be in effect as we have already set the wheels in motion on it.

 

[bmichaelhorn]

Alternatively there could be separate voting categories: legacy and new sets with a stipulation that X amount of legacy sets (5 years or older?) make it in each year. I'm not against the time limit either but I'm not sure some of the older sets will ever make it in even if we wait one year or more.

 

[Mr Tree]

Alternatively there could be separate voting categories: legacy and new sets with a stipulation that X amount of legacy sets (5 years or older?) make it in each year. I'm not against the time limit either but I'm not sure some of the older sets will ever make it in even if we wait one year or more.

If we had a lot of legacy sets then this was an option but we don't really have a ton. The only set we definitively fill meets the bill (that we have identified so far) is Casino Antarctica.

 

[Puggy]

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.

Nope. I sure wouldn't mind to wait.

 

[Puggy]

Alternatively there could be separate voting categories: legacy and new sets with a stipulation that X amount of legacy sets (5 years or older?) make it in each year. I'm not against the time limit either but I'm not sure some of the older sets will ever make it in even if we wait one year or more.

If we had a lot of legacy sets then this was an option but we don't really have a ton. The only set we definitively fill meets the bill (that we have identified so far) is Casino Antarctica.

I had this in mind too, since I recall seeing those marvellous old time sets both back in CT and here also. And I totally agree that Contreras Landa and other historical sets
should be given a fair chance to get them raised to HoF.

 

[manamongkids]

 

[gopherblue]

I'm disappointed (but not surprised) to see that most of the leading sets are very recent sets. I think this is unfortunate (not that those sets aren't great). Part of the calculus in voting HOF sets should be the context in which they were created. Thus, the Contreras Landas set is obviously waaaaaaay ahead of its time and is a no-brainer for HOF status. Likewise with several other older sets. In the context of the history of our hobby, certain sets were above and beyond at the time they were created. The C U Next Tuesday set, Old Orchard, Cedar Room and Red Room sets are all indicative of this. Certainly, there are many amazing new sets (the Game of Thrones set comes immediately to mind), but in the broader HOF context, historical perspective is necessary.

 

[Mr. Cheese]

Perhaps older sets should have had their own hall of fame voting separate from the current chip year HOF voting. Kind of a vintage HOF to get the old sets in and then current year?

 

[k9dr]

I'm pretty sure it will all take care of itself in due time. The members of the committee partially change every year. New members will bring new ideas and new opportunities for different sets to be voted in. If you want to influence the choices, volunteer to be on the committee.

 

[slisk250]

I feel like next year will see a set from toad94 get in. There are a number of sets that are just a few votes shy and will there be 3 or more new HOF worthy sets coming this year? Remains to be seen.

 

[beaver]

What about letting the committee have the power to just induct a set they feel is deserving but was not voted in. This year for example they could just induct the Casino Antartica set. It wouldn't have to happen every year, just when they feel it was right.

 

[jbutler]

Alternatively there could be separate voting categories: legacy and new sets with a stipulation that X amount of legacy sets (5 years or older?) make it in each year. I'm not against the time limit either but I'm not sure some of the older sets will ever make it in even if we wait one year or more.

I had this in mind too, since I recall seeing those marvellous old time sets both back in CT and here also. And I totally agree that Contreras Landa and other historical sets
should be given a fair chance to get them raised to HoF.

Perhaps older sets should have had their own hall of fame voting separate from the current chip year HOF voting. Kind of a vintage HOF to get the old sets in and then current year?

What about letting the committee have the power to just induct a set they feel is deserving but was not voted in. This year for example they could just induct the Casino Antartica set. It wouldn't have to happen every year, just when they feel it was right.

We thought through a bunch of options pretty thoroughly last year. In the end, the problem noted by Tom below is what kept us moving forward with the idea.

If we had a lot of legacy sets then this was an option but we don't really have a ton. The only set we definitively fill meets the bill (that we have identified so far) is Casino Antarctica.

Those of us on the committee last year (and I think I could say this year as well) all love chipping and have been involved in some cases for nearly ten years. But we didn't feel we had what I guess you could call in this case a sort of institutional knowledge of custom chips to confidently put together a roster of "legacy" sets.

I won't speak about what may or may not happen in the future as this is my last year on the committee, but I'm sure if the committee chairman thinks it worthwhile, there will be movement. Until then, I would rather see more praising of the nominated sets. Not trying to cut off the debate - just put the focus back on the voting.

 

[Toby]

Right. I think I'm pretty much settled on my choices.

This was a very tough decision!

 

[slisk250]

It was also very easy for me. It's worth noting that 3 of my choices are not in the top 4 now. That said there are only 3 sets that would never get my vote.

 

[atomiktoaster]

That said there are only 3 sets that would never get my vote.

I get the feeling that it's a common mindset. Unfortunately, it makes it hard to change to a more typical hall of fame voting system, where every entry gets a yes/no vote from every voter and each just has to hit a high bar of yes votes to win. That works great with hard ass baseball writers, but we're evidently a more generous bunch of people.

 

[Grobin03]

The Boulevard
Colony Club
The Cedar Room
Suicide Queens

 

[stocky]

The Boulevard
Colony Club
The Cedar Room
Suicide Queens

Need ten posts to vote... Better get posting

 

[Toby]

"This poll will close on Jan 24, 2016"

Still 10 days/plenty of time left to alter the course HoFstory!

Get yer vote on!

 

[JFCJ]

All great sets... committee did an excellent job! It was a tough decision, but I'm sure if a set doesn't make it this year, they will in the next few years!

my votes were a mix of old school and new sets... GL to all the owners!

 

[stocky]

Out of all the sets here if I could own any it would be between Contreras and Colony Club. Was really hoping that the Contreras would be smashing the voting.

 

[Phantom]

The more I look at the Silver Dust chips, the more I like them .

The history, theme, pron, all really first class.

 

[Anthony Martino]

Out of all the sets here if I could own any it would be between Contreras and Colony Club. Was really hoping that the Contreras would be smashing the voting.

Agreed, those Contreras are just beautiful. I want my chips to have their babies

 

[Toby]

Out of all the sets here if I could own any it would be between Contreras and Colony Club. Was really hoping that the Contreras would be smashing the voting.

I'd go with Contreras, due to availability. You couldn't get them made even if you wanted.

Puggy's Colony Club is a different matter. I fully intend to get CPC make me a knock-off set. Maybe Felony Club or similar.

I'm surprised Iron Bank isn't getting more love. It's a fantastic set....