2017 Custom Chip Hall of Fame Voting (1 Viewer)

[BGinGA]

If the committee thinks there is one worthy set for a criteria do we just enshrine it? Not having the community input on it deligitimizes it IMO.

Totally agree - just because the committee nominates a set (in a category, or not) should not automatically guarantee that it makes it into the HoF. It would still need to muster sufficient support from the masses to be included.

This is also why I've been a proponent for having a minimum qualifying threshold on the community voting necessary for inclusion (vs automatically enshrining a preset fixed number of sets). It is a way to measure the amount of inclusion support a set has generated:

HoF committee nominates sets (however many they deem deserving, no constraints on numbers). Voters determine which - and how many - of the nominated sets make it into the HoF (again, with no constraints on numbers).

If the voters only feel that one of the ten nominated sets is deserving, why should three be enshrined? Or if they feel that four - or five - sets in a class of ten deserve inclusion, why restrict it to just three?

 

[Poker Zombie]

In all fairness that WAS the intent....

I think that's why Hotstamps deserve a closer look. On a page with a bunch of spotted inlaid chips, the hotstamps look unlovable. But the old-timy look of the HP or the low-brow Clermont Lounge set are magnificent works of conceptual (and playable) art.

That to me is HoF worthiness. Yes, there needs to be a wow category. A home-run king, if you will. Other sets don't evoke wow, because they are conceptual.

Like BG, I'm not trying to change the HoF. I just want to raise awareness. Get people to vote with more than "it's pretty". Then again, I used to be a museum docent, so I look at excellence very differently than most.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Totally agree - just because the committee nominates a set (in a category, or not) should not automatically guarantee that it makes it into the HoF. It would still need to muster sufficient support from the masses to be included.

This is also why I've been a proponent for having a minimum qualifying threshold on the community voting necessary for inclusion (vs automatically enshrining a preset fixed number of sets). It is a way to measure the amount of inclusion support a set has generated:


If the voters only feel that one of the ten nominated sets is deserving, why should three be enshrined? Or if they feel that four - or five - sets in a class of ten deserve inclusion, why restrict it to just three?

I'm not advocating a change in the future, but if we did, this would be it.(y) :thumbsup:

 

[Mr Tree]

This is also why I've been a proponent for having a minimum qualifying threshold on the community voting necessary for inclusion (vs automatically enshrining a preset fixed number of sets). It is a way to measure the amount of inclusion support a set has generated:

Not without merits but really hard to know where to set the bar.

It also doesn't help with issues like large swaths of voters just cutting sets out because they have giant inlays, are hot stamps, ceramics, etc.

 

[jbutler]

How can you tell if the chips are flawed from the pics? You mentioned you like how they feel - also impossible to detect from a pic. Either you are simply voting for sets you've played with and have firsthand knowledge (automatically diminishing sets you haven't played with), or you are voting your "feel" based off of reputation or playing with other BCC sets.

Do you not think you know how it feels to play with every mold available? I don't even see how this is arguable. I know how giant inlay BCC chips feel; I know how 1" hourglass chips feel; etc. I don't need to hold the actual chips pictured to know how they perform. And yes, you can see the flaws of BCC chips in pictures.

 

[pltrgyst]

I would never own a solid hot stamp set....

Well, if you hadn't sold your soul to Hewlett-Packard...

 

[jbutler]

Well, if you hadn't sold your soul to Hewlett-Packard...

You should have seen him begging them to not require him to include "Sponsored by..." in the design.

 

[BGinGA]

Not without merits but really hard to know where to set the bar.

Agree, but historically, somewhere between 25% and 30% of the total votes cast (using the current system) seems to be the sweet spot. If allowed ballots were increased to four, I suspect that 1/3 (33%) would work nicely.

It also doesn't help with issues like large swaths of voters just cutting sets out because they have giant inlays, are hot stamps, ceramics, etc.

Which is where categories could be beneficial to the process. What categories and how many? Dunno, several avenues to explore.


We probably should have this conversation sometime over some cold beers. Not my intent to derail this voting thread.

 

[Mr Tree]

Well, if you hadn't sold your soul to Hewlett-Packard...

You should have seen him begging them to not require him to include "Sponsored by..." in the design.

Pfffffttttt

Obviously you guys don't know how to free roll a set.

 

[12thMan]

Damn, sometimes you just have to appreciate how good we have it. In the midst of the chaos that is living a conscious life on planet Earth we have a group of people typing page after page of comments on the internet debating the best way to do something in a niche hobby that the vast majority of the population on this planet would just chuckle at and go on with life. Good ideas from everybody, and just the simple fact that there is so much passion is a very cool thing. Be it poker chips, snow shovels hanging from a ceiling, or what ever the fuck, humans are kind of amazing when it comes to passion, emotion, and dedication.

Thanks for the HoF, thanks to Tommy for the board, and thanks to everybody for their contribution....even if their opinion is dead fucking wrong.

 

[BGinGA]

thanks to everybody for their contribution.....even if their opinion is dead fucking wrong.

Your posts always bring a smile to my face..... thanks, Travis. (y) :thumbsup:

 

[Poker Zombie]

Be it poker chips, snow shovels hanging from a ceiling, or what ever the fuck

Every now and then I read something that I will store in my memory banks, just to reuse later. This qualifies (and will be even better when the snow shovel comment is used without context).

 

[Toby]

You dummies can't spell SPONSCER. Dummies.

 

[pltrgyst]

....This is also why I've been a proponent for having a minimum qualifying threshold on the community voting necessary for inclusion (vs automatically enshrining a preset fixed number of sets)....

Agreed. Allow every member over some number of posts an unlimited number of votes, and induct all those who garner support from some fixed fraction of the number of votes cast -- two-thirds, three-quarters, 90%, whatever.

 

[jbutler]

To exacerbate everyone's future FOMO and deep regret, just a reminder that the Silver Dust BCCs were one of the times Mark generously offered, in conjunction with his sample set thread here, to let anyone order a full set of those chips at the time of his purchase for $1 per chip!

Can you imagine not taking him up on that offer? I can because, like a dumbass, I ordered zero. For $1 per chip I could have had a massive limit set with those beautiful black $1s. Only one of us was smart enough to buy a decent sized set - StarmanXL5 (though another user did buy a small 200-chip set).

Regrets, I've had a few...

 

[Toby]

Wow, third place is tight!

 

[Mr Tree]

Wow, third place is tight!

Two sets neck and neck with a third within the margin of error. All three deserving IMO

 

[Jeff]

I guess I need to start campaigning. Go Everleigh!

 

[k9dr]

The Iron Bank will have its due :

 

[Toby]

It looks like the shameless Iron Bank canvassing is paying off!

 

[Jeff]

Sword and Axe? Everleighs are from Chicago. Also that's no wall. This is a wall...

Everleign Club

• Jeff
• Feb 4, 2017

 

[Toby]

Seeing as the owner's not around to champion it...

This is also a wall. A radiant wall of colorful loveliness:

 

[12thMan]

These last two posts.......damn. Just, damn. Beautiful.

 

[Ben]

Too late for a comeback? (Since, apparently, "volume" is a thing...)

 

[72o]

I love looking at the shear size of awesome sets like the ones above. Very impressive.

Even though I personally don't use set size as a contributing factor in my HoF voting, it is so cool to see stacks and stacks of great chips.

Please continue campaigning. (y) :thumbsup:

 

[bergs]

Regarding how it's harder for a hot-stamped solid set to get in, or sentiments of that ilk......that's OK. It's harder for certain positions to get into Baseball's HoF as well - look at the ratio of first basement that got in versus second basement or catchers. All it means is that if a hotstamped solid chip gets in, it was a really, really great fucking chip. I have no problem with the current approach.

 

[jbutler]

The Iron Bank will have its due :

View attachment 79984

I love it when I see sets that are literally perfect and break virtually every dumb "rule" I think I have in terms of set design with regard to color (or color family) repetition.

I'm not even a huge GoT fan and I think this is one of the best sets of all time.

 

[Toby]

3rd place is currently tied.

Mon Steel City Club, let's make it 3-way!

 

[drbalance]

How do you vote.

 

[Toby]

How do you vote.

You should have access to a multiple choice selection in OP

I think the threshold for voting is 10 posts, so you may have only just qualified