Well since you are in charge of this now......Whilst we are opening some dialogue, I see a nice opportunity for one spot being left open specifically for a solid set entry.
Hahaha im definitely not. The committee does still exist, I understand they will be posting an update soon.Well since you are in charge of this now......
Hahaha im definitely not. The committee does still exist, I understand they will be posting an update soon.
If the new committee is open to any small changes/tweaks in the process, I'd offer to move to a % goal in order to make the HOF vs picking the best 5 or 6. Similar to the baseball HOF, where only players receiving 75% "yes" votes get in. This way folks are voting whether they feel each nominated set is worthy compared to their own HOF standard, not comparing them to each other each year. Imho this makes it a little more objective and less of a popularity contest.
Either way, looking forward to this, the stumping and vote threads are always fun threads.
Whilst we are opening some dialogue, I see a nice opportunity for one spot being left open specifically for a solid set entry.
Epic set. The Harrow club have always been a favourite of mine tooBreezeways?
Epic set. The Harrow club have always been a favourite of mine too
And yes @detroitdad i love the inlays on your sunsets too
What if we move it away from calling it the HOF and do more awards show style for each year?
We can have categories like best ceramic, best solids, best tournament, best cash, make it more of fun event to celebrate the chips that have come out in the last couple of years.
There could even be a lifetime achievement type category for older sets that helped pave the way and were innovative in their time before so many more options became available.
What if we move it away from calling it the HOF and do more awards show style for each year?
We can have categories like best ceramic, best solids, best tournament, best cash, make it more of fun event to celebrate the chips that have come out in the last couple of years.
There could even be a lifetime achievement type category for older sets that helped pave the way and were innovative in their time before so many more options became available.
Being on the committee in the past, I learned a bunch from Tom and PZ in particular. I understand the rules that were put in place and for the most part believe they are solid. I presume that revisiting them and tweaking a bit could be desirable to some but I would caution about making wholesale changes. There is a calendar to celebrate sets and that is driven by votes too. I would not really be in favor of an overturning of Roe v Wade in a chipping sense. Chippers much more experienced than I convened to make those rules and for very well thought out reasons. Not sure who all that was too.
Don’t discount those older sets...That's kind of what the stumping threads do - gives folks the opportunity to highlight all the various chips that came about the previous year. While nice in theory, I think it'd be a big undertaking to ask the committee to create all that. @slisk250 said it very well:
Keep the overall format, but perhaps tweak an aspect of the approach. That's why I posted about the % approach, I think that actually helps to level the playing field a bit. A really nice solid or hot stamped set may deserve to get in based on it's own merits (simple/classic design), but when you're up against a set with lots of nice spot combos that appeals to the greater masses and have to limit your picks, it's got no shot. Just my 2 cents worth as a casual observer; I serve on a professional committee in DC so I know how difficult these can be to come to any kind of consensus
Don’t discount those older sets...
Absolutely! I always try to stump for a few of my older favorites. Corrected my post.
I forget how the committee handled older sets before the PCF days, was there a certain number of older sets allowed to be nominated each year?
In response to those who were interested in a broader celebration of custom chips, Tommy created a place to archive information of the custom chip set creativity of the members. The “Poker Chip Database” is in the “Front Desk” part of the site. If you haven’t seen it, you should look.
It’s open to everyone. It is a place for chip set owners to upload pictures of their sets and individual chips and insert information about colors and manufacturer etc. It has a search function which is helpful if you’re trying to get ideas. If you’re doing a yellow chip, you can search yellow chips. I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO POST THEIR CHIPS AND SETS THERE.
I’ve hoped that Chiptalk would survive with the early years pictures intact. Unfortunately it hasn’t. I think Tommy has attempted to populate the database from public content, but that’s time consuming and not a high priority.
If you’re interested in volunteering some time past posting your own set(s), it’s possible we a small group of volunteers could help add and update non-personal sets. PM me if you’re interested in that and we can figure out if there’s a way to do it.
In response to those who were interested in a broader celebration of custom chips, Tommy created a place to archive information of the custom chip set creativity of the members. The “Poker Chip Database” is in the “Front Desk” part of the site. If you haven’t seen it, you should look.
It’s open to everyone. It is a place for chip set owners to upload pictures of their sets and individual chips and insert information about colors and manufacturer etc. It has a search function which is helpful if you’re trying to get ideas. If you’re doing a yellow chip, you can search yellow chips. I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO POST THEIR CHIPS AND SETS THERE.
I’ve hoped that Chiptalk would survive with the early years pictures intact. Unfortunately it hasn’t. I think Tommy has attempted to populate the database from public content, but that’s time consuming and not a high priority.
If you’re interested in volunteering some time past posting your own set(s), it’s possible we a small group of volunteers could help add and update non-personal sets. PM me if you’re interested in that and we can figure out if there’s a way to do it.
I love the idea of celebrating awesome sets. However, If I had one suggestion, it would be prohibit committee members from having sets in consideration. If a committee member wound up getting their set(s) nominated, then they would step down. This removes (reduces) potential bias in the selection process. It always seemed like a head scratcher when a large percentage of the sets up for consideration were owned by committee members. I am not insinuating any impropriety has taken place (because it seemed like all sets selected were worthy), but I don’t think it’s a bad idea to remove the potential.
It always seemed like a head scratcher when a large percentage of the sets up for consideration were owned by committee members. I am not insinuating any impropriety has taken place (because it seemed like all sets selected were worthy), but I don’t think it’s a bad idea to remove the potential.
Noted but I'll challenge that by suggesting the very people that should be taking the stump thread plus their years of experience/knowledge and putting nominees in front of the membership are very likely to be those who have and continue to create HOF worthy sets. To exclude would make the process a royal PITA and would result in a potential degradation of quality regarding HOF inductees.
This has been a discussion in all the committees I believe. I can report that both Tom and Alan had nothing to say about their sets being nominated in 2018 and were even a bit humbled by the member response IMO. Chippers made it clear in the stump thread that those sets be considered in committee and the rest of us agreed. Paymasters and Knollwoods were the hits of the year. The publicity of the stump threads is what drives this and makes it fun. If few out there mention a committee member's set and it get a nomination?...well then that is a different story entirely.
I paid off the committee members handsomely to get my TPP cash set voted in. So that's always an option.