2019 HOF Stump thread (1 Viewer)

[72o]

Not sure if what is being alluded to in a couple of posts above has anything to do with me or not. I was on the committee the last year it was assembled. And yes I had a set up for nomination that same year. I hope that it is not being perceived that that was unfair to this community and that I was only a part of the committee to get my own set through. I joined because Tom had mentioned that there were open spots and that he needed help. I joined because I wanted to be a bigger part of PCF. I spent a lot of time on here and I felt like I was part of this place and wanted to give back by keeping the HOF going. I took it very seriously and spent a lot of time researching older sets and tried to nominate all sets that needed to be included. I did NOT even nominate my own set, nor vote for it to go through and never mentioned it once during all the discussions we had. It was said during our talks that both the good and the bad will be presented so be prepared to swallow some negative words if your set is up for vote and your on the committee. If anything, it can work against you for being on the committee.

Tom handled it exactly the same way. He never mentioned his own set and why it deserved to be nominated. To me, and most others, there was no debating why his set needed to be in the HOF.

It would be a shame to see the HOF fold but a change in format may be what it needs to make a comeback. As mentioned prior, I think there should be a percentage threshold that sets need to cross before making it in. That way sets won’t be competing with other sets up for nomination per se...they will need to hit an approval percentage for getting in or not.

 

[slisk250]

Not sure if what is being alluded to in a couple of posts above has anything to do with me or not. I was on the committee the last year it was assembled. And yes I had a set up for nomination that same year. I hope that it is not being perceived that that was unfair to this community and that I was only a part of the committee to get my own set through. I joined because Tom had mentioned that there were open spots and that he needed help. I joined because I wanted to be a bigger part of PCF. I spent a lot of time on here and I felt like I was part of this place and wanted to give back by keeping the HOF going. I took it very seriously and spent a lot of time researching older sets and tried to nominate all sets that needed to be included. I did NOT even nominate my own set, nor vote for it to go through and never mentioned it once during all the discussions we had. It was said during our talks that both the good and the bad will be presented so be prepared to swallow some negative words if your set is up for vote and your on the committee. If anything, it can work against you for being on the committee.

Tom handled it exactly the same way. He never mentioned his own set and why it deserved to be nominated. To me, and most others, there was no debating why his set needed to be in the HOF.

It would be a shame to see the HOF fold but a change in format may be what it needs to make a comeback. As mentioned prior, I think there should be a percentage threshold that sets need to cross before making it in. That way sets won’t be competing with other sets up for nomination per se...they will need to hit an approval percentage for getting in or not.

I can vouch for Alan here. It slipped my mind that his set also went in same year as the Paymasters. I'd also add that it is silly to suggest the Knollwoods got the nod because of committee membership. It was arguable the hottest set in the forum at the time as Alan included everyone to watch it's development.

I agree it would be a big mistake to not continue if the chair just didn't or doesn't want to do the job any longer...hasn't logged in in 35 days...

 

[David O]

Not sure if what is being alluded to in a couple of posts above has anything to do with me or not. I was on the committee the last year it was assembled. And yes I had a set up for nomination that same year. I hope that it is not being perceived that that was unfair to this community and that I was only a part of the committee to get my own set through. I joined because Tom had mentioned that there were open spots and that he needed help. I joined because I wanted to be a bigger part of PCF. I spent a lot of time on here and I felt like I was part of this place and wanted to give back by keeping the HOF going. I took it very seriously and spent a lot of time researching older sets and tried to nominate all sets that needed to be included. I did NOT even nominate my own set, nor vote for it to go through and never mentioned it once during all the discussions we had. It was said during our talks that both the good and the bad will be presented so be prepared to swallow some negative words if your set is up for vote and your on the committee. If anything, it can work against you for being on the committee.

Tom handled it exactly the same way. He never mentioned his own set and why it deserved to be nominated. To me, and most others, there was no debating why his set needed to be in the HOF.

It would be a shame to see the HOF fold but a change in format may be what it needs to make a comeback. As mentioned prior, I think there should be a percentage threshold that sets need to cross before making it in. That way sets won’t be competing with other sets up for nomination per se...they will need to hit an approval percentage for getting in or not.

Alan, I would not worry about it. If others think that is what was up they obviously do not know you. Those of us that do would not question you being in the committee.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Not sure if what is being alluded to in a couple of posts above has anything to do with me or not. I was on the committee the last year it was assembled. And yes I had a set up for nomination that same year. I hope that it is not being perceived that that was unfair to this community and that I was only a part of the committee to get my own set through. I joined because Tom had mentioned that there were open spots and that he needed help. I joined because I wanted to be a bigger part of PCF. I spent a lot of time on here and I felt like I was part of this place and wanted to give back by keeping the HOF going. I took it very seriously and spent a lot of time researching older sets and tried to nominate all sets that needed to be included. I did NOT even nominate my own set, nor vote for it to go through and never mentioned it once during all the discussions we had. It was said during our talks that both the good and the bad will be presented so be prepared to swallow some negative words if your set is up for vote and your on the committee. If anything, it can work against you for being on the committee.

Tom handled it exactly the same way. He never mentioned his own set and why it deserved to be nominated. To me, and most others, there was no debating why his set needed to be in the HOF.

It would be a shame to see the HOF fold but a change in format may be what it needs to make a comeback. As mentioned prior, I think there should be a percentage threshold that sets need to cross before making it in. That way sets won’t be competing with other sets up for nomination per se...they will need to hit an approval percentage for getting in or not.

I don't think anyone thinks that, your set was getting in no matter what lol

 

[Rhodeman77]

I have no problem with a board member having their sets considered. They have to be voted on anyways!

I’d rather have someone who wants to be on the board and doing something even if their set is being considered than someone who isn’t doing anything for several months now and hasn’t been on PCF in over a month.

 

[Coyote]

^^Sure; and what about having a standing HOF, regardless of year?
What about having separate categories for relabelled and for non-accessible generally (ie Paulson) chips?
I think the administration has to step in and define things.

 

[Mac128k]

I'm not exactly sure what we're debating so let me wade in ill-informed and totally misguided!

Assuming we're debating custom set HOF, why don't we just have all sets automatically nominated the year after they were created (or 2-5 years, who cares)? Then put it to a vote by the whole forum. There aren't that many new sets each year. Stick all legacy sets in there and vote in the top XX voted on each year (is 5 a good number?).

Am I oversimplifying this?

 

[bsdunbar1]

I'm not exactly sure what we're debating so let me wade in ill-informed and totally misguided!

Assuming we're debating custom set HOF, why don't we just have all sets automatically nominated the year after they were created (or 2-5 years, who cares)? Then put it to a vote by the whole forum. There aren't that many new sets each year. Stick all legacy sets in there and vote in the top XX voted on each year (is 5 a good number?).

Am I oversimplifying this?

I was thinking the same thing.
Simply list ALL the custom sets made, for whatever year is being voted on, and put them to a vote.
They can all be narrowed by vote to whatever #/% we want to be HOF worthy for the year.

 

[Trihonda]

Not sure if what is being alluded to in a couple of posts above has anything to do with me or not. I was on the committee the last year it was assembled. And yes I had a set up for nomination that same year. I hope that it is not being perceived that that was unfair to this community and that I was only a part of the committee to get my own set through. I joined because Tom had mentioned that there were open spots and that he needed help. I joined because I wanted to be a bigger part of PCF. I spent a lot of time on here and I felt like I was part of this place and wanted to give back by keeping the HOF going. I took it very seriously and spent a lot of time researching older sets and tried to nominate all sets that needed to be included. I did NOT even nominate my own set, nor vote for it to go through and never mentioned it once during all the discussions we had. It was said during our talks that both the good and the bad will be presented so be prepared to swallow some negative words if your set is up for vote and your on the committee. If anything, it can work against you for being on the committee.

Tom handled it exactly the same way. He never mentioned his own set and why it deserved to be nominated. To me, and most others, there was no debating why his set needed to be in the HOF.

It would be a shame to see the HOF fold but a change in format may be what it needs to make a comeback. As mentioned prior, I think there should be a percentage threshold that sets need to cross before making it in. That way sets won’t be competing with other sets up for nomination per se...they will need to hit an approval percentage for getting in or not.

I did make a few comments about a perception of HOF committee members having a higher percentage of sets up for consideration. If I had to guess, I’d imagine there’s probably some truth to the perception, but I am not claiming that they acted inappropriately. I truthfully could not tell you which sets were in, and who was on said committees. I just don’t follow it that closely. So no, I was not commenting about you (or anyone) specifically...

I did hear one comment a while back from someone claiming that people might try to place a higher value on a custom set that had HOF status, but I think thats probably a bit far-fetched. ...other than bragging rights, there’s no real benefit to getting a set in the HOF...

If there was some tangible benefit, I do think that best practice would be to not have committee members with sets for consideration... not saying they’d do anything wrong, but the optics look better with zero conflict of interest.

But Seriously, its For fun, so put whomever onto a committee and vote away. Post lots of pics of great chips, etc.

 

[BGinGA]

a change in format may be what it needs to make a comeback. As mentioned prior, I think there should be a percentage threshold that sets need to cross before making it in. That way sets won’t be competing with other sets up for nomination per se...they will need to hit an approval percentage for getting in or not.

I've been a proponent of such a qualification criteria since the very beginning..... and the "powers-that-be" at the time shot it down. I've since lost interest, since it's somewhat devolved into something I think is much less worthy than it could be.

Including a set number of sets every year dilutes the Hall imo..... better to require a minimum threshold to make it, no matter how many sets get in (including zero, in an off year). Nominate as many sets as you like, give each member 5 votes, require a majority to qualify (50% or better), and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[allforcharity]

and let the chips fall where they may.

I see what you did there!

 

[CraigT78]

I'd like to see more custom ceramic sets make the HOF........just saying.

 

[slisk250]

I'm not exactly sure what we're debating so let me wade in ill-informed and totally misguided!

Assuming we're debating custom set HOF, why don't we just have all sets automatically nominated the year after they were created (or 2-5 years, who cares)? Then put it to a vote by the whole forum. There aren't that many new sets each year. Stick all legacy sets in there and vote in the top XX voted on each year (is 5 a good number?).

Am I oversimplifying this?

there is a vetting process to try and keep a standard above just pure popularity of some members/sets Or we would already have Justin Bieber in the HOF. Nothing is perfect for sure. IMO the only real issue is that the committee is stalled. That is why there is a cooling off period. I think we also need experienced chippers so Randy Newman doesn’t get the nod in place of Soundgarden

 

[CraigT78]

I think we also need experienced chippers so Randy Newman doesn’t get the nod in place of Soundgarden

Just as long as no Nickelback chips make it in, we will be good to go!

 

[BGinGA]

In that case, change the name to Hall of Vetted Chips.

 

[Mac128k]

there is a vetting process to try and keep a standard above just pure popularity of some members/sets Or we would already have Justin Bieber in the HOF. Nothing is perfect for sure. IMO the only real issue is that the committee is stalled. That is why there is a cooling off period. I think we also need experienced chippers so Randy Newman doesn’t get the nod in place of Soundgarden

Short People rules!

I'd argue there are already sets in there based on popularity. Sooner or later we'd run out of the Bieber sets and get to the good stuff.

 

[Perthmike]

In that case, change the name to Hall of Vetted Chips.

There does need to be some vetting process at least. I think a committee with at least some (but clearly defined) oversight is a benefit

 

[Perthmike]

Lets focus on getting this running again for now lol. I've sent some PM's and am awaiting an update.

Depending on how that goes, and who moves forward with it, maybe some new rules should be discussed and agreed upon, to freshen the process up a bit.

 

[Perthmike]

I've still had no luck getting any update and bivey still hasn't logged in, so I think it's fair to call committee the MIA.

I know people are keen for this to get this going, so this is me officially forming a new committee to make it happen.

There is a chipset of the year thread going for 2019, but none of those sets would be eligible for HoF, and I think it's totally fine for them both to run concurrently. Both are a fun distraction and will generate some nice discussion and pron.

Trying to do this all in the open, since lack of communication has been the issue.

I'd also like to add some clarity to the committee role and rules etc, as there have been many opinions on that too. For the record I think it has been run well in the past, and see no problem myself with committee members sets being up for vote. Perception is key however, so I'd like to set the parameters around that, to avoid any complaints.

@72o seeing as you were on the last one are you keen again.

@Irish @Psypher1000 are either of you keen to jump on board a new committee.

@slisk250 I know you aren't keen in theory, because your set will be up for consideration, but can I twist your arm if we set some clear rules around committee members commenting on their own sets.

 

[Perthmike]

@Jeff any interest too?

 

[Jeff]

I'm glad you guys are reviving this if you're enthused, but I'll pass. I'm not keen to be judging other people's customs, HOF has not been my passion. Times at a premium as well. I spend plenty of time modding and with meetups and such. Life balance

 

[Perthmike]

I'm glad you guys are reviving this if you're enthused, but I'll pass. I'm not keen to be judging other people's customs, HOF has not been my passion. Times at a premium as well. I spend plenty of time modding and with meetups and such. Life balance

Figured as much but I thought I'd ask.

 

[slisk250]

@slisk250 I know you aren't keen in theory, because your set will be up for consideration, but can I twist your arm if we set some clear rules around committee members commenting on their own sets.

I would be happy to do any work but as we discussed earlier I want to be beyond reproach if any sets I've made are committee items of agenda, just have a side discussion.

I presume Forrest has been formally invited to continue? @inca911

 

[Perthmike]

I would be happy to do any work but as we discussed earlier I want to be beyond reproach if any sets I've made are committee items of agenda, just have a side discussion.

I presume Forrest has been formally invited to continue? @inca911

I suggested in pm that he perhaps take over as committee chair, with support from a new committee. That would be my preference

 

[slisk250]

I've been a proponent of such a qualification criteria since the very beginning..... and the "powers-that-be" at the time shot it down. I've since lost interest, since it's somewhat devolved into something I think is much less worthy than it could be.

Including a set number of sets every year dilutes the Hall imo..... better to require a minimum threshold to make it, no matter how many sets get in (including zero, in an off year). Nominate as many sets as you like, give each member 5 votes, require a majority to qualify (50% or better), and let the chips fall where they may.

Not opposed to this idea at all but the question would be, "what threshold?" If you use 50%, only 2 sets are in the HOF, Colony Club and Knollwoods. Dropping it to 40% only yields two more. People had a dozen or so to choose from. I wouldn't argue against any of the sets that entered in the last three votes. The 2015 voting thread is gone and I don't recall how it was conducted. 12 sets went in that first year. Rules were added along the way, 4 entries in 2016, 3 in 2017, 4 in 2018, none for 2019. Looking through all those threads (voting/stump) was fun...

This could still get done for 2019 and just move the annual timing to later in the year for 2020.

 

[Irish]

Sure @Perthmike , I'd be willing to help out with the committee. Glad to see this getting some momentum again.

 

[bivey]

Hey gang, I haven't been on in ages. I apologize. I took the HOF mantle as a favor to Tom who had worked incredibly hard to lead the committee for three years I think. That was a mistake on my part as I have too much on my plate. Things were moving along nicely last year but the environment in chipping wasn't right to be opening up ourselves to hurt feelings. There were a lot of back channel discussions about the negative parts of having an HOF and I shut things down after considering the advice of many people who have been on for years.

I am not opposed to an HOF, but I will need to resign my duties. Inca911 has expressed interest and he seems to have endless energy and love of all things chips. I wouldn't think of a better person to lead the way. I've asked him and will stump for him here to apply pressure

 

[inca911]

Things are in motion....

 

[Coyote]

It seems we 've got white smoke out of the PCF's chimney, i.e. a new Pope

 

[Grandmasturkey]

Club Courage "H" mold CPC - Tribute Customs

Perhaps the best custom set of all time: proper mold, old school tribute chips, spot progression, custom integration, etc. Even managed to pull off getting a self portrait in the set that would make ol' Benny Binion and grandma Jessie Beck proud. Truly spectacular

@courage
View attachment 291696

Tropicana .50 1st edition tribute
View attachment 291697

1970s Horseshoe Club "Binion's" $1 Tribute
View attachment 291698

1960s-70s Caesars Palace $5 Tribute
View attachment 291699

Dunes Late 80s $25 Tribute
View attachment 291700

Mint 80s $100 Tribute
View attachment 291702

Love that 50 cent chip so much!