Proposal: New process for selecting HOVG finalists

[RyanChristiansen]

I posted this as a reply in another topic but I think it merits it’s own topic. I propose the following change to the process for selecting new members of the Hall of Very Good.

Step 1: Call for Nominations - Each nomination must be submitted with a justification of at least 100 words. Maximum X number of nominations. This can start immediately after HOVG voting is finalized for a certain year. Simply open a new thread on the forum where people can post nominations. If they want to send them to the committee by email, then the committee would post those nominations and justifications on the forum for the nominator. This allows for people to nominate players throughout much of the year as they come across new research, and it allows for continuous open discussion. (See Step 2.)

Step 2: Post the Nominations with Justifications for Discussion. This is done throughout the nomination process. Nominations and justifications for the year are posted into a specific thread in the forum where people can discuss.

Step 3: Cut Down to 16 - The committee plus everyone who nominated at least X number of players gets to participate in the cut down discussion and cut down voting. Participants use rank voting to SEED the nominees based on how likely they feel the player will be voted into the HOVG. Nominations are entered into a bracket of 16.

Step 4: Bracket Voting - Cuts down the field from 16 to 8. The 8 finalists make it into the HOVG.


This system would accomplish the following goals:

-- Guarantees nominators put at least 100 words of thought into a nomination and it puts their justifications up to public scrutiny.
-- Allows the entire membership to participate in discussion surrounding the initial nominations.
-- Allows for wider participation by those members who put in the work to nominate at least X number of players and provide justifications.
-- Previews for the entire membership how the cut-down committee and participants feel about the 16 finalists. Sometimes voters want recommendations.
-- Nominations that are "on the fence" appear in the middle parts of the bracket. Ultimately, members decide which nomination remains.
-- Guarantees 8 finalists each year. Each finalist survived nomination, justification, discussion, comparison, and adjudication.

[ChrisBabcock]

Some of us who aren't the goodest (sic) of writers might not like Step 1. But kudos for thinking outsdie the box on this and proposing ideas.

[Brian wolf]

I understand Andy and Ralphs arguments ... Andy wants high votes with its impact on breaking gridlock and settling ties but Ralph is right about minimal choices to support and hoping they find a way. I will choose 10 though I support less for status quo but members should at least endorse four in the finalist stage, IMO ...