So far, (likely) volunteers who would like to join consists of the following.
Maxico (by other thread)
Sepho (by other thread)
theundeadhero
boris no no
Heath
Please continue to apply. We will be privately selecting who will join the committee. When we have the nine members filled, I'll announce the members, and we may continue to use this thread for ideas from others for us to consider.
Apparently, I have been declared banished.
Actually, Proto and I discussed this yesterday. On the Committee, we're going to try to have a pretty good range of members:Originally Posted by Psychotic
4 members from 8 months(custom title) to 2 years
5 members from 2 years +
We can't have any true newbies at the time, because they haven't shown a genuine interest in EoFF yet, so we figured the cut off should be custom title(8 months).
As I said to Proto, I won't pass any more judgment on the Committee until the members are announced, and that won't necessarily be negative and probably won't be if your intentions are as true as you say.
Two minor points though:
If they need to have a custom title, where does boris no no (mentioned by Proto) stand?
Why are there more members from 2+ years than 8 months-2 years? It's not a criticism, it's a question. I just find it odd is all, especially as there are MANY more EoFF members who fall into the first category.
I did say anyone is free to apply, but we'll be privately selecting who'll eventually be a member of the committee. After all, it's a volunteer thing.
I have discussed things with BoB regarding staff involvement, because I planned that members will have to go through the committee and staff before getting inducted, and he suggested that we should accept any members regardless of status, including staff as well.
Apparently, I have been declared banished.
If she hasn't been here 8 months, then I'd say no. But maybe that's just me. However, I don't know if the 8-month prerequisite has been completely finalized, yet.
The main reason, actually, is that 9 was the number selected before it was determined how it was to be divided up, and then when it was cut in half, I rounded up to the older members because they are more likely to have more direct knowledge of the people most likely to be nominated for the Hall of Fame.Why are there more members from 2+ years than 8 months-2 years? It's not a criticism, it's a question. I just find it odd is all, especially as there are MANY more EoFF members who fall into the first category.
However, that number is not set in stone, and is subject to change.
Just chill a little, man. Even though I'm all "newbies suck," I do that more because that's what people expect of me than because I actually dislike newbies.
My principals of fairness overweigh my own alleged elitism.
BLOODY HELL I AM GODAMNED CHILLED! I AM THE CHILLDEST CHILLER THAT EVER CHILLED YOU smurfING smurfER!
No in all seriousness, you have my blessings. I am not an opponent to this, I was concerned is all, and my concerns have been addressed. Thank you, and good luck.
Besides, every nine members in the committee will have equal saying.
Let's see whether we'll have more volunteers for the committee.
Apparently, I have been declared banished.
If it's a hall of fame thing, I don't see the harm in having more older members at all, in fact one could encourage it as they would have more knowledge of what has happened over the years. I do encourage newbies to get involved, but someone who has no idea what has happened over the past many years wouldn't really have a decent opinion over who should and should not be in a historic hall of fame.
Having said that, it should be more about activity than oldbie-ness. Taking example from the older thread on this, I'd have Neel over Chef because Neel has been far more active over a long period of time than Chef has been.
Diversity is a good thing, but knowledge is also a strong point to keep in mind. I think it should be a combination of time and activity that makes someone valuable to the hall of fame, and then obviously fairness with judgement, too.
I would consider applying but I understand you already have enough pre-2002 members. xP
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
Plus you don't have an 'a' in your name.
Not if your Canadian. Loon-ay BoB :laugh:
[q=BoB]]Diversity is a good thing, but knowledge is also a strong point to keep in mind. I think it should be a combination of time and activity that makes someone valuable to the hall of fame, and then obviously fairness with judgement, too.[/q]
Well, since this thing actually seems like it's going to get off the ground, I think I'll try and support it. Keep in mind I'm still highly skeptical about the entire thing, as has no doubt been noticed in the other thread. But this is a democracy, and I don't hate, so I'll provide whatever input I can.
That being said, I'd like to see a larger committee. I agree with BoB's argument about having older members serving on the committee because they have more experience about what goes on around here, but I also agree with Psy's implications (and my earlier accusations) that this will simply turn out to be an oldbie orgasm. Given the strata that you're dividing the committee into, it still restricts the diversity of the committee too much. I'm not saying get 30 people, just 3 more would probably suffice. Since you already have 3 people pre-2002, why not 3 people pre-2003, 3 pre-2004, 3 pre-2005? Even if they aren't past your set 8-month custom rank mark, you are the executive decision makers, aren't you? Can't you decide on allowing a newbie in? And if you do allow newbies in, it provides them incentive to stay around longer.
[q=BoB]Having said that, it should be more about activity than oldbie-ness. Taking example from the older thread on this, I'd have Neel over Chef because Neel has been far more active over a long period of time than Chef has been.[/q]
! However, I've been here since March 2001, which renders me ineligible to serve on the committee, since they already have 3 pre-2002 people already (and they are the executives, how about that). :rolleyes: Although it would be nice to give back to the boards in some other manner than copious amounts of spam, I guess I'll have to wait.
'Committee'... It sounds so mysterious.
Will joining involve a lot of work/being regularly online? I won't say I've been here long, but a long look at the archives has given me an image of the madness prior to my signing up.
there was a picture here
I'd be interested in helping, but I haven't been around since Spring of '02, and won't be getting my Custom Title for a little under a month. But then Boris no no's been around an even shorter amount of time than me, so does that mean I can still apply? Confusing. Anyway, if I can...
*Throws hat into the ring*
No. Diversity is not a good thing. Knowledge, however, is. I'm just saying that the commitee needs various elements to work. A group of nazi's aren't going to pick a jew to the hall of fame.
I'd also like to continue a discussion from the other thread:
Of course we have to draw the line somewhere, and getting it 100% representative is just ridiculous, because it's impossible to go through with. BUT, however, the selection won't be representative for the forums at all. Becaaaaaause the commitee is chosen by three people, and then the ones who'll enter the hall of fame will be representative for the views on those three commitee members.
But a lot of things in the world aren't representative, so that's not so important. I just wanted to contradict you.
No, not at all. After all, we'll only be meeting when it comes to meeting to vote on members when it comes to the process to induct members to a hall of fame for EoFF.
And Levian, we're not nazis. I'll make sure that we have a good diversity of members, who's also knowledgeable, but it heavily depends on who wants to volunteer.
If we gather plenty of volunteers, it'll take us probably longer to select the remaining members of the committee from the volunteers.
Apparently, I have been declared banished.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
