Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
dt35456884

Detroit Tigers Hall of Fame - 2009 Elections

Recommended Posts

And if something official hasn't happened to change it, we should keep it the way it is.

So let's officially change it then.

There is no compelling reason to carry on with a five vote limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's officially change it then.

There is no compelling reason to carry on with a five vote limit.

For next election. You can't in the middle of a process. People may have been thinking about voting for five people entering last week. DaYooper is at least one person that wants to vote for five people.

dt, You have to see how that isn't an official change. I know you can see that. If we want to change it, it needs to be for an election that isn't in mid-process so people understand the change - and the reason for the change. That didn't happen here. I am not voting for five people and it bothered me. If we want to talk about changing it for next year, that's fine. But for this year, it's too late. I certainly have no issues with discussing making it official next year. And now we are having discussion about it.

The change could've been something else. Maybe since there are less people, why not make it 80% to be inducted? That wasn't the change, but to me it's the same thing. It's something that has been the standard from day one and needs to be officially discussed for it to be changed. For this election, I don't see how it was discussed properly in advance.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here. Just trying to maintain standards we created at the start of this process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe since there are less people, why not make it 80% to be inducted?

Because it doesn't make sense to require players to receive more support for their candidacy than any player heretofore. It does make sense to pare down the votes because there are fewer seasons-per-class than ever before, and accordingly fewer candidates. And that will be the case from here on in.

As I said, the credibility of the project is not served by continuing on with the 5-vote limit now or in the future. So I will be imposing a four-vote limit on myself in this election no matter what's considered "official."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because it doesn't make sense to require players to receive more support for their candidacy than any player heretofore. It does make sense to pare down the votes because there are fewer seasons-per-class than ever before, and accordingly fewer candidates. And that will be the case from here on in.

As I said, the credibility of the project is not served by continuing on with the 5-vote limit now or in the future. So I will be imposing a four-vote limit on myself in this election no matter what's considered "official."

First off that was just an example of something that could've been changed just as the five-vote limit was changed in your election post. That's all I was getting at. Why not change the number of managers you can vote for? All of this stuff - these are just examples of things that could've been changed on your initial post. But if it was done, it would've been done without any sort of official discussion among the members. Everything we've done has involved discussion among the members before making it official. And in each case there was some sort of agreement before an election or before the process before something was made official. Answer this question. Do you really feel that happened in this instance. I am one of the biggest supporters of this HOF and I didn't have a clue that was going to happen. You know if there was an real discussion AND AGREEMENT to this point, I would've known about it.

You can do what you want Alan. I have no quarms about that. And we can change it for the next election - as now we are actually discussing it BEFOREHAND and possibly coming to a conclusion. That didn't happen last time. You know that's true. If you don't. Show me where we had a reasonable (and serious) discussion discussing this option. AND then show me the thread (or PMs or whatever) that we had adopting it. Heck, we created a semi-committee when discussing new people to the group. No decisions have been taken lightly and at a whim. I'm not trying to rip on you or anyone, but I look at this decision as a whim. The fact that no one has come up and shown evidence this was greatly discussed and embraced as a rule now shows that it didn't happen. I know if you could, you would've displayed such evidence. But it isn't there. I think I read one post that hinted at the idea by either you or Edman in my research in a thread about the results of one of our most recent elections. One post falls a little short of making something official.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this is moot, because there is no way there are five players worth voting in this election...

Let's have a vote after the election for a plan of action for next year's ballot and call it a compromise... Not worth getting into a pissing match over...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All this is moot, because there is no way there are five players worth voting in this election...

Let's have a vote after the election for a plan of action for next year's ballot and call it a compromise... Not worth getting into a pissing match over...

I totally agree. And I think this is the right course of action.

Rules are rules. I'm abiding by what we've done in the past and we've known as the rules. That's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The existing rules don't make sense any longer and the early returns in addition to the lack of protest seemed to confirm that.

Odd for me of all people to be encouraging people to be a bit more miserly with their votes, but it only makes sense this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The existing rules don't make sense any longer and the early returns in addition to the lack of protest seemed to confirm that.

Odd for me of all people to be encouraging people to be a bit more miserly with their votes, but it only makes sense this time around.

Again, maybe you are right. I actually agree with your premise. But it should've been discussed beforehand and be dealt with in more of an official manner. I had no clue there were going to be four votes because it wasn't dealt in an official manner. That really struck me as odd and made me look through posts, trying to see if I missed something.

And actually it's odd that I would support five votes considering I'm on record saying I like our HOF now and have voted for only one person. But the point remains - since we didn't discuss it and officially change it beforehand, we shouldn't until this election is over.

And as Edman said, it may end up being a moot point. We'll work through this election and discuss proper changes if they need to be made after it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so everyone knows. On Wednesday (maybe tomorrow since I already voted) I am going to check to see if anyone voted for four people. If they did, I am going to send them a PM telling them they do have one more vote remaining if they desire to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just so everyone knows. On Wednesday (maybe tomorrow since I already voted) I am going to check to see if anyone voted for four people. If they did, I am going to send them a PM telling them they do have one more vote remaining if they desire to use it.

Don't bother sending one to me.

:happy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For next election. You can't in the middle of a process. People may have been thinking about voting for five people entering last week. DaYooper is at least one person that wants to vote for five people.
Not exactly (might only vote 4), but I do agree that we really didn't reach a "consensus" in time for this election. I'm open to reducing the number in the future though.

I'm supporting Whitehill, but still don't see what puts him so head and shoulders above Petry. I think Ed posted something on this in the past but I can't recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep thinking the election ends this week, when I know it's next week. I'm going to keep until Friday before I start looking at ballots that are in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had 24 votes last year, either a bunch moved to Tahiti or you will be getting lots of last minute votes!

Vote for Dandy Wood! Early and often !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,814
    • Total Posts
      2,951,616
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...