Quote: Originally Posted By ucfknights37 on 1/20/2010What about only letting owners who have been in your World 3+ seasons be eligible to vote? That way you don't get HBD's version of voter fraud

two words to describe such a world

'tard is only one word......?

What's the other??

infested

dominated

controlled

any number of words fits the second word requirement, i prefer tard fest

Super?

'tard super doesn't work.

'tard-elicious?

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/20/2010
'tard super doesn't work.

'tard-elicious?

It does if you're retodd.

Quote: Originally posted by hartjh14 on 1/20/2010If you have to ask if someone is a HoFer, then he isn't. It's really that simple.

No it's not

Quote: Originally posted by patrickm885 on 1/20/2010

Quote: Originally posted by zbrent716 on 1/20/2010I've read the thread and I've yet to see any really good reason why you don't just use ML years as a criteria for possible nomination (similar to the way it is done with MLB). 10+ ML seasons and they can be nominated. (Not auto-nomination, just eligible for nomination.) This would also solve the one-time issue of players who had pre-S1 careers, allowing them to be nominated even though we have stats for fewer than 10 seasons.
Let the Worlds' owners separate the wheat from the chaff to decide who actually gets *into* their HOF.

If we allow for this to happen the list will be very, very long and unmanageable. I addressed that a few pages back.

what i think patrick is trying to say here, and most of you are missing, is not that the nominations list would be unmanageable, but rather the "possible" nominations list would be unmanageable. ie, those that would qualify to be nominated. if it included every player with ten years experience, it would be huge. and as worlds start to go into their 20th plus seasons, it would only get bigger and bigger.

there is no reason to include all the average players who filled out a roster for ten seasons. though i do like the idea of a hard number instead of an average for the qualifications. :>

As I understand it, players lose their eligibility after 5 retired seasons. So the list won't get bigger and bigger.

That said, it would be HUGE for the first 5 seasons.

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 1/20/2010As I understand it, players lose their eligibility after 5 retired seasons.  So the list won't get bigger and bigger.  

It certainly doesn't say this, if it's true. It says that a player loses eligibility after 5 nominations if he's not elected. It doesn't say what happens if he's never nominated, at least as far as I can tell.

Perhaps I've interpreted it incorrectly. I assumed he was only eligible to be nominated in his first five retired seasons. And only eligible to be elected for 5 seasons beyond that. Of course, I was also assuming, once nominated, a player stayed on the ballot for the next 5 seasons.

benji13blue is right, he has to be nominated 5 times and not voted in.

There probably should be a mechanism for how long a guy retains nomination eligibility if he's never nominated. Once we're in Season 60, we probably don't need to see the guy who retired in Season 20 but has never been nominated.

Well, damn.

Another question. Looks like Moonlight Graham will roll a day or two before the HOF is implemented. I assume worlds in progress won't get the HOF feature until the following season. Correct?