Hall of Fame Upcoming

Thanks for the announcement Supa! I'll also take this time to announce that the MEEP I hinted at is right around the corner. It will hopefully be up fairly soon after the HoF is finished. I'm extremely pleased with how it is turning out, and I think most everyone on DART will be too. 

Might be a good idea to backup the hall of fame results into the information center. It could be displayed in a much nicer manner there, even if harder to edit.

I like that idea. Will work on the ban log thing too.

What are the rules about nominations?

The only thing you can't do is vote your multi accounts and you cannot coordinate mass PM groups or campaign to vote for someone

You can vote for yourself, but it wouldn't be the most moral thing to do.

How many people/debates/threads can I nominate? And will there be a nomination/voting thread(s), or do I pm you or another admin?

Yes

pretty cool

There's nothing immoral about voting for yourself... Like nothing at all.

If the rules allow it and you are viable to win the nomination, always vote yourself or your thread etc, it's never wise not to.

I suggest getting an honorable mention  as the debater in the top 20 with the most no-vote ties: 8 of 11 ties that no one, zip, nada, bothered to read and vote. Over 400 of you who are "active," which is one of the site activities, yeah?, cannot be bothered to read and vote. If I was not also in the top ten in voting [in fact, for my single year, plus presence, I've voted more often than just 7 of you], so I'm trying to contribute, and wish that more did, as well. Thanks, everybody for your ignorance. What is this site all about, anyway? It's apparently premature efactulation; a bunch of adolescents who have no idea what stuff is really all about [and yet, most of you are well. beyond the trustable age, and are not yet trustable. That's 30, by the way, to boomers]. I have two more debates in in voting with no votes; go ahead; make it a round 10. There happen to be two more in voting with no votes. Make it an even dozen no vote ties. Congratulations. I have a life and I'll get back to it.

Au revoir.

You forgot to say, "dang nabbit!"

@RMM

The entire point of elections and votes are to come to a decision democratically, voting for yourself it literally antithetical to the concept of voting. 

If you are voted in then you are a Hall of Fame member. This is not the Hall of "fauxlaw"

No it isn't, if the rules don't rule it out, it's mandatory to vote for yourself so as to cancel out the votes others will give themselves.

To be clear, yes you can vote yourself. It isn't recommended as it goes against the integrity of the vote

@RMM

And the entire point of voting is to make sure other people's perspective inform a decision.... so yes, if your goal is to cancel out other's votes especially, you are being counterintuitive to the entire concept of voting. 

I already am in HoF but if I see a thread of mine or debate of mine has chance (this time will be the first year that's unlikely actually) then I'd vote for my own, always. It's not immoral, I am not immorally rewarding myself for genuine contribution to the site, I am morally doing so.

@RMM

Never said it was immoral, I said it was antithetical to the concept of voting, which it is, by all means go ahead, just... super counterproductive

it isn't immoral rp vote for yourself, but RM doesn't understand that it makes you a narcissist, and the importance of humility. 

The worst problem with HoF voting to me is when people get obsessed with victory (or victory for their friend), so commit to tactical voting. For example, let's say an imaginary user named Bob were in fifth place, and he and a few friends realized they could get him into third if they all vote for him but not for anyone ahead of him, so they vote for Bob, Type1, and Billatard (the two lowest ranked members on the site). In it of itself this doesn't seem to be a problem, except it takes victory away from someone who likely had way better site contributions than Bob, while being a little insulting by claiming Type1 and Billatard are better than every other candidate except for Bob.

My two cents on a couple of the above issues...

Spam and/or stealth campaigns are best avoided, due to various issues seen way back at DDO. In essence, out of control campaigning is both annoying, and makes the outcome less meaningful.

That said, I would be in support of controlled campaigning. In fact, IMO that is part of what the nomination week is for.

Voting for yourself as a user, is socially bad. It's a good way to get others to recant their votes away from you. I believe the reason for this is the ego it shows, to which some people intuitively believe to be in violation of unwritten social contracts (social contract theory of ethics).

Voting for your own content however, especially during the nomination stage, is a good way to raise awareness. To this I strongly advice no more than one self vote per category.

To a degree I would agree, but my issue comes with that if you were to allow campaigning, if one user were to contact various users on who to vote, it would go against the integrity of the event. I do think the way bsh1 handled Wylted's correlation was completely too harsh, but I also do think he has a point. People were nominating users who barely posted to troll

Voting for yourself as a user is identical to voting for your own content.

Self-voting doesn't go against the integrity of HoF at all. Both myself and David voted ourselves in Round 1 as far as I recall and it's nothing more than 'for show' if Ragnar and Oromagi vote each other as well as Supadudz, instead of each voting themselves as the third they just put on a loser knowing it secures them the tit for tat vote from others.

If you really think it's wrong to self-vote, rule it out. Otherwise it's wise to do.

I disagree with that. Voting for your content also takes into account how your opponent did in a debate or how people have responded to a forum post of yours (unless you somehow decide to vote for a debate that's all forfeits from your opponent or a forum post that is solely your own posts, both of which seem unlikely).

I don't believe you should restrict people to do something but you can discourage it. If you want to, you can, but it does make you come off as narcissistic in a sense.

No it doesn't. In fact, what a narcissist would do is make a big deal about not voting themselves so as to flaunt how 'selfless' they are.