vpFREE2 Forums

Hall of Fame stringent rules

#1

The Hall of Fame has strange rules. The
nominations only come about every four years and you need at least 1/3 of the
vote to get in. If everybody casts a private ballot with more than a dozen
candidates, the odds are against any individual receiving that high of a
percentage.

               The way to make sure that at
least one nominee receives at least 1/3 of the vote is for most of us to
announce our vote before we cast it --- see which of the one or two are
receiving the most announcements --- and then if one or both of those front-runners
are worthy of induction in your opinion --- vote for one of the two front-runners. A vote for a non-front-runner is a vote that makes it more difficult for ANY candidate to reach the 33% threshhold. This isn't "Democracy
in Action,” as usually defined in the United States, but it is the way to get
it done in this particular Hall of Fame election.

               I would
happily support the vpFREE Adminstrator if he would run. This forum has changed the
face of video poker, and basically he created it and runs it. He claims the
rules state that he is ineligible. Of course, the Administrator himself created
the rules for vpFREE. This means that he doesn’t want the publicity. (I asked
him to be a guest on the Gambling with an Edge radio show and
he declined, citing the wish to maintain a private profile.) I respect his
wishes and am looking elsewhere for candidates.

            I’m personally supporting Ernie
Moody --- the inventor of Triple Play --- and recommend you strongly consider him. Ernie started Action Gaming, later known
as videopoker.com, and that company has created a very high percentage of the
interesting new games in the past 15 years --- like Triple Play through Hundred
Play, Spin Poker, Super Times Pay, Quick Quads, Ultimate X, Wheel Poker, and a
large variety of other games. Nobody else has EVER introduced such a large
variety of interesting games in such a short period of time. Everybody has
their own opinion as to what games are the most fun, of course, but many of these
games rate high on my own “fun factor” list (especially Quick Quads and
Ultimate X), and if I’m given a choice between single line and multi-line for
the same pay schedule and denomination, I will ALWAYS pick the multi-line
version over the single line version. Your opinion might be different, of
course, but almost all of are glad that we at least HAVE that choice. Without Ernie Moody, we wouldn't.

Bob

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#2

I agree that Ernie Moody should be in the HOF. As far as the actual gaming platforms out there Si Redd is the only person that has made a more significant contribution to the game and Si is already in the HOF.

Regards

A.P.

···

________________________________
From: Bob Dancer <bobdancervp@hotmail.com>
To: "vpfree@yahoogroups.com" <vpfree@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:51:34 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Hall of Fame stringent rules

        I’m personally supporting Ernie

Moody --- the inventor of Triple Play --- and recommend you strongly consider him. Ernie started Action Gaming, later known
as videopoker.com, and that company has created a very high percentage of the
interesting new games in the past 15 years --- like Triple Play through Hundred
Play, Spin Poker, Super Times Pay, Quick Quads, Ultimate X, Wheel Poker, and a
large variety of other games. Nobody else has EVER introduced such a large
variety of interesting games in such a short period of time. Everybody has
their own opinion as to what games are the most fun, of course, but many of these
games rate high on my own “fun factor” list (especially Quick Quads and
Ultimate X), and if I’m given a choice between single line and multi-line for
the same pay schedule and denomination, I will ALWAYS pick the multi-line
version over the single line version. Your opinion might be different, of
course, but almost all of are glad that we at least HAVE that choice. Without Ernie Moody, we wouldn't.

Bob

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#3

Bob Dancer wrote:

            The Hall of Fame has strange rules. The
nominations only come about every four years and you need at least 1/3 of the
vote to get in. If everybody casts a private ballot with more than a dozen
candidates, the odds are against any individual receiving that high of a
percentage.

My goal is to preserve the exclusivity of the Hall of Fame,
while ensuring that worthy candidates get recognized. The
election rules are designed to accomplish this goal.

Here are the % of vote figures for the winning inductee in each
of the Hall of Fame elections.

2002 - 14.1%
2003 - 19.8%
2004 - 25.8%
2005 - 39.9%
2006 - 23.4%
2007 - 25.3%
2008 - 57.0%

Each previous Hall of Fame election has removed successful
inductees from the nominee pool. And, each removal makes it
easier for a stand-out candidate to receive a higher
percentage of the total vote.

The greater than 1/3 requirement seems reasonable and
attainable to me, but it is tweakable in future elections,
if it seems appropriate.

vpFREE Administrator

#4

Bob Dancer wrote:

I would
happily support the vpFREE Adminstrator if he would run. This forum has changed the
face of video poker, and basically he created it and runs it. He claims the
rules state that he is ineligible. Of course, the Administrator himself created
the rules for vpFREE. This means that he doesn’t want the publicity. (I asked
him to be a guest on the Gambling with an Edge radio show and
he declined, citing the wish to maintain a private profile.) I respect his
wishes and am looking elsewhere for candidates.

The reason for my ineligibility for the vpFREE Hall of Fame is that
I believe it is a conflict of interest for the person who makes the rules
and supervises the election process to be eligible.

vpFREE Administrator

#5

As someone that is mostly a lurker but has advocated this (VPFree Admin for HoF) in the past, in my humble opinion the people of this forum trust the administrator enough to know he would handle this honestly, despite his reluctance.

Time for the VPFree Admin write in campaign to begin!

Just my .02- Thanks, Lee.

Ps- Please consider this my vote.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vpfree3355@...> wrote:

Bob Dancer wrote:

> I would
> happily support the vpFREE Adminstrator if he would run. This forum has changed the
> face of video poker, and basically he created it and runs it.

The reason for my ineligibility for the vpFREE Hall of Fame is that
I believe it is a conflict of interest for the person who makes the rules
and supervises the election process to be eligible.

vpFREE Administrator

#6

Lee Crowell wrote: Time
for the VPFree Admin write in campaign to begin!

Great idea! If we got 200 different vpFREE members to
post that they wanted the vpFREE Adminstrator to be in the HOF, everybody could
see the support. Since all of us could see how many people made such posts, that
would get around the administrator’s concern that there is a conflict of
interest in him counting the ballots!

So while I’m voting for Ernie Moody on the ballot, I am
publicly acclaiming my support for the Administrator. I encourage you to do the
same. If we get enough folks to do this, even the Administrator will eventually
have to admit “the people have spoken.”

Many of you have proclaimed support for the
Administrator in the past. Even if you’ve done so in the past, do it again now
so that all the votes are more-or-less in the same place at the same time.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#7

I'm the best that's ever been. As your next President I promise to put a chicken in every pot.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bob Dancer <bobdancervp@...> wrote

            The Hall of Fame has strange rules. The
nominations only come about every four years and you need at least 1/3 of the
vote to get in. If everybody casts a private ballot with more than a dozen
candidates, the odds are against any individual receiving that high of a
percentage.

#8

Bob Dancer wrote:

If we got 200 different vpFREE members to post that they wanted the
vpFREE Adminstrator to be in the HOF, everybody could see the support.

Thanks for the support, but as long as I'm the administrator
I'm not willing to be considered for the vpFREE Hall of
Fame.

Now let's get back to discussing the real Hall of Fame
nominees.

vpFREE Administrator

#9

Looking at the list I could see 10+ deserving persons to be in the hall of fame.
Yet it would be hard for one person out of 20 to get 33% of the vote.

With the vote now once every four years, it would seem anti-climatic if nobody
new were to get in. Perhaps the vote qualifications could be tweeked to get 1 or
2 in for sure every four years.

Perhaps the top two vote totals could get in.

Perhaps the top five vote totals could go to a runoff where say then if someone
gets 33% they are in. (but this would involve the extra work of a 2nd election)

Perhaps you could cast up to 6 votes, then those getting named on at least 70%
of the ballots will get in. (or to be sure someone gets in, just name the top
person or top two persons as automatic inductees*) This is how the baseball hall
of fame does it, with a 75% rate requirement. (you could cast 0,1,2,3,4,5, or 6
votes, so if you only felt 3 were worthy, you just vote for 3)

*I think I would favor this method the best, as it is hard to just cast one vote
when so many are deserving. I don't think adding 1-2 person every 4 years is too dilutive to the stature of the HOF.

TomSki

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bob Dancer <bobdancervp@...> wrote:

            The Hall of Fame has strange rules. The
nominations only come about every four years and you need at least 1/3 of the
vote to get in. If everybody casts a private ballot with more than a dozen
candidates, the odds are against any individual receiving that high of a
percentage.

               The way to make sure that at
least one nominee receives at least 1/3 of the vote is for most of us to
announce our vote before we cast it --- see which of the one or two are
receiving the most announcements --- and then if one or both of those front-runners
are worthy of induction in your opinion --- vote for one of the two front-runners. A vote for a non-front-runner is a vote that makes it more difficult for ANY candidate to reach the 33% threshhold. This isn't "Democracy
in Action," as usually defined in the United States, but it is the way to get
it done in this particular Hall of Fame election.

               I would
happily support the vpFREE Adminstrator if he would run. This forum has changed the
face of video poker, and basically he created it and runs it. He claims the
rules state that he is ineligible. Of course, the Administrator himself created
the rules for vpFREE. This means that he doesn't want the publicity. (I asked
him to be a guest on the Gambling with an Edge radio show and
he declined, citing the wish to maintain a private profile.) I respect his
wishes and am looking elsewhere for candidates.

            I'm personally supporting Ernie
Moody --- the inventor of Triple Play --- and recommend you strongly consider him. Ernie started Action Gaming, later known
as videopoker.com, and that company has created a very high percentage of the
interesting new games in the past 15 years --- like Triple Play through Hundred
Play, Spin Poker, Super Times Pay, Quick Quads, Ultimate X, Wheel Poker, and a
large variety of other games. Nobody else has EVER introduced such a large
variety of interesting games in such a short period of time. Everybody has
their own opinion as to what games are the most fun, of course, but many of these
games rate high on my own "fun factor" list (especially Quick Quads and
Ultimate X), and if I'm given a choice between single line and multi-line for
the same pay schedule and denomination, I will ALWAYS pick the multi-line
version over the single line version. Your opinion might be different, of
course, but almost all of are glad that we at least HAVE that choice. Without Ernie Moody, we wouldn't.

Bob

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#10

AK-SAR-BEN - tomskilv wrote:

Looking at the list I could see 10+ deserving persons to be in the hall of
fame. Yet it would be hard for one person out of 20 to get 33% of the vote ...

I posted my response (appended below) to similar points
that were raised by Bob Dancer.

I'll add to my response by stating that I believe that the cream
always rises to the top, and as some of the cream is removed,
there is less remaining cream (if there is any at all) to
consider.

As an example:

TomSki received 57.0% of the vote in the 2008 election

TomSki received 23.2% of the vote in the 2007 election

TomSki received 21.8% of the vote in the 2006 election

TomSki received 20.7%% of the vote in the 2005 election

TomSki received 17.9%% of the vote in the 2004 election

In any event, all suggestions will be considered for the possible
tweaking of the rules for future elections, but the rules for the
2012 election, which starts tomorrow, won't change.

vpFREE Administrator

···

____________________________________

vpFREE Administrator posted on 4 DEC:

My goal is to preserve the exclusivity of the Hall of Fame,
while ensuring that worthy candidates get recognized. The
election rules are designed to accomplish this goal.

Here are the % of vote figures for the winning inductee in each
of the Hall of Fame elections.

2002 - 14.1%
2003 - 19.8%
2004 - 25.8%
2005 - 39.9%
2006 - 23.4%
2007 - 25.3%
2008 - 57.0%

Each previous Hall of Fame election has removed successful
inductees from the nominee pool. And, each removal makes it
easier for a stand-out candidate to receive a higher
percentage of the total vote.

The greater than 1/3 requirement seems reasonable and
attainable to me, but it is tweakable in future elections,
if it seems appropriate.

vpFREE Administrator

#11

My 2 cents, FWIW

Admin's reasonig (below) is impeccible. Yet, this is the first slate I find to contain several worthy inclusions, yet no stand out one. I may be wrong, but I see the 33% threshold to pose a real challenge this go.

If that proves the case, I strongly recommend a run-off amongst the 6 top votr recipients, keeping the 33% threshold intact.

- H.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vpfree3355@...> wrote:

AK-SAR-BEN - tomskilv wrote:

> Looking at the list I could see 10+ deserving persons to be in the hall of
> fame. Yet it would be hard for one person out of 20 to get 33% of the vote ...

I posted my response (appended below) to similar points
that were raised by Bob Dancer.

I'll add to my response by stating that I believe that the cream
always rises to the top, and as some of the cream is removed,
there is less remaining cream (if there is any at all) to
consider.

As an example:

TomSki received 57.0% of the vote in the 2008 election

TomSki received 23.2% of the vote in the 2007 election

TomSki received 21.8% of the vote in the 2006 election

TomSki received 20.7%% of the vote in the 2005 election

TomSki received 17.9%% of the vote in the 2004 election

In any event, all suggestions will be considered for the possible
tweaking of the rules for future elections, but the rules for the
2012 election, which starts tomorrow, won't change.

vpFREE Administrator

____________________________________

vpFREE Administrator posted on 4 DEC:

My goal is to preserve the exclusivity of the Hall of Fame,
while ensuring that worthy candidates get recognized. The
election rules are designed to accomplish this goal.

Here are the % of vote figures for the winning inductee in each
of the Hall of Fame elections.

2002 - 14.1%
2003 - 19.8%
2004 - 25.8%
2005 - 39.9%
2006 - 23.4%
2007 - 25.3%
2008 - 57.0%

Each previous Hall of Fame election has removed successful
inductees from the nominee pool. And, each removal makes it
easier for a stand-out candidate to receive a higher
percentage of the total vote.

The greater than 1/3 requirement seems reasonable and
attainable to me, but it is tweakable in future elections,
if it seems appropriate.

vpFREE Administrator

#12

Don't sweat the small stuff. The majority of the candidates are Laurie Tsao assuming different identities...

···

> My goal is to preserve the exclusivity of the Hall of Fame,
> while ensuring that worthy candidates get recognized. The
> election rules are designed to accomplish this goal.
>