|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Dec 29, 2006 9:30:04 GMT -5
Time to start seriously looking at the Jarvis Award contenders for the year just now passing.
Night Phantom, feel free to post your list of comics of '06 when it's ready, and we can dig in. Thanks.
I'm creating this as a new board, rather than erasing over last year's. I don't like cluttering things up, but I figure it'll be good to have last year's debate and vote, etc, still visible.
All registered members of this site will get a vote. In addition, the Jarvis-Heads will get a vote each. I will collect and tabulate both sets of votes and announce the final results here after the voting is complete.
But--for now-- let the debate begin!
|
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Dec 29, 2006 10:38:36 GMT -5
As the Hall of Fame is near and dear to my heart, I'd like to begin this year's discussion of nominees. Please reply with opinions on the merits of each of these creators, your view of their place in Avengers history, etc. How about:
John Buscema
Don Heck
Steve Englehart
Tom Palmer
Kurt Busiek
Jack Kirby
Last year three nominees were elected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Dec 29, 2006 18:22:21 GMT -5
This year, long-time Jarvis-Head John Warren will be conducting the voting process for us all (thanks, John!).
He will be posting the info for voting in the next few days. We'll have plenty of time for discussion before voting starts.
I think we should set some sort of minimum threshold of vote percentage for the Hall of Fame. Maybe something like, "must receive 80% of votes cast," or something of that nature. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Dec 29, 2006 23:46:54 GMT -5
I very much agree with that. There are some years no one gets into baseball's hall.
Van, do you have the results from last year's voting - in terms of number of votes cast? Since steed ran the "stand up and be counted" thread, I think we all know there will probably only be around 20 of us who vote. I hope for more, but I am very aware that we don't have too many regulars around here.
Anyway, you mentioned that Perez was a landslide. I was just curious as to how many voted for the Hall last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnyzemo on Jan 2, 2007 10:59:50 GMT -5
I think we should set some sort of minimum threshold of vote percentage for the Hall of Fame. Maybe something like, "must receive 80% of votes cast," or something of that nature. Thoughts? I think that's a good idea, but one that we don't need to implement for another four or five years.  Here's the problem I see: There are so few people in the Hall of Fame that there are a whole slew of creators that most of us would agree are deserving. So, for example, if the final ballot included six people (say, Jack Kirby, John Buscema, Steve Englehart, Jim Shooter, Roger Stern, Kurt Busiek) and we let everyone vote "yea or nea" on those six, I think there's a good chance that all six could get 80% "yes" votes. So, I think several years from now we might have years when we don't induct anyone into the Hall of Fame. But at this early stage in the game I think we should stick with something simple, like admitting the top two vote-getters. |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 2, 2007 11:57:20 GMT -5
I was just throwing out names. If we stick to last year's format, there isn't necessarily a ballot -- people just threw out 2-3 names who they felt were deserving, and Van took the top 3 vote-getters.
BTW, welcome to the boards, Johnny-Z!
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnyzemo on Jan 2, 2007 13:23:59 GMT -5
BTW, welcome to the boards, Johnny-Z! Thanks! I'm hoping that by adding a "nominations" round we can get everyone on the same page before the final voting. Last year I ended up going, "D'oh!" when I realized that I had forgotten some of the good comics that were eligible. I'm definitely open to suggestions for how to handle the Hall of Fame category, particularly whether to have everyone vote yea/nea on a slate, or to just take the top two vote-getters each year for the next few years. I've stated my preference, but I'm open to discussion. I prefer making decisions by consensus when possible. |
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Jan 3, 2007 22:09:45 GMT -5
Night Phantom, feel free to post your list of comics of '06 when it's ready, and we can dig in. Thanks. I was a little slow in getting to this, but Johnny Z and I have both posted some discussion of an ’06 list—so, feel free to take a look. I think we should set some sort of minimum threshold of vote percentage for the Hall of Fame. Maybe something like, "must receive 80% of votes cast," or something of that nature. Thoughts? I agree with the minimum-threshold notion. I’m not beholden specifically to the 80% figure, but it’s OK by me. But maybe a simple majority would suffice? On that note: I will basically pull together some basic, yearly categories for the standard Jarvis Awards (pretty much what was used in past years, I suppose), and then we can establish criteria for maybe five initial HOF inductees, and maybe a max of 2 per year thereafter, as suggested (with a threshold percentage vote required of anyone to get in). Even with such limits, it seems like after a few years or so we’d have honored the most truly deserving, and then the ballots would turn to also-rans. (Or possibly I’m underestimating the number of high-quality contributors over the years?) To prevent easy entry by nominees who win simply because no one better is eligible anymore, maybe some sort of “none of the above” option should be available on the ballot. Good thought, having "None of the Above." If I forget to include it, please remind me. Consider yourself reminded. To my thinking, casting a ballot with no picks for the Hall of Fame (but, presumably, votes in other categories) could be seen as equivalent to voting “none of the above” for the Hall. For example, if 20 ballots are cast, and only 15 of them show one or two picks for the Hall of Fame, then the greatest percentage any candidate could possibly have is 75%, and therefore no candidate has reached the 80% threshold (if that’s to be the standard). Johnny Z (I hope he doesn’t mind that nickname) makes some good points about the threshold in this early stage of the game, but I also like his idea of consensus. If we stick to the threshold idea now, then that’s all the more reason for us to discuss the Hall of Fame possibilities first, in the hope of achieving greater consensus before we cast our votes. Also, the withholding of a threshold for the first few years raises the question of just how many years, which in turns raises the question of just how many persons are truly deserving (a half dozen? a couple dozen?), which the voting process is supposed to determine… |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jan 4, 2007 15:27:33 GMT -5
Perhaps in regard to the H of F, the most interesting thing about doing this annually will be that current writers/artists bodies of work will be ongoing through the years in which we take in some of the more classic scribes/pencillers/embellishers/editors. It is conceivable that if we keep doing this that over the next 5-6 years some individual may attain such a volume of work that, if truly influential, merits inclusion in this Hall.
We don't have any stipulations on whether or not a person is active or retired, so someone currently working on an Avengers-related title could be eligible.
|
|
