What follows is an account of the results of the first induction class of the Tag Team Wing of the CotG Hall of Fame. I want to thank everyone who took the time to vote. I also want to give a special acknowledgment to those who assisted with the initial candidacy spot checking...Mike M, Mr. Vegas, Knapik and Matt. As well as Jim Steel...who's assistance was essential to the vetting process.
Keep in mind the CotG Hall of Fame is a living institution. Feel free to critique while offering alternative solutions and approaches. At any time you can create institution building polls that offer ideas and concepts which you feel can make it 'more perfect'. Any and all adopted policies are determined by majority vote...and you are always welcome to become an active part of the process.
Voting Results For The Tag Team Wing CotG HOF Induction Ballot Total Number of Candidates: 7 Closed Ballots Cast: 22 Open Ballots Cast: 19 Total Number of Votes: 41 75 Percent Threshold: Minimum of 31 Votes
Number of Votes
Gladiators (Brute & Massacre)
Mercenaries (Vigilante & Soldier of Fortune)
Greek Gods (Proteus & Actagon)
New Order (Dreggs & Mace)
Gladiator Vanguard (Thunder & Overkill)
Twin Blood (Dreggs & Sleeze)
Desolation Factor (Rack & Ruin)
The Gladiators (Brute & Massacre) are the sole inductees into the First Induction Class of the Tag Team Wing of the CotG Hall of Fame.
CotG Hall of Fame Project Induction Ballot Results Singles Wing Second Induction Cycle Total Number of Candidates: 16 Maximum Number of Affirmative Votes Per Ballot: 6 Open Ballot Votes Cast: 37 Closed Ballot Votes Cast: 20 Total Number of Votes Cast: 57 75% Induction Threshold: Minimum of 43 Votes
Matador of M83
Congratulations to Chaos and Wolf, the newest inductees into the Singles Wing of the CotG HOF.
CotG HOF Tag Team Wing Induction Results Second Induction Cycle
What follows is an account of the results of the second induction cycle of the Tag Team Wing of the CotG Hall of Fame. I want to thank everyone who took the time to vote. Keep in mind the CotG Hall of Fame is a living institution. Feel free to critique while offering alternative solutions and approaches. Any and all adopted policies are determined by majority vote...and you are always welcome to become an active part of the process.
Voting Results For The Tag Team Wing CotG HOF Induction Ballot Second Induction Class Total Number of Candidates: 6 Closed Ballots Cast: 16 Open Ballots Cast: 26 Total Number of Votes: 42 75 Percent Threshold: Minimum of 31 Votes
Number of Votes
Mercenaries (Vigilante & Soldier of Fortune)
Greek Gods (Proteus & Actagon)
New Order (Dreggs & Mace)
Twin Blood (Dreggs & Sleeze)
Gladiator Vanguard (Thunder & Overkill)
Desolation Factor (Rack & Ruin)
Unfortunately no team was able to meet the 75% threshold for induction. As a consolation, I will have Werner draw non-induction related tribute art for the top vote receiving candidate team (The Mercenaries).
What follows is a recap of the official body of policies that guide the CotG Hall of Fame Project. Note policies are 'living' and can be amended through the same democratic process by which they were created. Feel free to advocate positions, ideas and concepts which you feel may make the institution somewhat 'more perfect'. Q1: How are policies determined?
A1. Institution Building Polls are the building blocks which are used to set the terms that guide the CotG Hall of Fame. As a rule majority vote determines the direction an addressed issue takes going forward. For the benefit of giving the community as a whole sufficient time to participate in the process all Institution Building Polls remain open for a mandatory period of one month.The result of an Institution Building Poll stands for a one year period in which time the policy can not be challenged. Q1b: What happens in the event that there is a tie in an Institution Building Poll Question?
Q1b: As a general rule I do not vote in any of the procedures. In the event of a deadlock...I will withdraw from abstaining and cast an emergency vote which provides a definitive course of action. Q2. What is the structure of the CotG HOF?
A2. The CotG HOF is comprised of both a Singles and Tag Team Wing. Note that the Tag Team Wing allows for the possibility of 'multiple inductions' for individual wrestlers on the basis of the merits of each unit standing as a separate candidacy. Inductees are visually represented in the CotG HOF Image Gallery in statue form. Q3 What are the standards for eligibility?
A3. To garner consideration onto either wing of the ballot a candidate must be retired for a minimum period of five years. For a tag team this rule would hold for both members of the unit.Additionally...for a tag team to be eligible the unit must have an official tenure of two years teaming together. This tenure need not be consecutive. Q3b: What about a candidate who retires for five years and then 'officially' returns to active competition?
A3b: By majority vote it has been determined that a five year period of inactivity constitutes a substantial amount of retirement to qualify for candidacy into the CotG HOF. This stands regardless of any amount of 'official' return to activity following said five year period. Q4. How does the voting process work?
A4. There are two phases to the CotG HOF. The first is to determine the achievement of Final Ballot status. During this period a vote takes place in the context of 'Time Line Blocks'. This allows the merit of each candidate to be measured against peers from a shared era.
This vote is then followed by the HOF Induction Ballot Phase. The candidates for this phase are comprised from the results of those who met the threshold from the previous phase. Here each candidate is measured against one another regardless of the time frame during which their careers took place. In both cases the threshold for affirmation stands at 75%. Those who are affirmed during the HOF Induction Phase achieve permanent CotG Hall of Fame Induction. Q5. What about those candidates who make it to the second round but fail to be inducted...what happens next?
A5. A note on those candidates who reach the Final Ballot stage yet fail to achieve Induction: The achievement of Induction Ballot status is automatically 'carried forward' into the next cycle as a privilege to those candidates who achieved a minimum of 5% affirmative vote during the Induction vote. This means the qualifying candidate would be guaranteed a return attempt at Induction in the following cycle. Those candidates who achieve Final Ballot status but then garner below 5% of the vote during the HOF Induction vote are removed from the position and must once again re-qualify at the beginning stage at the start of the next cycle. Q6. How can I vote and be a part of this?
A6. There are two annual cycles to the CotG HOF...tentatively set for May and November of each year. A combination of open and closed ballots are accepted as modes of voter participation. Every existing board member at the time the election process begins will be sent a PM'd 'slate' of candidates. Voters can also participate on the HOF section itself with an open ballot. Q7. Is there a limit to how many people that I can vote for?
A7. There is a restriction formula in place to determine the maximum number of affirmative votes that can be cast per ballot. That percentage equals 37% of the total candidate universe. While voters _ARE NOT REQUIRED_ to max out their ballots...everyone is limited to work with-in the confines of that percentage. Q8. What is the criteria?
A8. Criteria to determine the worthiness of a candidate is dictated by the unique experiences of each promoter and not deterred by any 'official' game play barriers.
As one can see the operating guidelines that now exist are very concrete. I want to thank all of those who took the time to participate and have helped to definitively shape what was once merely an abstraction.
One of the main reasons I wanted to develop this project was to help create a comprehensive reference point on CotG characters and game editions that really don't get much discussion these days. There's just 'so much' to the history of CotG that some bits tend to get lost behind.
For that reason I'm partial to 'open ballots' because they would ideally help to provide a chronicle on each promoters 'best of the best' while allowing voters to 'walk us through' the time and era in the process. When multiplied out with many high quality contributions from those who know this game the best...such a process would provide the greatest amount of content to the project and in all likelihood yield the highest caliber of output upon completion.
I do however realize that some people 'may not vote' if they felt the effort required too much of them or if it required a process that made them feel uncomfortable. Since the goal is to gain as comprehensive of a gage of CotG history as possible...the benefits of open ballots as a mandatory requirement may come with the negative of turning some people off from the process....people who themselves may otherwise have made valuable contributions to the project.
With that in mind...what method of balloting do you prefer:Mandatory open ballots...uniform secret ballots...or an allowance for both?
Results Mandatory Open Ballots 29.4% Uniform Secret Ballots 5.8% Combination of Both 64.7% ___________________________________________________________________ Institution Building Poll Conducted 4/8 thru 5/9/07
Question: How Long Should They Remain Open?
Right now we are in the institution building phase of the project...which is the phase that is open to everyone regardless of what set they are up to or which game edition brands they play. I believe it's best to get 'as much' quality input as possible...even if it comes at a slower pace than could otherwise be achieved.
Yet what do you think? How long should we allow for voting on polls to occur before an issue is considered settled by majority vote?
Results One Week 9% Two Weeks 18.1% One Month 45.4% Something Else 27.2% ___________________________________________________________________ Institution Building Poll Conducted 4/10 thru 5/10/07 Question: Should Ballots Have Limitations Set On Affirmative Votes?
Once the balloting process begins each game year will be covered set by set. As promoters go over the credentials and history of the candidates...a great many of those available for induction will become attractive.
Yet scarcity tends to reveal true value. Should the voting system introduce a scarcity factor by limiting the number of 'induction attempts' each promoter is allowed to cast in an effort to force voters to 'pick and chose' only the best of the best? Or should each ballot be free form with no pre-imposed standards?
Vote and discuss why or why not on limits? If yes...what would be a good formula to use to calculate the max number of affirmative votes for each given ballot?
Results Unlimited Amount Of Affirmative Votes Per Ballot 6.2% Restricted Amount Of Affirmative Votes Per Ballot 93.7% ___________________________________________________________________
Institution Building Poll Conducted 4/14 thru 5/14/07
Question: Voting Phases & Final Ballot
This topic came up in a conversation I had with Mike M (who created Early Classics and will be providing the preamble).How many phases should there be to the induction process?I'm partial to a two phases system where a vote for reaching 'final ballot' status is taken after each story arc....which would then create a list of final ballot candidates and set the table for the drama of an ultimate induction vote. For example:
1. Thread Created: Early Classics Era Set Candidates
2. The submitted preamble is posted along with a general list of all the candidates from that specific set
3. Free form posting by everyone partaking in the project will follow on that thread
4. After a select period of time...the next game edition thread (in this case 2074) would be introduced with a new preamble/candidate listing...and then a repeat of the free form process
5. Since candidates obviously exist throughout the span of these sets the true benefit of each preamble is to provide some form of information on 'new characters' within an edition so that everyone who has been created in CotG is to some extent brought to light and made visible...but the general conversation in free form thereafter can and will go wherever the posters want it to
6. Then a 'final ballot' vote is taken per story arc period. For example...once the Candidate Set threads have been created for Early Classics, 2074, 2079, 2082, 2086....a vote is taken on who among that grouping of candidates should qualify for 'final ballot' status upon the completion of the process (and the final induction vote)...and then the next grouping of sets by story arc begins with the same process
7. Upon completion of all sets the Final Ballot would provide the basis to vote upon ultimate induction into the CotG HOF. I'm open to any alternative ideas that may be more productive or create a higher quality project...but I think this would be the most practical, straight forward and easiest approach to execute.
Please vote and help inform the process. Results One Comprehensive Mass Induction Vote 0%
Two Phases: Final Ballot & Final Induction Process 83.3% Something Else 16.6% ___________________________________________________________________ Institution Building Poll Conducted 4/8 thru 4/9/07
Question: Should there be minimum 'official' standards that a character must meet in order to be a valid candidate for the HOF? Minimum Standards
Something that always bothered me about the original Promoter version of the GWF HOF was the exclusion of Dorado Sundown. As a unit DS was a major part of my feds early history....and Blacklash was a Stan Hansen-esque killer in singles competition. Yet they stood excluded due to a lack of official storyline longevity...while Tantalis & Parsec...who achieved very little for me...achieved the honor and glory of membership.
Should 'official' storyline issues that cause a lack of longevity for a given candidate preclude them from membership...or should the history of each given players use of the characters decide their legitimacy?
Are there any other minimum qualifications that you would suggest should be an issue in judging a candidates merits?
Results Yes...storyline career longevity, etc define value 3.8%
No....each career stands on it's own merits 96.1% __________________________________________________________________ Institution Building Poll Conducted 4/8 thru 5/8/07 Question: Should There Be Separate 'Wings' For Managers, Tag Teams & Women?
Tag Teams, Managers & Female Candidates
Should there be separate HOF wings with different voting parameters to assess tag teams, managers and female wrestlers? If so what should those parameters be? If not...why?
Discuss and help build the institution...
Results Yes...creating separate wings is a good idea 61.5%
No...there should be one unified voting structure 38.4% ___________________________________________________________________ Institution Building Poll Conducted 4/12 thru 5/12/07
Question: Threshold For Induction
I've seen several well reasoned threads suggesting that 75% would be a good line of demarcation to separate nominees from inductees. Before setting anything in stone I thought this was an issue worth opening up to vote. Remember the higher the percentage...the more stringent the road to inclusion.
What should be the minimum percentage of affirmative votes needed to be voted into the CotG HOF?
Institution Building Poll Conducted 4/22 thru 5/22/07
Question: Percentage Of Max Affirmative Votes Per Ballot?
The CotG HOF Ballots have now been fully vetted for the elimination of duplicates and the five year retirement rule. There will be four separate ballots issued based upon each wrestlers debut in the GWF.
As it stands now each ballot will offer between 46 to 40 candidates. Special thanks to Jim Steel and Troy...without whom this arduous process would have never been completed. As a community we all own them a debt of gratitude for investing their time, energy and patience into this.
The final issue regarding the election process involves the percentage of affirmative (yes) votes that will be allowed (per ballot separation) for this Final Ballot Phase (which is one phase before induction). In keeping in line with the previous Institution Building Poll on Thresholds...75% was established as the baseline. In that sense the process is very similar to that used by the Baseball Writers Association of America.
As a frame of reference baseball will typically issue an Induction Ballot of 25-40 candidates with 10 maximum affirmative votes. Remember that not every voter records ten affirmative votes...the guidelines simply provide for the maximum number allowed. BBWAA Baseball Hall of Fame Balloting Over The Last 8 Years 2006 29/10 34.48% 2005 27/10 37.0% 2004 32/10 31.2% 2003 33/10 30.3% 2002 28/10 35.7% 2001 32/10 31.2% 2000 30/10 33.3% 1999 29/10 34.48%
For reference the EC to 2086 Ballot will feature 46 candidates. How a percentage breaks down can make a core difference in the overall results:
Max of 37% = 17 affirmative votes Max of 35% = 16 affirmative votes Max of 33% = 15 affirmative votes Max of 30% = 14 affirmative votes Max of 25% = 12 affirmative votes
I'm not too concerned with the number being overly generous for those making the final ballot...but in order to calculate the results I do need a final number to go by based upon a percentage. We can revisit said percentage before the Final Induction phase.
Question: Should Candidates Be "Shifted' From Their Era?
The number of eligible candidates on the four ballots came out slightly uneven in number because more eligible candidates exist from the earlier years (due to the five year retirement requirement). The numbers stand between a high of 46 and a low of 40.
I see the different numbers as manageable if they are guided by a rule of equal percentage...if the voters of the BBWAA can work with variance I don't see why this community couldn't either. Yet this issue should and does require a community vote and that is why a poll is being created.
Let me say at the outset that the alternative approach would cause candidates to be shifted from one ballot era to another in order to equalize the number of eligible candidates in each era. While the benefit is that there would be a uniform (or near uniform) number of candidates on each ballot...it would come at the expense of the 'shifted candidates' no longer being judged among their peers. In other words it creates a tampering effect that alters their entire candidacy.
As it concerns the Final Ballot phase...should for example some of the wrestlers from Early Classics be moved into the 2087-2090 period to create a uniform number of votes per ballot? Or should measurement against peers be the guideline?
Vote and decide fate... Results # of Candidates Should Be 'Forced' Near Equal 9%
Candidates Should Be Measured Against Their Peers 90.9% ___________________________________________________________________ Institution Building Poll Conducted 7/9 thru 8/9/07
Question: How Often Should CotG HOF Cycles Run?
Once per year would coincide with new candidates entering into each cycle (meeting the five year retirement rule). Twice a year would be the most frequent pace I'd personally support...perhaps spaced out six months from the start of each cycle just to keep the institution somewhat active. It may also be helpful as a device to deal with the 'separate wings' issue that still needs to be fleshed out.
Any ideas regarding an alternative form of pacing would also be interesting to hear.
Pro or con feel free to make your case. The poll will be left open for a one month period...and majority vote decides the format going forward.
Results One Cycle Per Year 44%
Two Cycles Per Year 56%
Alternative Pacing (Please Explain In Detail) 0% ___________________________________________________________________ Institution Building Polls Conducted 7/21 thru 8/21/07
Question: Induction Ballot Retention Rules
There are three tiers to the CotG Hall of Fame with Induction being the obvious paramount level. Yet there's also a difference between those initial 20 (now 18) candidates who qualified for the HOF Induction ballot phase...and all of those who did not. General rules need to be created to govern the candidacies of those who made the Induction Ballot but failed to be inducted.
I strongly suggest that in the next HOF cycle...candidates who successfully passed the previous cycle's Final Ballot Phase (attaining a minimum of 75% affirmative vote when measured against their peers) should retain a repeat HOF Induction Phase vote opportunity without having to immediately re-qualify through the initial phase again. In other words achieving 75% against peers in the previous cycle should have a reward that's carried forward into the next cycle.
Yet how long should that reward last? Doing so without a fail safe mechanism in place could create a glass ceiling effect. This could be avoided by defining a certain minimum percentage as a mark for 'falling off' the Induction Ballot.
The BBWAA uses a 5% minimum rule for ballot retention (along with a 15 year max eligibility rule). If a 5% minimum were enacted for the next cycle then Dreggs (1.6%) and Overkill (3.2%) would both fall off of the Induction Ballot and back into the general candidacy grouping. They would have to 're-qualify' from scratch.
Help set parameters that govern HOF Induction Ballot Retention. Poll results will remain open for one month....closing August 21. Majority vote decides direction.
Results There should be a 5% minimum retention rule 100%
No automatic retention...all re-qualify 0%
There should be unlimited retention 0%
Something else (please explain in detail) 0% ___________________________________________________________________ Institution Building Poll Conducted 7/12 thru 8/12/07
Question: Defining Tag Team Candidacies
Help set the qualifications that should be used in the vetting process for determining candidacies for the Tag Team Wing of the CotG Online HOF. Decide whether or not the number of official years together should be uninterrupted or not.
If voting 'something else' please define what that something else would be. Results 3 years 17.3%
Should there be a limit on the number of inductions per tag wrestler?Should each wrestler only be honored once and once only for tag team success? Or should multiple inductions be allowed for an individual on the basis of the merits of the team as a unit? Decide the fate of the CotG HOF Tag Wrestler Induction Policy.
Results Yes...Only One Induction Per Tag Wrestler 13.3%
No...Other Units Should Not Be Penalized 86.6% ___________________________________________________________________
Institution Building Polls Conducted 11/24 thru 12/24/07
Question: A Rule On Returns After 5 Year Retirement Determining Wolf's Eligibility for the CotG HOF
A situation has emerged that needs to be addressed and will help to set a precedent going forward. During the balloting process to determine the first class of the CotG HOF...Wolf was included on the slate. He had met the five year mandatory retirement period and was deemed an eligible candidate. He went on to achieve Final Ballot status but failed to obtain Induction (he garnered 68.3% of the vote).
Since that time Wolf has been reintroduced as an active part of the 2122 GWF roster. This means he is no longer 'retired'. This is the first time someone who met the 5 year retirement rule...no longer does. Induction itself is final and cannot be addressed retroactively. The problem is that Wolf was not inducted and is slated to appear on the Final Ballot come next May. I need a guideline established that addresses how to deal with this.
Should a wrestler who remains inactive for a period of five years automatically be eligible for CotG HOF candidacy regardless of a return _AFTER_ said period?
Should a return to the active roster (being re-introduced with a new card for a given game edition) void eligibility until another five year retirement period is met?
Results A Return Should Not Effect Eligibility 63.1%
A Return Should Void Eligibility 36.8% ______________________________________________
Institution Building Polls Conducted 5/25 thru 6/8/09
Question: Induction Standards Amendment
Below is a brief synopsis of the choices and their consequences:
* Auto Induction Of Top Scoring Candidate: this would guarantee at least one induction per cycle, even when all candidates in the field net below the 75% threshold. A tie breaker policy is already in place in the event it was ever needed.
Pro: this would ensure dynamic results in terms of induction
Con: this would sponsor a lower induction standard than previous inductees have already met ________________________________________________________
* Increase The Number of Votes Per Ballot: this measure would automatically increase the number of positive votes that could be cast on each ballot by one. Currently the formula is set at a limit of no more than 37% of the universe. This rule would allow 'one more additional vote' to be cast above whatever that number happens to be. For example if 37% of the ballot was 4, a voter would now have a maximum option of casting 5 affirmative votes.
Pro: voters would gain more power in affirming eligible candidates
Con: this would sponsor a lower induction standard than previous inductees have already met. This would not deal with the issue of cycles that can occur without producing an induction ________________________________________________________
* Retention Of Current Standards: the current system would stand 'as is'
Pro: this would maintain a uniform system and ensure that future inductees achieve induction through the same strict set of standards that other inductees have previously met
Con: This would not deal with the issue of cycles that can occur without producing an induction
CotG HOF Project Induction Ballot Results Singles Wing Third Annual Induction Class Total Number of Candidates: 24 Maximum Number of Affirmative Votes: 9 Closed Ballots Cast: 25 Open Ballots Cast: 18 Total Number of Votes Cast: 43 75 Percent Threshold: Minimum of 32 Votes