Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    
     Some basic suggestions.
    
    1.) Any note representing any view may be nominated..
    2.) The note must be nominated and seconded.
    3.) The readership must vote on the nominated note..
    4.) Majority rules..
    5.) Voting ends 48 hours after nomination...
    
    sincerely,
    David Dyben ( hall of Fame co-chairman and sixth grade hall monitor)
    :-)

    I propose that HoF nominations be restricted to notes whose content is
    non-null, nondivisive, and meaningful.
    
    This restriction would specifically exclude content-free rejoinders and
    ping-pong notes.  I'd like also to bar notes whose content is so poorly
    expressed that it is indecipherable or even excessively obscure, but I
    don't believe it universally useful to do so.  I think that criterion
    will manage itself.
    
    This restriction would also bar the kinds of notes that come under the
    "lite" classification; I believe that lionizing such notes demeans the
    value of the Hall of Fame.
    
    -dick

    In other words, notes which contribute something special to the
    conference/topic, and which perhaps also are put in a special way.

I'll place one restriction - no "voting".  If you like a note, go ahead and
"nominate" it.  But please don't fill up the conference with "votes".
Thanks.

				Steve

    
    -1
    
      That presumes there will be unanimous agreement on all notes entered
    into the HOF.. I for one prefer a Democratic process to any other..
    
    David

    RE: .5  David
    
    > That presumes there will be unanimous agreement on all notes entered
    > into the HOF.. I for one prefer a Democratic process to any other..
    
    It doesn't presume unanimous agreement.  Nominating someone for a
    "Hall of Fame" is another way of saying, "Wow, I really liked your
    note" (and providing a pointer for others to see, whether they happen
    to agree or not.)
    
    In another conference I know, lots of notes get nominated for the
    Hall of Fame (and I have yet to see someone come along to say, "Well,
    I hated the note, so I vote NO.")  Mainly this can't happen since it's
    not a question of voting for one particular award.  It's a nominating
    process only (for any note someone finds significant or otherwise
    worthy of nominating.)
    
    If people nominate 10 or 100 notes, I think Steve would rather not
    have separate elections for each note.  The nomination (and the
    seconding) *is* an honor, itself.
    
    See what I mean?

    I would like to voice an objection against "Hall of Fame" notes...

    Although we may judge a specific topic/reply to be exceptional, I think
    that NOTES is a community effort - we bounce/develop ideas off of each
    other and depend upon one another for inspiration.  Yes, some of the work
    here is articulated very well and I would hope that people strive for
    excellence when they communicate but what about those people that remain
    silent for fear of their note being nominated to the "Pile of Dung" which
    is the other extreme.  We need to encourage more people to use this
    community to seek out insight about Men and this requires "incomplete"
    ideas to be accepted without being judged.

    Besides, if someone really tickled-your-fancy, drop them a line and tell
    them how/why they did...

    
    
    -1 Soule,
    
     > just drop them a line
     
     Hey wouldn't it be neat if the Academy Awards were done that way :-)
    
    Suzanne,
    
       I suspect in this particular conference there will be atleast some
    disagreement on the worthiness of a note..But all in a it's not that
    big a deal...
    
    David

 I think the "no voting" rule is sensible. Why have the HoF note used as
a battlezone? To allow votes invites the senseless back and forth drivel that
we already see far too much of. (Yes, I know I ended the sentence with a 
preposition; who here didn't understand what I meant?)

 Use the HoF note to give special recognition to the author of a particularly
striking note. By calling attention to the note, you may spark interest in
a note that otherwise may note have occurred. For example, an HoF nomination for
a note in a string abandoned by many noters as having been taken over by
the diversionaries may cause some of those noters to see what the nomination
was about. And perhaps some of these noters will venture to add to the 
discussion. In this way, the HoF note stands to improve the level of 
communication in the file.

 The Doctah

    
    
    -1,
    
      I suspect that even without a " no note " we will hae our battle
    zones, but so be it.
    
    
    David

    Can we have an "Hall of the Infamous" as well? 
    
    Mike

Speaking personally, I dislike HoF notes as they can and are often interpreted
as conferring approval of the whole body of participants in the notes
conference, and I know one thing for certain which is that not everyone here
agrees!  I see HoF notes as just another stick to beat people over the 
head with if they dare to disagree with the popular opinion.

How about just expressing appreciation and agreement when you see it.  Why
do we need a permanent list?

					Steve

    Re .9: That's my take on "Hall of Fame" notes - bookmarks for those
    topics which some people found interesting enough to highlight. I don't
    always rush to look up a newly-nominated note, but if I have to skip
    large bodies of notes (doing catch-up after a vacation, for example, or
    because the vast majority of responses are repeating known data (almost
    any note on a controversial topic engenders a LOT of repetition)), a
    Hall of Fame nomination could point me to a gem hidden in the middle of
    the stream, one that I otherwise might not find. Having a separate
    topic for this makes it easier to check on than looking for "What a
    great note!" replies scattered throughout the conference.
    
    (FWIW, I've never taken a Hall-of-Fame recommendation as indicating a
    seal of approval from the conference - or even, necessarily, from the
    nominators. At times people have nominated "opposition" topics that
    seemed to them exceptionally well-put, even when they didn't agree with
    the author... Maybe calling it "Exceptionally Interesting Notes" or
    "Ripping Good Notes" instead might de-fuse any implied "approval".)
    
    HoF notes can be handy, and they needn't take up much space. What's the
    harm? If too few people want one, it'll die quietly; if people do want
    it, maybe it'll be useful.
    
    -b

    
    HOF notes are just another method of enforcing political correctness.
     

    .-1
    i agree. even though most of my notes wil go to it, i think the hof
    notes stuff dont make sense to me.
    

    re .14
    
    How is this be so?  Anyone can nominate any note.

>    HOF notes are just another method of enforcing political correctness.

 The solution to that problem is pretty obvious...

    Re .14
    
    I echo .16's bafflement.  Hof enforces nothing.  Even you, Holtski, are
    free to nominate any note you want, even one that others might see as
    highly un-PC.  All we're looking for here is a little common ground to
    avoid filling up the HoF list with pointers to meaningless drivel.
    
    -dick

Re: .18

What's "meaningless drivel" to you may be "profound thoughts" to another.
You'll never get universal agreement, so just nominate notes you think
qualify and don't try to get others to buy into your choice.

				Steve

    Re .19
    
    Well, same to ya, fella.