Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Most Meritorious Player: Rules for Ballot

OK, let’s try this again.

Last week on Hall of Merit… I attempted to post this thread and it ended up in the Newsblog. This time it should appear in the right place.

Two key questions are —

How many players do we vote for?
What is each place on the ballot worth?

You can find a detailed proposal of a voting method in DanG’s post here

Although I promised to post a 1961 discussion thread today, I’ll delay that for a couple of days to see if this thread draws any attention. The last one did not get many posts, but perhaps that reflected its poor location.

fra paolo Posted: April 26, 2011 at 02:49 PM | 157 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. DL from MN Posted: May 02, 2011 at 07:20 PM (#3815724)
Reposting to bump, inserted "professional"

"Candidate Eligibility: Any North American professional baseball player is eligible for the MMP award including players in the top Negro Leagues or independent teams. Voters should consider the player's on-field contribution to MLB team(s) in that season only. If part of the season was spent outside MLB, that value may be considered as well. However, the player's on-field contribution should be judged in relation to the highest level major league, not relative to a minor league. A season may include playoff or World Series games but does not include spring training or exhibition games. No credit will be given for games not played due to injury, wartime service or contract disputes."

"Ballot Length: The length of the ballot will be proportional to the number of major league teams with a minimum ballot length of 10 (20). The ballot length shall be N/2 (N) where N is the number of major league teams for seasons where there are more than 20 major league teams [1969-present]."

OR

"Ballot Length: The ballot length shall be 10 (20) players."

"Voter eligibility: All voters must post a preliminary ballot in the ballot discussion thread at least 2 days before voting ends. All voters must fill out a complete ballot. Voters must briefly explain their ballot choices. One person, one vote; anyone determined to have voted with multiple accounts will be banned and their votes will be disallowed. The MMP ballot committee has authority to exclude any ballot that does not meet these requirements."

"Scoring: Points will be given in descending order with the #1 player receiving the same number of points as the number of ballot slots. For example, with a 10 player ballot the points will be 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1. The player with the highest point total will be named the MMP for a particular year. In case of a tie, the tiebreaker will be number of 1st place votes. If the first tiebreaker does not determine a winner the players will be considered co-MMPs."

(20) is the long-ballot proposal. This gives ballot lengths of either 10-15 or 20-30. Please vote

short/long
fixed/variable

in the comments after this post. I appreciate the suggestion above but I need to boil it down to an either/or for a vote. Voting for compromise doesn't make it something I can tally. I'm on the record for short/variable.
   102. Chris Fluit Posted: May 02, 2011 at 07:36 PM (#3815743)
I vote for short/variable.
   103. DL from MN Posted: May 02, 2011 at 07:39 PM (#3815751)
Please vote short/long and fixed/variable in this thread by Friday 5/6. Also, offer any changes to the rules above by Friday. I'd like to wrap up this discussion this week.
   104. DanG Posted: May 02, 2011 at 08:04 PM (#3815786)
I appreciate the suggestion above
You're welcome. (I consider it "mission accomplished" since it prompted this poll, moving the ball down the field a bit.) I'm on the record for long/fixed.

On a related topic, I was digging through the old thread "The Hall of Merit Needs You". The general consensus then was that the sort of basic 10-to-1 scheme that you're suggesting here would be inadequate. We were considering various voting point schemes, some with bonus points. Here's one post I made:

Posted 2:34 p.m., January 16, 2002 (#94) - DanG
I thought I'd weigh in on the topic of MVP-style voting points.

I've always had a small problem with the 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 and similar formats used, because the point totals achieved by players relate poorly to the players' actual values. The #1 man is not usually twice the value of the #6 man; the #9 man is not twice the value of #10; The #3 man is not four times the value of the #9 man, etc.

The hill is too steep. I'm thinking more along the lines of a distribution starting like this: 5-5-4-4-3-3-2-2-1-1. Along with this, 5 bonus points are to be distributed, no more than 2 to any one player, for a total of 35 points on each ballot.

The top-loaded extreme looks like this: 7-7-5-4-3-3-2-2-1-1.

The bottom-loaded extreme is: 5-5-4-4-3-3-3-3-3-2.

The tilt-the-ballot-to-one-man ballot is: 7-5-4-4-3-3-3-2-2-2. This one especially is reminiscent of a typical TPR leaders list.

The tilt-the-ballot-to-two-men ballot is: 7-7-4-4-3-3-2-2-2-1.

I think this gradual point distribution enables voters to better reflect the relative values of the candidates they're voting for. There just is not that big a difference between the candidates in most years.

It also lessens the impact of a top vote. It's much harder to skew the results to My Favorite candidate. A high point total depends more on the consistency of a player's high ranking on the ballots cast. You would avoid an outcome such as the 1979 NL MVP vote, where the madcap Stargell-for-#1 voters pushed him into a tie with the more-consistently supported Keith Hernandez.
   105. DL from MN Posted: May 02, 2011 at 08:21 PM (#3815814)
I would like to drive the voting method to a consensus in a separate discussion. I hate the current MVP method of giving a point bonus and end weighting the top. What we are really looking at is the tail of a normal distribution. I'm going to dismiss the variable point ballots as too difficult to implement. What this will come down to is a 10,9,8,7... or something more like 10,9,8,8,7,7,7,6,6,6,6,5,5,5,5,5,4,4,4,4,4,4,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3.
   106. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: May 02, 2011 at 08:21 PM (#3815815)
I submit that the vote as to ballot length should be conducted in a separate voting thread, so as to call attention to it.

That being said, I vote short/variable.
   107. Baldrick Posted: May 02, 2011 at 08:39 PM (#3815838)
Short/fixed.
   108. DL from MN Posted: May 02, 2011 at 09:15 PM (#3815871)
> I submit that the vote as to ballot length should be conducted in a separate voting thread

I might have done that if I had figured out how to create a separate thread. I don't think it is necessary for this one.
   109. OCF Posted: May 02, 2011 at 09:33 PM (#3815891)
Short/abstain
   110. lieiam Posted: May 03, 2011 at 01:13 AM (#3816109)
I vote short over long...And if short I'm indifferent on fixed or variable. But if long I definitely prefer variable.
   111. bjhanke Posted: May 03, 2011 at 02:04 AM (#3816192)
I vote short/variable.

Short because there's no carryover backlog to keep track of, with candidates who ranked lower in their first year moving up to eventual inclusion.

Variable because I think there is valuable information. As time has gone on in baseball, the relative value of one pitcher has declined relative to one position player. On the other hand, the number of players has increased. I'd like to get a handle on whether the extra players caused by the added population has the same ratio of pitchers to players as it used to, or whether the excess should all end up in the position player side, or somewhere in between. A longer ballot for longer populations helps look at that.

- Brock Hanke
   112. Alex King Posted: May 03, 2011 at 02:21 AM (#3816216)
I vote for short/variable.

This is a nitpick, but aren't the first two sentences contradictory?
"Candidate Eligibility: Any North American professional baseball player is eligible for the MMP award including players in the top Negro Leagues or independent teams. Voters should consider the player's on-field contribution to MLB team(s) in that season only.

I think the second sentence should read "his teams," rather than "MLB teams."

I would also like to strike the final sentence, prohibiting voters from granting war credit, injury credit, or labor disputes credit. I like Nate's earlier proposal that rules should be as flexible and non-restrictive as possible, so I wouldn't want to bar voters from considering war credit or contract issues credit (injury credit strikes me as a little silly, though).
   113. Howie Menckel Posted: May 03, 2011 at 02:23 AM (#3816220)
How many players should be listed on each ballot for the 1961 election? (List your top 3 preferences)

a) 10
b) 15
c) 20

in that order

...........

Should the size of the ballot be constant or variable?

c) We should explore a compromise between a and b. For example, one ballot size for 1871-1900 and a larger ballot size for post-1900.
   114. Nate the Neptunian Posted: May 03, 2011 at 01:22 PM (#3816412)

"Candidate Eligibility: Any North American professional baseball player is eligible for the MMP award including players in the top Negro Leagues or independent teams. Voters should consider the player's on-field contribution to MLB team(s) in that season only. If part of the season was spent outside MLB, that value may be considered as well. However, the player's on-field contribution should be judged in relation to the highest level major league, not relative to a minor league. A season may include playoff or World Series games but does not include spring training or exhibition games. No credit will be given for games not played due to injury, wartime service or contract disputes."


I'd take out the bit about exhibition games (though spring training is fine) or clarify that it doesn't apply to the top black barnstorming teams in the pre-integration period, as they arguably played nothing but exhibition games.

As for ballot... short/variable.
   115. Al Peterson Posted: May 03, 2011 at 01:41 PM (#3816429)
Short/variable
   116. fra paolo Posted: May 03, 2011 at 01:53 PM (#3816438)
short/variable

This project should keep the spirit of the HoM and think in terms of 'something better'. The ballot should start with the MVP system as a basis, and then tweak it in order to improve it. Thus, a ten-player ballot for a league of eight teams is too long, and the ratio should at most be one player per two teams. We should really aim at something even more selective.
   117. DL from MN Posted: May 03, 2011 at 01:56 PM (#3816442)
I would disagree about the early black barnstorming teams playing nothing but exhibition games. They weren't league games but they were interested in beating the other team. They also had fairly consistent team rosters. I would like to exclude the Satchel Paige / Dizzy Dean type games where the purpose was to showcase a few major league players and winning the game wasn't necessarily as important as bringing in the biggest box office.

By exhibition I was meaning to exclude all-star games, tours of Japan or any other games where the primary purpose is not necessarily to win the game.

I think the second sentence should read "his teams," rather than "MLB teams."


I kept it MLB teams in order to exclude someone voting for the Texas League MVP. I want all contributions weighed in context to the value to an MLB team. That means if you're voting for someone not in MLB you'd better back that up with some MLE's.

I wouldn't want to bar voters from considering war credit or contract issues credit


I would specifically like to bar that from consideration. Ted Williams should not win the 1944 MMP. A player that holds out is going to damage their ability to win an MMP. War credit is an appropriate consideration for ranking careers against each other. It isn't appropriate for determining which player had the best season. If you didn't play, you're not eligible.
   118. DL from MN Posted: May 03, 2011 at 02:15 PM (#3816470)
> a ten-player ballot for a league of eight teams is too long, and the ratio should at most be one player per two teams

I'm with you, but integration drives a need for extra ballot slots from 1901-1960. I am open to adjusting the number of ballot slots before 1900. It will require discussion to see how to handle the Player's League, American Association, etc. By the time we need to address it my kids may be grown and out of the house so I'll have more time to look into it.
   119. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: May 03, 2011 at 02:29 PM (#3816488)
I've come around on variable:


Short / Variable.
   120. Rob_Wood Posted: May 03, 2011 at 03:48 PM (#3816619)
Long/fixed
   121. fra paolo Posted: May 03, 2011 at 04:01 PM (#3816640)
extra ballot slots from 1901-1960.

Yes, at the very least we need to account for Negro League teams. Segregation - the theft that keeps on taking.
   122. DanG Posted: May 03, 2011 at 05:08 PM (#3816704)
Yep. The variable ballot opens up quite a Pandora's Box of arbitrariness.
   123. Mark Donelson Posted: May 03, 2011 at 08:03 PM (#3816909)
Short/variable
   124. DL from MN Posted: May 03, 2011 at 10:00 PM (#3817046)
On the subject of scoring, I've been looking at the far right tails of normal distributions and the 10th place looks to be about 1/3 of the magnitude of the maximum.

http://www.math.unb.ca/~knight/utility/NormTble.htm

That would look something like this for a short ballot:

15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

We would maintain this scoring when we only vote for 10, it just ends with 6 points for 10th place. I like this one - not much of an on-ballot bonus when you only vote 10. 6th and 6th is worth as much as 1st and 11th. Two 9ths = 1 first. Really easy to score.

Alternately we could try

30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15.... (15th place worth half as much as 1st, works for a long ballot)
or
20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5.... (10th place vote worth half of a 1st)

These have the advantage of keeping the value of a 1st place vote constant as the ballot expands.
   125. Alex King Posted: May 04, 2011 at 05:35 AM (#3817587)
I wouldn't want to bar voters from considering war credit or contract issues credit

I would specifically like to bar that from consideration. Ted Williams should not win the 1944 MMP. A player that holds out is going to damage their ability to win an MMP. War credit is an appropriate consideration for ranking careers against each other. It isn't appropriate for determining which player had the best season. If you didn't play, you're not eligible.


I wouldn't include war credit either, but I don't want to be too restrictive in the rules. Also, I feel that in the case of Tim Raines, I should be allowed to give "collusion credit"--Raines was prohibited from playing for a month in 1987 due to no fault of his own. At the very least, I think the constitution should make some allowance for collusion credit.
   126. DL from MN Posted: May 04, 2011 at 01:59 PM (#3817699)
I think looking at rate is appropriate in an MMP discussion. Some players will accumulate more WAR in a season than others due to their place in the batting order. I don't think that necessarily makes them more valuable. I think you can justify voting Raines higher than his playing time would suggest by looking at rate stats. That helps deal with all sorts of managerial usage issues.

I'll just put it this way. I'd rather see conclusion as "The Expos screwed Raines out of the MMP award in 1987 by colluding" than give him the award anyway by extrapolating his performance. Who knows what would have happened in August if Raines had played all of April. I'd rather vote for the actual season than an imagined what-if.
   127. DL from MN Posted: May 05, 2011 at 02:03 PM (#3818835)
I've been thinking this over some more. If I change "contract disputes" to "contract holdouts" it opens up a little bit of wiggle room. I agree with not penalizing the player for management decisions.
   128. Rob_Wood Posted: May 05, 2011 at 05:55 PM (#3819079)
Are you okay with giving "credit" for players who served in the military during the season? Many players left their teams like one weekend each month during the 1960s. I think I remember Don Kessinger and Ken Holtzman did this, and I am sure there were many others.

Thinking about it some more, Holtzman missed almost the entire 1967 season, so I may have it backward. Holtzman could only pitch on weekends IIRC.
   129. DL from MN Posted: May 05, 2011 at 07:38 PM (#3819209)
It is a slippery slope. I'm not a fan of playing a what-if game on what amounts to a "peak" measurement system. How do you credit the missed time? Did the player's rate stats benefit from the missed time? It's a lot easier to be more forgiving when comparing two careers to each other. However, I don't see anyone crediting a missed peak to a WWII player even when it is probable they missed their best seasons.

As the amounts of time become more discrete it is harder to argue that a player deserves credit when he wasn't there. You could get ridiculous and imagine that a player would have had "a helluva opening game if he'd only been named the opening day starter".
   130. DL from MN Posted: May 06, 2011 at 03:31 PM (#3819786)
It is Friday and I've tallied 13 votes for short, 1 for long. Short is the overwhelming winner. I tallied 2 votes for fixed and 10 for variable so variable wins. Here's my take on the rules.

"Candidate Eligibility: Any North American professional baseball player is eligible for the MMP award including players in the top Negro Leagues or independent teams. Voters should consider the player's on-field contribution to MLB team(s) in that season only. If part of the season was spent outside MLB, that value may be considered as well. However, the player's on-field contribution should be judged in relation to the highest level major league, not relative to a minor league. A season may include playoff or World Series games but does not include spring training or exhibition games. No credit will be given for games not played due to injury, wartime service or contract holdouts."

"Ballot Length: The length of the ballot will be proportional to the number of major league teams with a minimum ballot length of 10. The ballot length shall be N/2 where N is the number of major league teams for seasons where there are more than 20 major league teams [1969-present]."

"Voter eligibility: All voters must post a preliminary ballot in the ballot discussion thread at least 2 days before voting ends. All voters must fill out a complete ballot. Voters must briefly explain their ballot choices. One person, one vote; anyone determined to have voted with multiple accounts will be banned and their votes will be disallowed. The MMP ballot committee has authority to exclude any ballot that does not meet these requirements."

"Scoring: Points will be given in descending order with the #1 player receiving 15 points. For example, with a 10 player ballot the points will be 15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6. The player with the highest point total will be named the MMP for a particular year. In case of a tie, the tiebreaker will be number of 1st place votes. If the first tiebreaker does not determine a winner the players will be considered co-MMPs."
   131. DL from MN Posted: May 06, 2011 at 03:42 PM (#3819795)
I'm open to discussing changes to the scoring method if there is a motion and a second. If not, I'd like to ratify the rules as-is. I'd also like a 3rd person for the ballot committee besides myself and fra paulo.
   132. Mark Donelson Posted: May 06, 2011 at 03:56 PM (#3819807)
I'll be the third for the ballot committee, if you like.
   133. OCF Posted: May 08, 2011 at 06:47 PM (#3821352)
A couple of questions about consideration factors.

1. Is it ever reasonable to use team records in arguing about individuals? For instance, if it's 1918 and we're arguing for Babe Ruth in comparison to Ty Cobb and Walter Johnson, is it at all fair to say "but the Red Sox won the pennant"? Of course, the voting sportswriters have done that forever. I'm quite confident that had there been a voted MVP in 1918, it would have been Ruth, both because of the winning team factor and because he was a compelling story.

2. What about "all that other stuff"? That is, should the World Series fix affect your vote for Joe Jackson in 1919? Would one be allowed to omit Jackson from one's ballot altogether for 1919? What about Jackson in 1920?
   134. DL from MN Posted: May 09, 2011 at 01:32 PM (#3821802)
I don't know the answer to 1 but I stated "on-field contribution" in relation to #2. I would consider trying to throw a baseball game to be a negative on-field contribution. I want to exclude positive and negative off the field stuff (Nomar pulling people out of the water, Chris Truby barbecuing puppies).
   135. DL from MN Posted: May 09, 2011 at 05:57 PM (#3822077)
Mark Donelson - I think Grandma Murphy might be the 3rd. I'll take you up on that if he isn't.
   136. Mark Donelson Posted: May 10, 2011 at 09:15 PM (#3823365)
DL--I'm fine either way. Just let me know if you need me.
   137. sunnyday2 Posted: May 11, 2011 at 09:09 PM (#3824553)
I think looking at rate is appropriate in an MMP discussion.


I'm not sure what this was addressing though there was a comment about players who miss time due to military service...but the more obivous scenario is injury, and we will get to address that almost immediately, meaning not 1961, but 1962.

Mickey Mantle, AL MVP by a substantial margin over teammate Bobby Richardson (about a 3-to-2 margin) and 3rd place Harmon Killebrew (by almost 2.5-to-1). Played 123 games as injuries started to catch up with him at age 30. In about 75 percent of a season, he led the league in slugging at .605 and OBA at .488. His traditional triple crown numbers were 30-89-.321, not anywhere close to the league lead in the former 2 categories but 2nd in BA. His 96 runs scored was 6th best.

My personal opinion is Norm Siebern was the MVP that year but WS has Mantle at 33 with Siebern and Brooks and Floyd Robinson at 27.

Of course we are combining the 2 leagues. In the NL, WS has Frank Robinson at 41 but he wasn't the MVP, Maury Wills was with 32. Tommy Davis had 36, Aaron 34, Willie Mays also 41. This of course was the NL's equivalent of 1961--their expansion year. So discount those 41s, especially, like you did Cash's 42.

Overall OBA

Mantle .488
Frank .421
Siebern .412
Aaron 9th at .390

Overall SA

Frank .624
Aaron .618
Mays .615
Mantle .605

OPS+ (Baseball Encyclopedia)

Mantle 198
Frank 172
Aaron 171
Mays 167

I'm not suggesting that Mantle get "credit" for the 39 games he didn't play. I'm just wondering if his value per game was enough higher than everybody else to "merit" some consideration. That and the fact that the Yankees ended up as world champs, which would have been inconceivable for this Yankees team without him.
   138. DL from MN Posted: May 12, 2011 at 05:22 PM (#3825261)
I have heard no proposals for changing the scoring. All in favor of the current rules respond "AYE" all opposed "NAY". I'm calling the vote closed on 5/19.
   139. Nate the Neptunian Posted: May 13, 2011 at 06:47 AM (#3825945)
Aye.
   140. lieiam Posted: May 14, 2011 at 01:39 AM (#3826890)
Aye.
   141. Howie Menckel Posted: May 14, 2011 at 02:08 AM (#3826938)
Aye, DL seems on top of things to me...
   142. Yardape Posted: May 15, 2011 at 04:39 AM (#3827611)
Aye
   143. Mark Donelson Posted: May 17, 2011 at 04:27 PM (#3830294)
Aye.
   144. bjhanke Posted: May 18, 2011 at 09:21 AM (#3831027)
Oh, wait. I've misread this. DL's comment "I'm calling the vote closed on 5/19" means the vote HERE to adopt these RULES. Not the final vote for 1961's players. Whew. I wasn't sure I'd make the cutoff date. So, um, what IS the cutoff date for voting for 1961 players? And just so I'm sure, what is the cutoff date for the prelim ballots on the discussion thread? I'm maybe 2 days away from having a decent ballot ready, at least for prelims.

Oh, and Aye on the rules question. - Brock Hanke
   145. DL from MN Posted: May 18, 2011 at 06:17 PM (#3831414)
I'll post the 1961 vote in the discussion thread.
   146. Alex King Posted: May 19, 2011 at 05:50 AM (#3832269)
Aye.
   147. bjhanke Posted: May 19, 2011 at 01:39 PM (#3832340)
RE: #128, Rob Wood -

I remember this stuff from the 1960s. The players you're talking about - the guys who could not play on weekends - were in the National Guard. This kept them out of the Vietnam War draft. As you might imagine, spots in the guard were hard to come by in those years, and did not have the best reputations. When a pro sports player got one, the usual accusation was that the team's owner had pulled political strings. No doubt this was sometimes true and sometimes not. The guys who could only play on weekends were in the regular armed forces, but not sent overseas. They got weekend passes to play ball. This had a bit more rep than the Guard had, since if your unit was called, you had to go overseas. However, most of the ballplayers who got into units like this got into units that weren't going anywhere; they had stateside assignments.

This has always happened in pro ball, including both WWI and WWII. I would be happy to give war credit to those guys if I were looking at their careers for the HoM, but this is for single years only. I would vote against war credit, because it's just too hard to figure out exactly what they would have done in those few scattered days they were not playing. And it would be worse trying to figure out a pitcher.

- Brock
   148. DL from MN Posted: May 20, 2011 at 02:21 PM (#3833311)
Rules are ratified.
   149. fra paolo Posted: June 07, 2011 at 12:16 PM (#3847258)
After some discussion, the MMP committee has reached a consensus that the traditional HoM ballot deadline of 8pm Eastern is too late for us in terms of tallying the votes and getting a thread up the same day, but the current noon Eastern may be a little too early for any West Coast voters who by circumstances are forced to leave things to the last minute.

We're going to try 5pm Eastern in the next ballot, and see how that goes.
   150. fra paolo Posted: June 08, 2011 at 03:27 PM (#3848393)
I have to say, with the experience of one election, that ten is too many. Six, or maybe seven, would have caught all the 'serious' candidates for MMP in 1961. It'll be interesting to see how that number changes for other elections.
   151. DL from MN Posted: June 08, 2011 at 04:31 PM (#3848482)
One was enough for the 1961 election...
   152. DL from MN Posted: July 13, 2011 at 02:44 PM (#3876538)
Looking back at this thread there was a lot of energy from DanG and 'zop. I drove for a compromise solution and now neither one of those guys has voted in an election. I apologize if you didn't get exactly what you wanted but hope you will vote in the future. I'm especially puzzled by the lack of participation by 'zop.
   153. DanG Posted: July 13, 2011 at 09:00 PM (#3876931)
puzzled by the lack of participation by 'zop.
Indeed. Is he still around? This project's ultimate structure resulted in large part from his influence.

Unfortunately, the rules that resulted are precisely what demotivates me from particpating.
   154. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 13, 2011 at 09:20 PM (#3876946)
Not that it would have mattered, but I would have voted for the long ballot myself if I had known about that election.
   155. DL from MN Posted: July 14, 2011 at 02:12 PM (#3877353)
DanG - I still don't think the election is the point. I think the discussion is the point and the election is a result of the discussion. I'm glad you're participating in the discussion. I do wish you would post a ballot, I think you have a unique perspective and things are tending toward groupthink.
   156. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 15, 2011 at 09:57 PM (#3878664)
DanG - I still don't think the election is the point. I think the discussion is the point and the election is a result of the discussion. I'm glad you're participating in the discussion. I do wish you would post a ballot, I think you have a unique perspective and things are tending toward groupthink.


Agreed.
   157. lieiam Posted: November 05, 2011 at 02:55 AM (#3986876)
Hot Topics.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Andere Richtingen
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.4149 seconds
48 querie(s) executed