HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread

(26-12-2025 13:06 )WelshMichael Wrote:  For me this is a sensible suggestion. Now, just to find some universally accepted committee members....

While you're at it, can you also give me tonight's winning Euromillions numbers ?


To be honest I'd totally forgotten about Lolly. No doubt a consequence of not being as invested in the channels as many others are (not a dig, just a fact). Even if she'd popped up in the nominations before I posted mine I still wouldn't have voted for her either.

Am I in the least bit bothered that she won? Nope, not at all. As far as I'm concerned it's the rough equivalent of a team scraping through the group stage in the World Cup then going on to win the whole thing so good luck to her, them's the rules etc.

Rather her than Lori or Alice Goodwin. (tosses grenade into room, walks out quickly etc)


I was lucky in that a couple of my Nominations went all the way to the end and I got to stick with them. If, as usual I'd been the kiss of death and they got nowhere, I wouldn't have bothered voting further.

Members nominate girls, add the names of the nominees into two polls in seperate threads, one for nights and one for days.
Top 2 girls in each poll enter the HOF

(26-12-2025 10:29 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  

(25-12-2025 23:09 )verybadroger Wrote:  I asked, because I see something like this as a forum get-together where we put our heads together and reach a sort of consensus. I think it's nice to support faves that others appreciate as well. What goes around comes around, hopefully. Plus, I thought it was possible that tallying of lists wouldn't start until the deadline.

As I've said I think heaps of babes past and present are HOF-worthy (including Karina and Honey for sure). I would only vote for a performer that I thought was deserving of being in the HOF, and the sad reality was that Karina had been left aside for this year. I only asked whether it was something that would be allowed. I don't know whether my request was allowed or not. The other 34 voters had the same deadline and opportunity to request a change.

It's not a very nice tone you strike in your last line.

My bad, that last line was unnecessary, I regret my choice of words, sorry for that, I've removed it.

I should try to explaining better. On reflection the concept of what you are proposing is interesting & I understand your sentiment. But a competition requires rules at the beginning, allowing a switch mid round to one member would be way out of order. What about those who have already nominated but wont get back on-line before the deadline closes. I doubt anyone that has ever run a comp or ever will would be open to allow switching, they have enough work to do. Imagine every switch would have a knock on effect, moving some babes into the final 8 & others out, do you allow switching more than once, where would it end.

Incidentally the point I made regarding how tenuous it was that Lolly scraped through by one nomination is further highlighted, by the same token Karina Curry actually only just missed out by 1 nomination to make the final 8. Had you been allowed to swap out Karina & a further nomination came in, would you have been asking to swap her back in ?

The oh so perfect format failed on many previous occasions to get Lolly in.

I think that what you speak of as this being a consensus is an altogether different idea, (one which I would be open to) That would be more like a traditional HOF run by committee. I'm not sure you can have an organic process within a comp, you need rules & structure, not a free for all.

Thanks for the nice reply, and the appreciated critique of my approach.

I'm a member of a film forum where they run polls. Many users will post their ballot and then edit it if they see anything further that they like. I'm probably influenced by that. I can see your take though.

Maybe I'll wait until further into the nominations next year to see which way the wind is blowing. That way I can have the best of both worlds.

(26-12-2025 12:30 )William H Bonney Wrote:  I thought I'd add a few more comments. I'm getting prolific in this thread now!

1. Two-stage process and why it matters.
Goodfella made an interesting post above, which he concluded by saying “I humbly suggest that the two-stage process is retained, if only for the sake of preserving the possibility of these “oh yeah” moments.”
I wanted to say a little more on this subject, just to clarify why a nomination round is utterly essential. It’s because the problem of recency bias is worse at the nomination stage – much worse. This year was a good example when Nicole Snow topped the nominations but Lolly Badcock was inducted. In fact looking back through previous years the person with the most nominations is usually someone currently on the channels. Camilla Jayne was an exception, as she topped the nominations without being on the channels, but then she had only left the channels a year before.
I see there’s some discussion about how Lolly managed to win this year despite only scraping through the nomination stage. My own answer is that recency bias tends to be pretty bad during the nomination stage, but the voting stage has a tendency to correct it.

2. Head-to-heads and why they are a bad idea
In fact The Silent Majority has already explained why head-to-head voting is a bad idea, so I don't need to go over that ground again, but I thought it was worth noting that Charlemagne and lovebabes56 made it even worse by using a seeding system. Why does a seeding system make it worse? Because it’s based on the notion that nominations represent the top 8 in merit order – clearly a false inference. Because the nomination stage is so prone to recency bias, using it as a ranking system makes the problem of recency bias even worse. Giving Nicole Snow top seeding this year meant the organisers were trying to give additional help to someone who already had the advantage of being currently on the channels.
Important principle: all nominees should be treated equally, without organisers trying to give additional help to those who have already benefited from recency bias.

3. Automatic Induction and why it’s a non-starter
Automatic induction assumes that if someone has waited long enough they must deserve it. This is simply false. Many long careers are competent rather than exceptional.
Instead of saying this person stood out, you’re saying this person lasted long enough. It’s changing the whole basis of what a hall of fame is. Instead of being an honour, it becomes an entitlement.
Besides, what about the issue of how many appearances someone makes? Nicolle Knight was on Babestation the other day, but how often does she appear? She must have racked up quite a bit of service time, without being on very often. If she keeps going with occasional appearances she could eventually qualify for automatic induction despite being something of a rarity on Babestation.
Important principle: automatic induction lowers the standard of distinction, and turns induction from an honour into an inevitability for anyone who sticks around.

Agree 100% on points 1 and 3, but I do like the seeded match-ups!

(26-12-2025 12:30 )William H Bonney Wrote:  Besides, what about the issue of how many appearances someone makes? Nicolle Knight was on Babestation the other day, but how often does she appear? She must have racked up quite a bit of service time, without being on very often. If she keeps going with occasional appearances she could eventually qualify for automatic induction despite being something of a rarity on Babestation.

Just to be clear, I was talking about tv work. And caming from home would absolutely not count.

But if nobody else agrees with this, that's fine. Just throwing stuff out there.
One of the common complaints seems to be we're not inducting enough girls every year.

(26-12-2025 17:12 )Sm© Wrote:  Members nominate girls, add the names of the nominees into two polls in seperate threads, one for nights and one for days.
Top 2 girls in each poll enter the HOF

If you're inducting the top 2 girls from a single vote, chances are that's means inducting a girl that only came second. Is that much better than my idea?

If we want to induct multiple girls, in each category, every year, it needs to be different votes with different criteria. Or hold the comp twice a year.
Then every girl inducted has genuinely won a vote.

(27-12-2025 09:04 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  If you're inducting the top 2 girls from a single vote, chances are that's means inducting a girl that only came second. Is that much better than my idea?

If we want to induct multiple girls, in each category, every year, it needs to be different votes with different criteria. Or hold the comp twice a year.
Then every girl inducted has genuinely won a vote.

As an outsider who doesn't even vote for any of the member ran awards I thought a simple solution would suffise...

Obviously not, carry on

^You've views are always welcome. All positive solutions are welcome

(27-12-2025 12:27 )Sm© Wrote:  I thought a simple solution would suffise...

You've not been following this, have you...

Firstly I'd like to echo the thanks given to Lovesbabes56 and my fellow moderator Charlemagne for their work on the Hall of Fame. Thank you!

We need somebody with experience to take charge, so we are happy to announce that Snooks will be in charge of the Hall of Fame moving forward.

I hope you will join us in supporting Snooks with this, please keep any input, ideas etc constructive, we all would like to see the HoF continue and be a success.

Please expect a post from Snooks shortly.

Snooks I wish you well and as always, we are here to help!