The main thing I'm wondering is whether this is strictly Hall of Fame business or does this tie in with the MotM and the interviews? Because your method pretty much does that. :P
Currently, the focus of the Hall of Fame is on peoples' works. The biography sounds nice, as does the interview, but listing their achievements along with all that would make the thread more of a catalog for their success than what it was intended to be--a single thread for listing the union's most highly acclaimed literature.
But your idea is great (I particularly like the idea to interview the MotM). If the other officers like it then I guess we'll work something out, but I say we keep the HoF's focus on writing and highlight the authors only where needed. The interviews and MotM threads will take care of the rest.
Oh, and we are currently working on a better way of nominating works. So far it's been decided that there will be a nomination thread at the end of the month for people to nominate their favorite works (as opposed to having you think up your own way to get yourself nominated), and then a voting thread to induct the best nominee (or nominees if we do it by category).
iloveflash
Thats my fault on the clarity issue. I recommend having a Hall of Fame, as it actually is (A Hall of Fame such as in Baseball, Hockey, Rock n' Roll, etc.) and continuing with the already setup program that convienently has the same name.
The biography about the person who has done on this has to do with the REAL hall of fame. Like in the outside world, I suggested a nomination process where the members and leaders can work together to choose those who belong on in it.
The interview + short bio goes with the highlight which acompanies the highlighting of other's writing.
I hope that is a bit clearer. If something isn't completely clear, please let me know and I'll try and wake myself up then I'll try to explain one more time :).
Log in to comment