|
BGonline.org Forums
Revised Giants List has been posted.
Posted By: Bill Riles In Response To: Revised Giants List has been posted. (Bill Riles)
Date: Sunday, 6 March 2016, at 5:11 p.m.
The revision is worse than if the Committee had done nothing at all in response to the controversy.
The outrage would have been just as great if the revised list was the originally posted list.
Players were looking for change in the revision and there is, effectively, none. Many see collusion and manipulation in the list. Many see the game as demeaned and the manipulators as rewarded.
I know the Committee was between a rock and a hard place, but the revision seems too political, too diplomatic -- a desired, contrived solution in an attempt to satisfy as many as possible and to upset as few as possible.
There should be, at least, some context and explanation to the revision.
There should be disclosures of how and why the changes that were made were decided upon.
There should be disclosures of why more wasn't done. Many anticipated a large number of ballots to be disqualified -- by virtue of unqualified voters and/or by virtue of evidence of collusion and manipulation.
There should be discussion of what will be changed so that we don't get into this situation again in two years if the Giants List continues.
I'll circulate some ideas to others. I think continuity and legacy are very important to the game. But some things have to change -- time, technology, demographics, and perceptions demand it.
|
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.