HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread

Time can be a wonderful thing.
And we have lots of it before HOF26 gets underway in July. In the spirit of collaboration I invite constructive opinions and suggestions to continue to flow. I will continue to read it all. For those who haven't yet joined the debate, come on in and join the fun .
And for those who have posted already please continue to contribute and put more ideas into the pot. It's all useful stuff for me to read so I can capture the mood.

So a couple of key points of interest to get discussion flowing again.

The mood music seems to be for a higher number of Inductees per year.
Are we generally in favour of this? If not please say so.

The other significant issue is around what categories are implemented in the event of a clear desire for a higher number of Inductees. The concept of 'Eras' seems to be the prevailing one.
Are we in favour of this?
How do we want it to work?
Do we want clear start and end points of each era?
Do we approve of the Goodfella idea of a bespoke “legends” category only open for anyone who debuted before a certain year with the other category being for those that made their debut after that year?
Or do we want something else?

If you want eras in any form would you like me to do some forum research to give you a guide as to which babes fall into certain categories?
If so please say so. I would be happy to do this with advanced warning and dedicate my time to it to make life easier for you, the voters.

These are just a couple of areas for debate I have identified. There are obviously more besides. I am open to lots of ideas so don't be shy and let me know your thoughts.

I'm sure there will be much food for thought as the ideas and opinions roll in. So please bid me Bon Appetit as I digest it all and hopefully come up with a format that is as acceptable to as many as possible .

My humble opinion -

For any babe to be eligible, they must have made their debut 10 + years ago.
I think this would help a bit with more recent babes potentially" jumping the queue"

Category for babes from earlier years/ pre forum era -
I like the idea of a committee putting together a decent sized shortlist .( and maybe posting bios of the babes to try and jog everyone's memories)

Who and how many members would be on the committee is another question.
But I think it would be a good option for this category.

If we did this for day and night shows, that's 4 inductees a year, that seems plenty to me.

^

Just to clarify, Im suggesting committee for pre forum babes only.
and then members nominate any babe ( that debuted at least 10 years ago) as normal for the other day and night inductions.

More inductees.

No artificial 'legacy' categories or whatever, just a simple open vote

(28-01-2026 07:15 )eyres42 Wrote:  More inductees.

No artificial 'legacy' categories or whatever, just a simple open vote

Open votes don't work, as there are not enough active members of the forum who were watching the shows 15 years ago to put in some of the most important and successful girls ever to be on the channels,

I have had a idea for a one off special induction to boost up the numbers of girls in the hof,
Why not put every girl who has ever won a best girl on her channel or a ultimate award in to the hof,
We clearly thought they were outstanding when they won so why not use that to put them in,
Could be a good way of getting girls in from the past who were massive stars but don't have the support now due to people leaving the forum over time

(28-01-2026 12:02 )winsaw Wrote:  I have had a idea for a one off special induction to boost up the numbers of girls in the hof,
Why not put every girl who has ever won a best girl on her channel or a ultimate award in to the hof,
We clearly thought they were outstanding when they won so why not use that to put them in,
Could be a good way of getting girls in from the past who were massive stars but don't have the support now due to people leaving the forum over time

I think that would be too wide ranging, especially the individual channel awards. Unless maybe for a hat-trick of wins, not necessarily consecutively.

I can see a case for automatic induction for UK Adult Award winners though, given that it's a wider recognition than just this forum.

I thought I'd comment on winsaw's idea and explain why it's not a good idea.

1. The core distinction.
Annual awards recognise excellence in a moment, whereas a Hall of Fame recognises excellence across time.
If you blur this critical distinction, the Hall of Fame loses its meaning.
The winsaw idea violates an important principle: lifetime distinction cannot be inferred from single-year excellence.

2. Fairness.
The best girl on Xpanded is a fairly recent creation, compared to the Babestation best girl, which has run for many years. Some channels didn't even have a channel award. I can't recall a vote for the best girl on Storm TV.
Important principle violated: everyone should have the same opportunity to be inducted, not Babestation girls given more opportunity than the rest.

3. A good way of getting girls in from the past?
If you realised that inducting those who won channel awards was a violation of fairness, and stuck to those who won the ultimate babe award, the inductees would be: Arura Sky, Honey Scott, Lola Knight, Maria Smith, Michelle Moist, Nicole Snow and Scarlett Jones (the other winners of that award are already inducted).
So how credible is winsaw's claim that it would "be a good way of getting girls in from the past"? That doesn't strike me as a list of girls from the past (Scarlett Jones maybe).
Important principle violated: a proposal should work as described.

4. Back door induction
If an award guarantees future induction, award voters effectively become Hall voters, circumventing any procedures laid down by the person running the inductions.
This kind of automatic or back door induction would be a failure of proper organisation and procedure.
Important principle violated: induction authority must remain with the Hall’s own process and whoever's running it.

I agree that a Hall of Fame should reward durability and lasting impression rather than short-lived greatness. A girl who peaked in a year or two but then faded from memory arguably won the channel awards she deserved to win, but is not necessarily worthy of a Hall of Fame spot.

I’m also unsure why we should be concerned about speeding up the induction process? Most Halls of Fame are concerned with slowing it down, making it harder to gain entry and thus preserving its prestige.

I’m all for eligibility criteria based on the year she debuted though. I get the issue around ‘recency bias’ and the shifting demographic of the forum. But I also think we should allow Time to do some filtering of its own.

I remember lively debate on this forum about Danica Thrall a few years ago, but she is hardly ever mentioned now. I thought she was great. But I guess it just wasn’t in the cards for her. And that’s okay too.

Thank you all for contributing.
I am consciously thanking all posts to acknowledge all opinions expressed.
The more input the better as it gives me a series of wide ranging perspectives to work with. The more we can flesh out ideas long before the start then hopefully the better the overall format in the end