[Unofficial] HALL OF FAME

[Gold Knight]

Im also beginning to agree that there doesnt need to be a set criteria to look at. There are so many different ways that people play this game and contribute to this site that to narrow it down to categories doesnt really do them justice. I liked JP's post earlier, that some of the criteria are impossible for most players to reach, or they just straight up dont want to pursue. Conqueror is held by very few people here, and half of them I would not even consider for a HOF ballot because of how they got there. I, along with many others, couldnt give a passing thoughts to medals or making special contributions to the site. That knocks about 4 categories down for most players on the site, meaning they wouldnt be able to meet the "9-10" criteria that your looking for.

I think if this were to be implemented, players would be nominated and a case would have to be built for them on an individual level. If we cant put the time in to evaluate each person worthy of the honor we are attempting to bestow on them, then there isnt a point in implementing this. Now some of those criterias could be included in their nomination and be a major contributor to why they made it, but it would be rediculous to decline someone because of a few things that they didnt do.

I wrote it killing(not to toot my own horn... ), and still think it would work as thats how most sports HOF's work. There is no criteria for a basketball, baseball, etc player to gain entrance, but rather they are nominated by the jurors and then voted on by an individual basis. I like how baseball does it, and it would fit in with what Witt said earlier about "specialist". DH's and closers make it in the HOF, though only when they are elite at what they do.

Also with the baseball reference, they usually require a 75% yes vote to gain entrance, but there are also a lot more people voting. So I feel that either we raise the %, say to about 85%, or we make a much larger committee to vote on this thing.

But before we get too far ahead of ourselves and start planning the decorations at the induction ceremonies, shouldnt we hear from Lack and see if this ever will come about, or even a chance? Much with several clan issues, if there is no chance of Lack allowing this, there's no point in everyone putting all this effort for naught...

[AndyDufresne]

Speaking from a strictly user standpoint, I like the idea of the baseball-esque HOF idea.

=============

As for an Official Hall of Fame, I know that Lack is looking to increase (and also further automate) some things similar to this idea (Such as the Tournament Hall of Fame), etc. I think we'll have to see what comes of that and some other smaller projects first.


--Andy

[Blitzaholic]

ok all in CC, I sifted through of my massive pm's, all these posts in this thread, et cetera, this took over an exhausting 5 hours worth of time and over 100 something cc members replied in some form attempting to share what they deem worthy as being a possible Hall of Famer. I respect everyone's viewpoint and want to take everything all have said into consideration. Scanning through all, I took the time to compile a list, this again is a rough draft and I hope I did not miss anything, although if I did, please post it. It may be possible as I started getting tired after awhile. There was several things repeated and worded in different ways, others were very vague, and some were subjective, I will post them anyways and lump them into categories as time goes on based on what CC'ers feel. Again, there may be some repeats, just jotting them all down and we can go from there. Again, keeping adding to the lists if you see something.

1st:

most agreed we need a respectable and impartial committee of juror's, 11 to 15 in that ball park-odd number, also
the requirements that are needed to be a juror: 2 or 3 year membership min., Active on the forums, Daily attendance, Good knowledge of the site

2nd:

several thought HOF Inductees should have 3 to 5 members a year, others 1 or 2 every 3 months, and yet, some others: once per month and felt this should occur before they retire and can be posted long after they retire as well, or have an initial batch of 5-10ish members, but then from there on out induct 1-2 every 3 months.


3rd:

the complex criteria is overwhelming, but here goes:

4th:

What do we feel should be the base requirements for ALL Hall of Famers?

15x sportsmanship was mentioned and (ratings may of 4.5 or higher) - Kind of the same thing... Pretty much we want solid, respected players in the HoF.
9x Premium Status for at least 2+ years.
25x longevity of 30 months playing or 2.5 years- can't apply unless they've been here a while... But Just for the sake of it, I think it is good.


^^^That is the basic minimum requirements..... Where we truly decide if someone is HoF worthy is in what they specialized in... Or how well rounded they were!

Specialty Requirements - If Achieved, should be looked highly upon!

24x agreed on achieving a score of 3000 to 3500 at some point during a players career
21x receiving special contribution medal, contributing to CC more than just the game...maybe not an auto. HoF...but they should be VERY HIGHLY considered.
17x agreed on high cross map ratio was mentioned with 100 to 125 with 5+ unique kills on the map
14x agreed on tournaments won (5 or more)
16x agreed on a player having 30+ medals-shows some versatility
14x agreed on score of 2500+ average score or higher
13x agreed on organized 5 successful tournaments
9x unique defeats of 5,000+, If we are going to consider it a specialty... We have it higher than 5K.
12x designed 3 to 5 maps
12x agreed on having a 60% to 65%+ win ratio in team games
8x agreed on being a part of CLA
10x agreed on mentioning of total victories, 5,000 plus
6x agreed on being a mod
8x agreed anyone that was ever a conqueror, maybe not an auto. HoF...but they should be VERY HIGHLY considered.
2x agreed on greasemonkey script
1x any player that strikes fear into your spine
2x agreed made all time top 100 score
2x agreed a player set benchmark high of some sort
2x good at multiple game types: example ass, dubs, trips, term, quads
2x versatile player, explain specifically?
3x having 22% to 25%+ win rate in 6 player singles, term, ass games
4x made at least one list of 1st 5's and top 5's
5x being a newsletter writer
4x being a newsletter interviewee
2x a minimum of bronze medals in 9 of the 12 categories
2x 50% kill ratio
3x having a 20 game win streak plus
1x all jurors have to agree for a player to get in
7x mentioned a player needing to be outstanding, excellent, awesome, exceptional of some sort, define that?
6x inspires others and or a coach-mentor, helpful to players, teaches them the game
2x silver medals achieved in all styles
2x set a cc record of some sort
2x no busts or no cc bans
2x reached 1st page on the scoreboard at some point
3x broke some kind of CC record
2x completed games, give me a number to work with?
3x over 55% win on 1 vs 1 games
1x reached top 100 on scoreboard at some time
1x having gold medals in 6 of 12
1x any player that makes you think or take longer in your turn based on their game play
1x 10,000 games played


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

These may or may not be that specific... But they are areas to look at to see if someone has really stepped up and specialized to such an extent that they are HoF worthy...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



ok, I again, need to scroll this again and merge some and tweak others, at least this compiles all the ideas in one post , geeeeez , still merging, junking and questioning things, thx, keep em coming, latest update now is in. Sill ironing things out.

[Chuuuuck]

This is just a thought that has crossed my mind while thinking about all of this and the work you are putting into it Blitz.

Maybe, instead of coming up with a list of criteria that should get someone in. You should just come up with a really good "mission statement" for what a hall of fame player would look like.

Off the top of my head say something like "a hall of fame player would be a player that shows exceptional knowledge about the game, makes the site a more enjoyable place to play, and has excelled in many aspects of the conquer club community"

I made that one up very quickly, but you get the idea. Just do something like that, and then set guidelines for how many players will get inducted throughout a time period. Then all of these nitpicky details that you are discussing will be something that only the jururs need to argue over to decide whose achievements are more worthy of being in the hall of fame (i mean really, that is what the jurors are for). There is no reason for all of that to be decided beforehand. The jurors can take everything into consideration and try to figure out the top 3-5 players at a time that deserve to be in the hall of fame. They can then post those players and all of their "exceptional stats" that they took into consideration for why they deserved to be in the hall of fame come induction time.

Just my 2 cents for simplifying this process. It is hard to please 100 people and that is what you have made the jury for anyway IMO.

[the.killing.44]

Maybe, instead of coming up with a list of criteria that should get someone in. You should just come up with a really good "mission statement" for what a hall of fame player would look like.

YES. There's too much bickering about criteria, and we're never going to get to a perfect system with set requirements. I think we just need a generic mold that the jurors can shape HoF players from.

[Blitzaholic]

This is just a thought that has crossed my mind while thinking about all of this and the work you are putting into it Blitz.

Maybe, instead of coming up with a list of criteria that should get someone in. You should just come up with a really good "mission statement" for what a hall of fame player would look like.

Off the top of my head say something like "a hall of fame player would be a player that shows exceptional knowledge about the game, makes the site a more enjoyable place to play, and has excelled in many aspects of the conquer club community"

I made that one up very quickly, but you get the idea. Just do something like that, and then set guidelines for how many players will get inducted throughout a time period. Then all of these nitpicky details that you are discussing will be something that only the jururs need to argue over to decide whose achievements are more worthy of being in the hall of fame (i mean really, that is what the jurors are for). There is no reason for all of that to be decided beforehand. The jurors can take everything into consideration and try to figure out the top 3-5 players at a time that deserve to be in the hall of fame. They can then post those players and all of their "exceptional stats" that they took into consideration for why they deserved to be in the hall of fame come induction time.

Just my 2 cents for simplifying this process. It is hard to please 100 people and that is what you have made the jury for anyway IMO.

thank you very much chuuuck, that is a good suggestion.

Speaking from a strictly user standpoint, I like the idea of the baseball-esque HOF idea.

=============

As for an Official Hall of Fame, I know that Lack is looking to increase (and also further automate) some things similar to this idea (Such as the Tournament Hall of Fame), etc. I think we'll have to see what comes of that and some other smaller projects first.


--Andy

thx Andy. If lack gets time and or you talk to him, let us know what he thinks. The last time I discussed this topic with him was about one year and he really seemed to like the idea, of course, a lot has happened since then. We will keep plugging away at it to finalize the product.

[Witt13]

Yeah, I was looking at the specialty section as not requirements, but a stepping stone to help the process. In the end, it should simply come down to what the jury's gut feeling is on whether they deserve to be in the HoF or not. Simple is that! So really, if we are going to take this HoF thing seriously, we should worry more who is on the jury, than what these specialty criteria are. At least in my opinion... Because those people are going to be the people who will make or break this.

[JoshyBoy]

The Hall of Fame definitely needs to have a section for tournament organisers. Some guys really deserve special recognition for their tournaments.

[gannable]

i think the criteria should just be used as a guidelines.
i dont think it should be rigid.

i dont think the overwhelming factor should be that a successful candidate should be someone who has demonstrated dominance in some fashion.

for example, sandy koufax was the most dominating pitcher for only a 5-6 year period but no other pitcher was as dominant during a particular period of time as koufax. however, alot of other pitchers have won more games than him because of longevity. But, koufax was a no brainer hall of famer.

another player - gale sayers RB, dominant only for a short period of time then loses his career because of injury. doesnt have the stats compared to alot of other RB's but people remember him as being so dominant during his heyday.

CC example to me would be King Herpes - he dominated using that freestyle city mogul and achieved 6000 pts. during his peak he dominated the scene here. he should be in the hall of fame even if he fails some other criteria.

[DBandit70]

Wow that was a lot of work Blitz and great job in summerizing it all, all I will say is that in my opinion the most important part of this being successful and worthy of note will be in the selection committee itself. What I mean by that is that they need to be good judges being able to discern those that are successful on CC and those just getting the numbers. It is one thing to have a formula to reach the hall of fame and quite another to be asked in by a select few. As for minimums I only see one as being most important, time as a premium member that demonstrates dedication and support of CC.

Thanks for your hard work Blitz

DB

[Fruitcake]

So now all you have to do is work out the criteria and requirements to be a judge/selection committe member/whatever....I await this with great anthropological interest.

It is well to remember...if the committe/board is shown to be lacking in some way or another this directly effects any value attached to anything they approve/give out.

To just say "me me me" and Blitz, or any one else for that matter, to say "ok, you're on the jury" is seriously flawed in approach.

You would have done better to do this task first, get a committee together and then produce a set of requirements.

However, in the interest of not seeming negative about this whole idea (and I do think it is crazy as it opens up a whole risk factor for conflict which no one seems to have calculated in their rush forwards) I would say that you need to get some kind of core group together...not of the type mentioned, but a group chosen from those who have put themselves forward, maybe nominated by admin, who then go into session and decide how the long long list of criteria or any other idea, should be applied. Their decision would then be produced for public consumption for review and discussion, they then return into private session taking on board all the comments, then return with the final decisions. This ensures fairness, objectivity, and even handedness. Their decision after the second 'in camera' review would be final. At the present time any, and in fact all, the criteria can be viewed as subjective even though it is most surely not.

Remember, it is not enough to be even handed in one's approach, one must be seen to be even handed.

[chipv]

Brilliant post.

[Blitzaholic]

So now all you have to do is work out the criteria and requirements to be a judge/selection committe member/whatever....I await this with great anthropological interest.

It is well to remember...if the committe/board is shown to be lacking in some way or another this directly effects any value attached to anything they approve/give out.

To just say "me me me" and Blitz, or any one else for that matter, to say "ok, you're on the jury" is seriously flawed in approach.

You would have done better to do this task first, get a committee together and then produce a set of requirements.

However, in the interest of not seeming negative about this whole idea (and I do think it is crazy as it opens up a whole risk factor for conflict which no one seems to have calculated in their rush forwards) I would say that you need to get some kind of core group together...not of the type mentioned, but a group chosen from those who have put themselves forward, maybe nominated by admin, who then go into session and decide how the long long list of criteria or any other idea, should be applied. Their decision would then be produced for public consumption for review and discussion, they then return into private session taking on board all the comments, then return with the final decisions. This ensures fairness, objectivity, and even handedness. Their decision after the second 'in camera' review would be final. At the present time any, and in fact all, the criteria can be viewed as subjective even though it is most surely not.

Remember, it is not enough to be even handed in one's approach, one must be seen to be even handed.

We still have to iron everything out fruitcake, this is no where near finished yet, as for the jurors, we may need to make a poll or something, we get to that later though, thx for the post.

I agree with Witt (and mentioned something similar earlier). We should have a short list of general minimum requirements to be considered and then use a bunch of others to decide who gets in that month/quarter/year.Lx

ok, Thx Lx

Wow that was a lot of work Blitz and great job in summerizing it all, all I will say is that in my opinion the most important part of this being successful and worthy of note will be in the selection committee itself. What I mean by that is that they need to be good judges being able to discern those that are successful on CC and those just getting the numbers. It is one thing to have a formula to reach the hall of fame and quite another to be asked in by a select few. As for minimums I only see one as being most important, time as a premium member that demonstrates dedication and support of CC.

Thanks for your hard work Blitz

DB

Thx a lot DB, much appreciated.

[Qwert]

CC example to me would be King Herpes - he dominated using that freestyle city mogul and achieved 6000 pts. during his peak he dominated the scene here. he should be in the hall of fame even if he fails some other criteria.

I though that Farming will not alove acces to hall of fame.

Still not see mine sugestion in your list Blitz.

[chipv]

Still not see mine sugestion in your list Blitz.

Are you surprised? Plenty of decent suggestions, like Fruitcake's excellent post are being ritually ignored.

Acknowledged, yes, but the content is ignored. Probably laziness.

No wonder these threads run for years.

[stahrgazer]

From where I sit Blitz I'd like to look at it a little differently. There are several ways for players to contribute to CC. For instance, one of the people I would certainly advocate as a Hall of Fame member would be cairnswk. While he hasn't ever reached the 3000 point level there can be little doubt that his contributions to making CC the enjoyable experience that it is and has been is important. He is the creator of many of the most popular maps and developed many of the more interesting gameplay attributes that we now take for granted. From where I sit to keep someone such as cairns, Optimus Prime, Jota, or others out simply because they don't reach the 3K point threshhold is ridiculous. I take nothing away from those who reach the upper echelons of the point standings but in terms of what has been given to CC I would argue that the contributions of these have been far greater and are more worthy of HOF inclusion than even becoming Conqueror. That doesn't mean that I think that becoming Conqueror isn't admirable or important because I would likely vote for anyone who has been Conqueror for the HOF, but I wouldn't want to have to eliminate major CC contributors based on something as arbitrary as a point total, much as I wouldn't want to eliminate someone with a high score simply because they had never created a map or tournament or done anything to contribute to the site except play games very well. That's where I'm standing.

I hear what you are saying bart, and I agree, again, a player would NOT have to meet all the criteria, but, most of the criteria. with what you shared: what do you suggest some criteria be? Sounds like map makers, forum contributers, tourney organizers, etc. This is already one of the criteria, can you suggest some more? Maybe you are saying a special contribution medal could be part of it as well? I am hoping lack approves of this once we get it finalized and comes out with a Hall of Fame medal.

Hall of Famers in any other sport, DO meet ALL the criteria. If that means no one's inducted one year, or quarter, or whatever, then so be it. I do agree that a review more frequently than a year is in order... but I don't agree that the criteria of 'score' should be eliminated because someone makes maps, or that maps should be eliminated because someone became Conqueror.

They have medals for either/or scenarios. Someone can be Conqueror without ever having touched a map, or organized a tourney, or helped new players, or tried to make the site interesting via special contributions. Likewise, people get contribution medals, cross-map medals, team medals, all without going beyond "corporal".

You're speaking "Hall of Fame" which should mean well-rounded contributions to the site (tournaments, maps, mods, news, SoC) as well as game 'expertise' as is reflected in medals or score. I'd agree that someone shouldn't have to have run a tourney, AND be in SoC, AND contribute to news, AND.... (various ways to contribute to the site itself)
I'd also agree someone shouldn't have to have all gold medals AND have been Conqueror, or have to maintain whatever the rank is for a specific period (Is Babe Ruth not "the Babe" simply because others hit home runs after he did?) but I do believe that some minimum rank/medals AND minimum site contributions should BOTH be criteria to recognize "hall of fame" as opposed to "really really great score," or "really special contributions" (which are already recognized in medals).

And I do believe a Hall of Fame medal would be in order. Yeah, the site already has lots of medals, but not one medal that recognizes good volunteerism AND great gameplay, combined.

[Blitzaholic]

CC example to me would be King Herpes - he dominated using that freestyle city mogul and achieved 6000 pts. during his peak he dominated the scene here. he should be in the hall of fame even if he fails some other criteria.

I though that Farming will not alove acces to hall of fame.

Still not see mine sugestion in your list Blitz.

What was you suggestion?

However, in the interest of not seeming negative about this whole idea (and I do think it is crazy as it opens up a whole risk factor for conflict which no one seems to have calculated in their rush forwards) I would say that you need to get some kind of core group together...not of the type mentioned, but a group chosen from those who have put themselves forward.

We have a core group, it may need to be changed some, and they have put themselves out there showing interest. Again, we need experienced players who were around in the year 2006 and 2007 and who visit the forums frequently. I look at the panel of jurors and those guys are solid and very fair, trustworthy, etc. I may need to do a poll like I said if others show more interest, tell me, who do you have a problem with who is on the committee? any of them? all of them? I have an issue with one (sensfan) nothing against the guy, but, he may not be one of the best jurors due to not being familiar with the game, forum, site as others. So, there may be a more qualified person. We want well respected players from the CC community. If you look who showed interest, many on CC respects those players, they are also known as fair and just.

[Seulessliathan]

So now all you have to do is work out the criteria and requirements to be a judge/selection committe member/whatever....I await this with great anthropological interest.

It is well to remember...if the committe/board is shown to be lacking in some way or another this directly effects any value attached to anything they approve/give out.

To just say "me me me" and Blitz, or any one else for that matter, to say "ok, you're on the jury" is seriously flawed in approach.

You would have done better to do this task first, get a committee together and then produce a set of requirements.

However, in the interest of not seeming negative about this whole idea (and I do think it is crazy as it opens up a whole risk factor for conflict which no one seems to have calculated in their rush forwards) I would say that you need to get some kind of core group together...not of the type mentioned, but a group chosen from those who have put themselves forward, maybe nominated by admin, who then go into session and decide how the long long list of criteria or any other idea, should be applied. Their decision would then be produced for public consumption for review and discussion, they then return into private session taking on board all the comments, then return with the final decisions. This ensures fairness, objectivity, and even handedness. Their decision after the second 'in camera' review would be final. At the present time any, and in fact all, the criteria can be viewed as subjective even though it is most surely not.

Remember, it is not enough to be even handed in one's approach, one must be seen to be even handed.

agreed, good post

[Blitzaholic]

we have a panel of jurors, may need to add another one or two. if this happens, i am hoping we have a user group named (HoF Committee). So, the names and votes would be done in private in a user group forum if approved, I would oversee the committee. We could add admin. and mods as well to ensure fairness.

[comic boy]

Just hurry up and vote me in, I could do with the cheque

[Fruitcake]

However, in the interest of not seeming negative about this whole idea (and I do think it is crazy as it opens up a whole risk factor for conflict which no one seems to have calculated in their rush forwards) I would say that you need to get some kind of core group together...not of the type mentioned, but a group chosen from those who have put themselves forward.

We have a core group, it may need to be changed some, and they have put themselves out there showing interest. Again, we need experienced players who were around in the year 2006 and 2007 and who visit the forums frequently. I look at the panel of jurors and those guys are solid and very fair, trustworthy, etc. I may need to do a poll like I said if others show more interest, tell me, who do you have a problem with who is on the committee? any of them? all of them? I have an issue with one (sensfan) nothing against the guy, but, he may not be one of the best jurors due to not being familiar with the game, forum, site as others. So, there may be a more qualified person. We want well respected players from the CC community. If you look who showed interest, many on CC respects those players, they are also known as fair and just.

I read what you are saying Blitz, but I feel you are missing the point a tad.

Before you even think about jurors/board of decision makers etc, you really need an impartial group (that could well be made of members NOT putting themselves forward as jurors) who go into session to distil all the suggestions. There needs to be a Chair of this group (elected internally by the group) which would carry the responsibility of ensuring the whole thing was moved along and could produce a decent document which was the first draft of the criteria. As I mentioned previously, this would then be put to the open membership for discussion with a cut off point. The committee then go into session again and produce a final document. This document would never be all things to all members, but that's the point...there has to be a responsible unaligned set of people who can make that decision in an impartial way who can then withdraw and disband as a body.

This group is not to be confused with the Jurors. The group of Jurors would be elected by the members to issue the awards based upon the criteria set by the first group. This extinguishes any future argument that the Jurors are not being impartial. The real responsibility of the Jury would be to sift through any/all the names put forward and set them against the criteria previously decided upon. The Jury could then decide who of those actually qualifies and if there is anything that debars them from receiving said award. They would also be required to decide who was to receive the award should it be decided, for instance, that 4 awards a year could be made with a short list of 20!

My recommendation would be that at least one of the first group was from admin to ensure the cc team were up to speed and that the committee did not overstep the parameters of its responsibilities. They could also assist in opening a private area of the forum for the 1st committee to meet and write to.

[Blitzaholic]

However, in the interest of not seeming negative about this whole idea (and I do think it is crazy as it opens up a whole risk factor for conflict which no one seems to have calculated in their rush forwards) I would say that you need to get some kind of core group together...not of the type mentioned, but a group chosen from those who have put themselves forward.

We have a core group, it may need to be changed some, and they have put themselves out there showing interest. Again, we need experienced players who were around in the year 2006 and 2007 and who visit the forums frequently. I look at the panel of jurors and those guys are solid and very fair, trustworthy, etc. I may need to do a poll like I said if others show more interest, tell me, who do you have a problem with who is on the committee? any of them? all of them? I have an issue with one (sensfan) nothing against the guy, but, he may not be one of the best jurors due to not being familiar with the game, forum, site as others. So, there may be a more qualified person. We want well respected players from the CC community. If you look who showed interest, many on CC respects those players, they are also known as fair and just.

I read what you are saying Blitz, but I feel you are missing the point a tad.

Before you even think about jurors/board of decision makers etc, you really need an impartial group (that could well be made of members NOT putting themselves forward as jurors) who go into session to distil all the suggestions. There needs to be a Chair of this group (elected internally by the group) which would carry the responsibility of ensuring the whole thing was moved along and could produce a decent document which was the first draft of the criteria. As I mentioned previously, this would then be put to the open membership for discussion with a cut off point. The committee then go into session again and produce a final document. This document would never be all things to all members, but that's the point...there has to be a responsible unaligned set of people who can make that decision in an impartial way who can then withdraw and disband as a body.

This group is not to be confused with the Jurors. The group of Jurors would be elected by the members to issue the awards based upon the criteria set by the first group. This extinguishes any future argument that the Jurors are not being impartial. The real responsibility of the Jury would be to sift through any/all the names put forward and set them against the criteria previously decided upon. The Jury could then decide who of those actually qualifies and if there is anything that debars them from receiving said award. They would also be required to decide who was to receive the award should it be decided, for instance, that 4 awards a year could be made with a short list of 20!

My recommendation would be that at least one of the first group was from admin to ensure the cc team were up to speed and that the committee did not overstep the parameters of its responsibilities. They could also assist in opening a private area of the forum for the 1st committee to meet and write to.

I would be the Chair of the group, the supervisor, manager, chair, whatever, it was my idea and I would oversee it, and admin. could assist me, we could do it dually. The jurors I figured I would get an idea of all who would like to be a part of it, if any more are interested, please post, in time if we get a lot, we do a poll and filter some out. The impartial group are players all that have been posting in this thread, sending me pm's, etc. many disagreed, argued, etc. on the criteria, i have gathered input form almost every player and added it, (except qwert) I need him to post again, I guess I forgot his suggestion), then I am tally all the suggestion or criteria (whatever) and adding them all up. I am getting a base criteria sort of speak and potential indicators for the panel or juror to review or take into consideration. We are kind of on the same page fruitcake and I have all this in mind and in my head, I just have not posted everything as of yet. I am trying to making this an easy as possible for the potential juror's by collecting all input from every pm, post, etc and lumping it all together and then slowly condensing it. As we proceed all in cc have input and continue to post their thoughts.

[Fruitcake]

However, in the interest of not seeming negative about this whole idea (and I do think it is crazy as it opens up a whole risk factor for conflict which no one seems to have calculated in their rush forwards) I would say that you need to get some kind of core group together...not of the type mentioned, but a group chosen from those who have put themselves forward.

We have a core group, it may need to be changed some, and they have put themselves out there showing interest. Again, we need experienced players who were around in the year 2006 and 2007 and who visit the forums frequently. I look at the panel of jurors and those guys are solid and very fair, trustworthy, etc. I may need to do a poll like I said if others show more interest, tell me, who do you have a problem with who is on the committee? any of them? all of them? I have an issue with one (sensfan) nothing against the guy, but, he may not be one of the best jurors due to not being familiar with the game, forum, site as others. So, there may be a more qualified person. We want well respected players from the CC community. If you look who showed interest, many on CC respects those players, they are also known as fair and just.

I read what you are saying Blitz, but I feel you are missing the point a tad.

Before you even think about jurors/board of decision makers etc, you really need an impartial group (that could well be made of members NOT putting themselves forward as jurors) who go into session to distil all the suggestions. There needs to be a Chair of this group (elected internally by the group) which would carry the responsibility of ensuring the whole thing was moved along and could produce a decent document which was the first draft of the criteria. As I mentioned previously, this would then be put to the open membership for discussion with a cut off point. The committee then go into session again and produce a final document. This document would never be all things to all members, but that's the point...there has to be a responsible unaligned set of people who can make that decision in an impartial way who can then withdraw and disband as a body.

This group is not to be confused with the Jurors. The group of Jurors would be elected by the members to issue the awards based upon the criteria set by the first group. This extinguishes any future argument that the Jurors are not being impartial. The real responsibility of the Jury would be to sift through any/all the names put forward and set them against the criteria previously decided upon. The Jury could then decide who of those actually qualifies and if there is anything that debars them from receiving said award. They would also be required to decide who was to receive the award should it be decided, for instance, that 4 awards a year could be made with a short list of 20!

My recommendation would be that at least one of the first group was from admin to ensure the cc team were up to speed and that the committee did not overstep the parameters of its responsibilities. They could also assist in opening a private area of the forum for the 1st committee to meet and write to.

I would be the Chair of the group, the supervisor, manager, chair, whatever, it was my idea and I would oversee it, and admin. could assist me, we could do it dually. The jurors I figured I would get an idea of all who would like to be a part of it, if any more are interested, please post, in time if we get a lot, we do a poll and filter some out. The impartial group are players all that have been posting in this thread, sending me pm's, etc. many disagreed, argued, etc. on the criteria, i have gathered input form almost every player and added it, (except qwert) I need him to post again, I guess I forgot his suggestion), then I am tally all the suggestion or criteria (whatever) and adding them all up. I am getting a base criteria sort of speak and potential indicators for the panel or juror to review or take into consideration. We are kind of on the same page fruitcake and I have all this in mind and in my head, I just have not posted everything as of yet. I am trying to making this an easy as possible for the potential juror's by collecting all input from every pm, post, etc and lumping it all together and then slowly condensing it. As we proceed all in cc have input and continue to post their thoughts.

Blitz...with the greatest respect we are not even in the same book. Once again you have ignored the basic premise upon which all systems of this kind, the world over, have proven. You are charging into this with little regard for the risk you expose yourself, and others to. You assume the Chair...of what? You seem to have problems with delegation of duty and responsibility, and worst of all, you are approaching this with a myopic attitude that will ultimately do damage.

[chipv]

I would be the Chair of the group, the supervisor, manager, chair, whatever, it was my idea and I would oversee it, and admin. could assist me, we could do it dually. The jurors I figured I would get an idea of all who would like to be a part of it, if any more are interested, please post, in time if we get a lot, we do a poll and filter some out. The impartial group are players all that have been posting in this thread, sending me pm's, etc. many disagreed, argued, etc. on the criteria, i have gathered input form almost every player and added it, (except qwert) I need him to post again, I guess I forgot his suggestion), then I am tally all the suggestion or criteria (whatever) and adding them all up. I am getting a base criteria sort of speak and potential indicators for the panel or juror to review or take into consideration. We are kind of on the same page fruitcake and I have all this in mind and in my head, I just have not posted everything as of yet. I am trying to making this an easy as possible for the potential juror's by collecting all input from every pm, post, etc and lumping it all together and then slowly condensing it. As we proceed all in cc have input and continue to post their thoughts.

You being the Chair makes this venture worthless, why is that difficult to see - you are a potential candidate therefore you should not be Chair.
If you insist on being Chair then you are ineligible for being a candidate for Hall Of Fame.

Otherwise this is a pointless exercise and a waste of everyone's time - no point in having some aspects impartial and not others.

You choose.

[HighlanderAttack]

I would be the Chair of the group, the supervisor, manager, chair, whatever, it was my idea and I would oversee it, and admin. could assist me, we could do it dually. The jurors I figured I would get an idea of all who would like to be a part of it, if any more are interested, please post, in time if we get a lot, we do a poll and filter some out. The impartial group are players all that have been posting in this thread, sending me pm's, etc. many disagreed, argued, etc. on the criteria, i have gathered input form almost every player and added it, (except qwert) I need him to post again, I guess I forgot his suggestion), then I am tally all the suggestion or criteria (whatever) and adding them all up. I am getting a base criteria sort of speak and potential indicators for the panel or juror to review or take into consideration. We are kind of on the same page fruitcake and I have all this in mind and in my head, I just have not posted everything as of yet. I am trying to making this an easy as possible for the potential juror's by collecting all input from every pm, post, etc and lumping it all together and then slowly condensing it. As we proceed all in cc have input and continue to post their thoughts.

You being the Chair makes this venture worthless, why is that difficult to see - you are a potential candidate therefore you should not be Chair.
If you insist on being Chair then you are ineligible for being a candidate for Hall Of Fame.

Otherwise this is a pointless exercise and a waste of everyone's time - no point in having some aspects impartial and not others.

You choose.

I would disagree here. I would think Blitz is almost guaranteed to be in the HoF. Someone has to chair it and he is dedicated to many things on CC. He does not have final say as the group of jurors has final say anyway. I am also sure that if anyone else wants to step up to the plate and run this thing Blitz would have no problem with a poll being created to be voted on. Just my thoughts.