[Unofficial] HALL OF FAME

[HighlanderAttack]

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.

I will let Blitz speak to this, but when he says chair I am sure he means someone that is going to organize things. Like I just said to chip-someone has to keep it all organized.

[Blitzaholic]

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.

agreed with HA, and if I was selected as a potential HoF candidate, I would remove myself from the Chair as that would be the right thing to do. Someone would fill in during that time, same with any of the jurors if they got selected as a possible candidate.

[jpcloet]

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.

Going to have to agree with Fruitcake here.

I see you have added jurors that have been here just over a year and a few that have done some "farming", albeit not to the degree that would get them in trouble. Right now this is Blitz's hall of fame.

[HighlanderAttack]

I see people saying Blitz should not lead this but I am not seeing the alternatives. Please lets see someone else step up if they want to. Personally I can juror or not, no matter either way to me-and I would be fair, but I sure don't want to be in charge of this. Just like everything agreement on a topic never happens on CC.

[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.

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.

Ok fair enough, but I think most people's stance would be that a Hall Of Fame cannot legitimately stand so long as there is any potential for impartiality.

The problem highlighted by Fruitcake is that Blitz is ignoring the body of some comments whilst acknowledging them. For a Hall Of Fame to be impartial you would need someone who is prepared to put the work in properly and not be a candiadate - like every Hall Of Fame in current existence.

At the moment neither condition is being satisfied, this is why there will probably always be contention whilst Blitz is organising this.
Blitz has good intentions, most people including myself agree with the premise but not its execution.

So once again, I commend Blitz for the idea, but someone else should be driving this properly. I don't think he need worry,
he will be a member soon enough.

[Qwert]

What was you suggestion?

Mine suggestion(strange that you dont notice,or you ignore),that if you find that some player who is candidate for HOF, find to have some connection with farming,automaticaly lose ,and can not be in HOF.
This is like in any Sports,if you use drugs or any other medicaments who its not alove,you stay without medals,and your score its erased,and you definitly can not be in HOF.
Ofcourse i understand that these can eliminate many Conquerors, and probably these is reason why you ignore to put that these will be supreme rules when you decide who will be in HOF.

[Blitzaholic]

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.

Ok fair enough, but I think most people's stance would be that a Hall Of Fame cannot legitimately stand so long as there is any potential for impartiality.

Blitz has good intentions, most people including myself agree with the premise but not its execution.

So once again, I commend Blitz for the idea, but someone else should be driving this properly. I don't think he need worry,
he will be a member soon enough.

thank you very much chip, yes, i did put in a lot of work, and I will remain open. can you help me decide who you think would be fair and impartial? I am doing my best here, I could use some help. Any suggestions fruitcake or chip?

Right now this is Blitz's hall of fame.

Jp, this is not my hall of fame, at least I hope not, the goal is for this to be the CC Hall of Fame. This is why tons of people have typed in here over the years, I took almost everyone's ideas into consideration and forming this from a collective bunch of players, many , many of them. Jp, what would you suggest as helping this to be impartial, what players on CC would you say? I mean listen guys, many on here kind of know who are shoo-in Hall of Famers, right? I mean most would have a good idea, there are some in the grey area, this is why we need juror's and some kind of base criteria and other suggestions to help decide on close calls and players on the fence. I am doing my best with tons of players help to do something else positive for CC. For example, I think Optimus Prime and Cairnswk for examples have contributed a ton to CC, way more then the average person, they should for sure be candidates and almost shoo-ins for the Hall of Fame, not because they met a majority of the criteria, but , they work they put forth is far beyond many others to help the enhancement of CC and that should not go unnoticed.

The problem highlighted by Fruitcake is that Blitz is ignoring the body of some comments whilst acknowledging them. For a Hall Of Fame to be impartial you would need someone who is prepared to put the work in properly and not be a candiadate - like every Hall Of Fame in current existence.

who would you suggest chip?

I see you have added jurors that have been here just over a year and a few that have done some "farming", albeit not to the degree that would get them in trouble.

tell me who has farmed? and define that? is this Jp's farming or CC's?

[Blitzaholic]

What was you suggestion?

Mine suggestion(strange that you dont notice,or you ignore),that if you find that some player who is candidate for HOF, find to have some connection with farming,automaticaly lose ,and can not be in HOF.
Ofcourse i understand that these can eliminate many Conquerors, and probably these is reason why you ignore to put that these will be supreme rules when you decide who will be in HOF.

This is hard for me to add qwert, because many different players on here have their own different definitions and ideas of farming and plenty of them are different then what CC established, I trust the jurors and the ones you all help me select to take this into consideration and be fair and just. We all want respectable and fair, honest jurors. It does not matter who you all select, someone will always have an issue with some and disagree with some. you cannot please everyone. I do think we need to post players that we believe are honest , fair, and respectful. We, then also need to see if they would be willing to be be on something like this. Again, I think it is fair to say, that all the jurors currently are willing, this is great news, many posted in here saying they would, many did not. I at least posted all the ones that said they were willing. That is one step closer. I do not even know of sensfan, but , he was willing so added him, does this mean we is a finalized juror? NO. why? I and we need to find out how much knowledge about CC he or she has. Again, we want the most popular and respected juror's. I think a fair amount of players would agree that most on that panel are that indeed. All I did for now was just post everyone that is interested in being on it. if you are interested, post that you are.

This is like in any Sports,if you use drugs or any other medicaments who its not alove,you stay without medals,and your score its erased,and you definitly can not be in HOF.

qwert, many in sports have used drugs and are in hall of fame, please don't make me list all their names. using drugs does not necessarily make you a bad person qwert, some are nice people that may be sick and/or are in pain on some level.

[jpcloet]

Personally I'd like to see Mr Banana lead this. However, I could see the need for several leaders.

The Overall Process
Criteria Determination (should be heavy public input)
Player Nominations
Review and Naming of HOF (HOF Committee)

[Blitzaholic]

Personally I'd like to see Mr Banana lead this. However, I could see the need for several leaders.

The Overall Process
Criteria Determination (should be heavy public input)
Player Nominations
Review and Naming of HOF (HOF Committee)

I am open to others leading this, let them come in here and post and we can discuss this as a possibility. The criteria determination is and has been heavy public input, always has. I have collected it for almost 3 years now. As I listed and posted updates time and time again, I am tallying many of the criteria up and adding the totals. I will have a newer update later. Again, we still working this out and nothing as of yet is finalized or written in stone.

[laddida]

are there gonna be HOF speeches?

[Beckytheblondie]

are there gonna be HOF speeches?

Laddy for HOF 2010!

[Blitzaholic]

are there gonna be HOF speeches?

why not? lol, it at least could be optional. Inc. once said "I'd like to thank the Academy" and I almost died laughing, that was awesome.

[laddida]

are there gonna be HOF speeches?

Laddy for HOF 2010!

dunno if id qualify theres a ton of criteria i do not match

[Blitzaholic]

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) 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".

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.

this is what we are trying to accomplish.

are there gonna be HOF speeches?

Laddy for HOF 2010!

dunno if id qualify theres a ton of criteria i do not match

the criteria is not all finalized yet and no one has to meet them all. as others said, there is a base, and others suggestions the jurors could use as strong indicators to help finalize decision making processes.

[laddida]

I know first ballat hall of famers would be scott and seul

[Beckytheblondie]

are there gonna be HOF speeches?

Laddy for HOF 2010!

dunno if id qualify theres a ton of criteria i do not match

the criteria is not all finalized yet and no one has to meet them all. as others said, there is a base, and others suggestions the jurors could use as strong indicators to help finalize decision making processes.

Well even though I am not a juror, I am definitely team Laddida... Chicago needs some representation in the Hall of Fame. He has CLNbky's support!

[laddida]

are there gonna be HOF speeches?

Laddy for HOF 2010!

dunno if id qualify theres a ton of criteria i do not match

the criteria is not all finalized yet and no one has to meet them all. as others said, there is a base, and others suggestions the jurors could use as strong indicators to help finalize decision making processes.

Well even though I am not a juror, I am definitely team Laddida... Chicago needs some representation in the Hall of Fame. He has CLNbky's support!

haha thanks but now i think blitz is going to get mad that were getting ahead of ourselves

[Fruitcake]

Blitz, you are still missing a vital issue.

The 'committee' (for want of a better expression) who decide the criteria cannot, must not, be the same people who decide the winners. I shake my head in dismay at your seeming incomprehension at this simple yet important division of responsibilities.

I will repeat. The people who decide on the way the whole thing is run cannot be the same people who decide on who gets into this whole HoF , to do so would open the whole thing to an incestuous relationship. The original 'committee' who do decide how the criteria are met do so then disband and hand over to the active Jurors who then decide on who is admitted. This ensures a clear division of responsibility and relationship.

Furthermore, as Chip mentions earlier, any Chair of (in my opinion) either the Committe or the Jurors cannot and in fact must not be considered for entry until they have resigned that position.

In essence, what you need to do is ask people to put themselves forward for the thankless task of deciding the criteria. Once they have done this then any potential Juror can see clearly what his/her parameters of responsibility are and make a clear decision as to whether they actually want to serve on a Jury.

You have to accept that the HoF is not your personal vehicle and that you have come up with the nub of an idea that needs to be handed to people who have the correct skills to act on your original (and good) idea. This is not to say you cannot be the Chair of one or the other, but you most certainly cannot act in both for the reasons mentioned...otherwise, as has been said, members will just see this as Blitz's HoF...which is fine, but then don't ask or expect Admin to step in and sanction it. Surely you can see this....can't you????

For the record, I would personally eschew both committes, purely due to commitments outside of cc.

Finally, please understand, I am not making an attack on you, I have decades of experience in these matters and am trying, as best I can, to guide you to what I believe you want which is a fair, just and equitable system that rewards.

[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 9+ 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:

the overall average thought HOF Inductees should have maybe 7 to 10 selections where 3 to 5 could be inducted every 6 months. 2/3rd's or 67% (10 of the 15) jurors must agree for entry to be passed into the hall.


3rd:

the complex criteria guidelines is overwhelming, but here goes as CC players SPEAK:

4th:

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

[b]19x sportsmanship of some sort 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.
11x Premium Status for at least 2+ years was a shared view.
26x longevity of 30 months playing or 2.5 years Minimum time played (blended in average)- 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![/b]

Strongly suggested criteria guidelines or Specialty Requirements - If Achieved, should be looked highly upon to help jurors reach challenging decisions!

25x agreed on achieving a score of 3000 at some point during a players career
23x receiving special contribution medal, contributing to CC more than just the game...maybe not an auto. HoF...but they should be VERY HIGHLY considered.
19x agreed on high cross map ratio was mentioned with 110 (average collected) with 5+ unique kills on the map
17x agreed on a player having 30+ medals-shows some versatility
15x agreed on tournaments won (5 or more)
15x agreed on organized 5 successful tournaments
14x designed 3 to 5 maps
14x agreed on score of 2500+ average score or higher
12x agreed on having a 60% to 65%+ win ratio in team games
10x agreed on mentioning of total victories, 5,000 plus
9x unique defeats of 5,000+, If we are going to consider it a specialty... We have it higher than 5K.
9x agreed on being a part of CLA
9x agreed anyone that was ever a conqueror, maybe not an auto. HoF...but they should be VERY HIGHLY considered.
7x agreed on being a mod
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
6x being a newsletter writer
4x made at least one of 1st 5's and top 5's list
4x being a newsletter interviewee
2x agreed on greasemonkey script
1x any player that strikes fear into your spine
2x agreed made all time top 100 score
1x have at least all silver medals
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?
1x mentioned not having all gold medals, but most
2x set benchmarks high for other to make it difficult to beat
3x having 22% to 25%+ win rate in 6 player singles, term, ass games
2x a minimum of bronze medals in 9 of the 12 categories
2x 50% kill ratio
1x mentioned having 9 of 12 gold medals
3x having a 20 game win streak plus
1x all jurors have to agree for a player to get in
2x silver medals achieved in all styles
2x set a cc record of some sort
2x no busts or no cc bans
1x supportive cc member what does this look like?
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
2x 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
1x dedicated cc member, give an example?
3x SoC
1x played 5,000 games of any kind
1x won 5,000 games, any or all types
1x map rank
1x no cheats
1x no farming, what any player deems as farming or what CC says?


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

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 merge more and tweak others to SIMPLIFY this for future jurors, at least this compiles all the ideas in one post , still merging, junking and questioning things, thx, keep em coming, latest update now is in. Sill ironing things out. Goal: to make list small and simpler.

[Blitzaholic]

Blitz, you are still missing a vital issue.

The 'committee' (for want of a better expression) who decide the criteria cannot, must not, be the same people who decide the winners. I shake my head in dismay at your seeming incomprehension at this simple yet important division of responsibilities.

the suggestion guidelines or criteria is being gathered again thru all the past pm;s and all the posts in here by all the cc players for past 3 years in this thread and or have shown interest in HoF, that is as impartial as you can get, and all them are not going to be part of the juror's fruitcake. I think you may need to take time and read all thru here again, you are missing the boat and I am way ahead of you, but , thx for the thought, but, it has already been happening now for quite some time. The criteria or suggestions have come from more than one hundred cc players, (some only had one suggestion) but, it was counted, the juror's is a group of 15. hope that helps you understand m8.

[conquerhero]

sports has different criteria: ie, ERA, batting average, RBI's, stolen bases, etc.. CC HofF should also have different criteria - ie, winning percentage, number of tournaments won, map-maker, etc - one person does not have to meet all the criteria, just one - another person may have lower figures but be strong in different criterias - one qualification that I think is all important is longevity with CC - ie, 3 years minimum

[Blitzaholic]

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

could you provide some suggestions for possible candidates to become eligible andy?

sports has different criteria: ie, ERA, batting average, RBI's, stolen bases, etc.. CC HofF should also have different criteria - ie, winning percentage, number of tournaments won, map-maker, etc - one person does not have to meet all the criteria, just one - another person may have lower figures but be strong in different criterias - one qualification that I think is all important is longevity with CC - ie, 3 years minimum

thx conquerhero, those are sound suggestions.

[Master Fenrir]

Ok, Blitz, in response to your PM, I went and grabbed the criteria you posted on the first page and I'm going to give you some of my thoughts.

1. Longevity: played minimum of 2 years - YES, REQUIREMENT

2. Hit Score of 3500 + @ least 1x NO IN GENERAL, BUT YES AS A REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIALISTS

I feel that there are many of those on this sight that specialize in certain games: team games, freestyle speed, standard escalating, etc. Doing this, I feel that 3500 is a reasonable requirement.

However, and I hope you pardon me for using a friend as an example, this would keep a player such as danryan out of the Hall of Fame almost indefinately. Dan plays every type of game on every setting all the time, not limiting himself to only certain games. For him to make it to the Hall of Fame, it's likely that he would have to stop playing many different types of games to specialize long enough to hit 3500. And I don't think one should have to TRY to get 3500 just to get into the Hall of Fame.

He takes full advantage of ALL of the games the site offers, is quite good at ALL of them, and has tourney medals up the ass. I'm not sure if Hard Attack has ever hit 3500, but he's somebody else that pops into my head as fitting this type of player. I don't think the score of 3500 should be held to such players, but instead, 3000.

I also wonder if the CC Hall of Fame is open to only pure players. For example, I'm thinking of Wacicha. His contributions to the site and new players is immeasurable from the small sampling of what I've seen, but perhaps directly because of his role, he would never hit 3500. Would such a noble player be kept out of the Hall of Fame based on score?

I would think the Hall of Fame Committee would be better served if they followed a rule of thumb of 3500 for specialists, 3000 for all around players/frequent tournament players, and 3000- for special circumstances.

3. Made 1st 5 and Top 5 lists - NOT A REQUIREMENT, BUT CERTAINLY AN INDICATOR IN FAVOR

As sports history shows, the first 5 to do something eventually pale in comparison to future generations of players. First 5 is irrelevent, in my opinion, because there's probably 100 people to do it better later. Because some player happened upon CC first and reached a certain marker that has been duplicated countless time since seems like a silly criteria to me.

Top 5 seems just as arbitrary. Suppose a player comes along in the future (who would obviously not be the First 5 to anything) and reaches the 6th best ranking in each category. That player would not get in?

Also, you created the First 5 and Top 5 lists because you're in those lists. Would you give them as much weight or want them to be requirements if you weren't as good as you are? Not everybody can be so l33tzors. I just imagined you as a Corporal and had a brief laugh.

4. Maintained RANK for long time YES, REQUIREMENT

A rank that fluctuates too often, I feel, can be an indicator of luck. A player should be able to maintain a high rank to show that their score is not a fluke; however, "long time" would need to be clearly defined.

5. Membership status of Premium a vast majority of time YES, REQUIREMENT

I'm going back and forth, but I really think it should be yes. You shouldn't get Social Security if you don't chip in prior. I don't think you should be allowed Hall of Fame status either without dishing out the $25 unless you can provide us with copies of your bankruptcy filing.

6. Stats: singles wins, doubles wins, triples wins, quad wins, assassin, term, total wins, etc. YES, REQUIREMENT

It's going to take quite a while to set the standard stat requirements for each category, though.

7. Multiple contributions to CC site, overall enhancement, map making, tournament organizers, clan domination, site workers, forum helpers, posters making it a fun site with threads of popularity evidenced by over 100 pages, etc. NOT A REQUIREMENT, BUT CERTAINLY AN INDICATOR IN FAVOR

If Michael Jordan had never given an interview, made a public appearance, promoted a charity, etc., would he not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame? These seem a little too extracurricular to me to be a requirement. However, doing them would definately be a "plus" in my mind.

8. Feedback or Ranking System of 4.5 or higher-although somewhat subjective YES, REQUIREMENT

Somewhat subjective or not, I've yet to meet somebody with a 4.4 who didn't exhibit great douchebaggery.

9. Medals of 20+ and held high score in the process YES, REQUIREMENT

10. CC players who played Tournaments and Won @ least 1 NOT A REQUIREMENT, BUT CERTAINLY AN INDICATOR IN FAVOR

I dunno, man. I'm not sure if a tournament win can be considered equivalent to a World Series trophy, but you can bet your ass that there are plenty of people in every sports Hall of Fame who never won a championship. Tony Gwynn in baseball comes to mind. I really don't like this one. Especially when this is based so heavily on random luck instead of actual skill as in sports.

11. Obtained Conquerer or # 1 on Scoreboard NOT A REQUIREMENT, BUT CERTAINLY AN INDICATOR IN FAVOR

I'm not going to get into this one. It depends on how you got there and if you have actual skill. I trust the judges will use their common sense. For the record, I'm not referring to KH, who is actually a very skilled player.

12. Versitile, demonstrates greatness in a plethera of game plays and gaming styles, on many maps YES, REFER BACK TO MY RESPONSE TO #2, THOUGH

Alright, Blitz, there's my thoughts for you. If you need me to clarify anything, let me know.

[dowian2]

In my opinion, the requirements to make it into the Hall of Fame shouldn't necessarily have minimum statistics/ratings/etc. (And coming from an actuary, that's saying something.)

If you look at the recently mentioned baseball Hall of Fame, they send a letter to every voter which reads: "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played."

You should be able to get into the Hall of Fame in many different ways. For example, top players for a long period of time, mapmakers who have contributed many maps, exceptional mods/programmers, etc.... all should be able to get in for their own accomplishments. Ultimately, as much as we want to keep it an objective process, Hall of Fame voting must be subjective. Thus, I feel the most important part of this process is to ensure the committee is well-diversified, well-respected, and as impartial as can be.

Just my two cents - keep up the good work, guys!