[Unofficial] HALL OF FAME

[Fruitcake]

sure, sounds good Fc, but, again, my understanding was just 2 committees.


1. the criteria committee (coming up with the criteria for eligibility) to make the 2nd committee's job a little easier

2. the nominations and selections committee, they will nominate players and as a group select which one's maybe be inducted for reviewing the criteria we established to see if it match's.

and you suggested it:

1) A Committee needs to be formed off GD in an ad hoc group. This needs to be limited in some way. It also needs to be led by some one who can keep things moving. It needs to have a cut off date where it issues a set of criteria/requirements to be included in any HoF. At this point this committee produces a thread in GD and asks for feedback. After another set period of time the thread is locked and said committee go back into session. They then produce a final list which becomes the template. They then disband as a committee as their job is done and finished.

2) While this is happening there is no reason why a second set of SEPERATE people put themselves forward as the Jurors. They will then implement the criteria and rules created by the committee mentioned in (1).

Now this is where I and others differ as I foresee problems in halving the task of choosing nominations. However, should the general consensus be that there should be two then I will keep my own counsel.

I think just keeping it simple with 2 committees, and I think chipv also agreed.

1. criteria
2. jurors for nominations and selections based on rules created by committee 1.

period. last I knew, master fenrir and all of us were on board with your suggestion Fc weeks ago and that is the way we went.

I know 2 committees was my original suggestion Blitz (1 Criteria and 1 Nominations and Selections), but a separate idea was put forward to split the HoF public committee into 2 distinct halves, one to nominate, the other to adjudicate as I mentioned a couple of posts back. It matters not one jot that you, me chipv, or any one else thinks my idea was better. The fact that some have considered the other option means it must be shown due respect and discussed to see which the superior is. I will pm a few of the active posters in these threads and ask them to post what they think. I am certain we will arrive at a mutual understanding soon enough. You keep focussed on the criteria Blitz, it is important momentum is kept up, we, the members, wont want to be hanging around for months waiting for the first draft to be released so we can discuss those!

For the record, I am starting to believe that the awards committee would have to split into two halves (or one larger part and one smaller, this can be discussed). If this was not so, then responsibilities have to be clearly defined. Let’s just review the process that MAY take place. A member of cc (lets call him imupforit for this exercise) thinks a player ( andsoisshe) should be in the HoF. Imupforit scans the criteria and thinks andsoisshe qualifies. Now what happens? The system needs to be put in place to ensure some one on the HoF committee takes responsibility for checking the criteria, any adverse history etc etc. Who decides this? And this has to take place before andsoisshe is even considered. Now, let’s assume andsoisshe gets thru this first hurdle. What happens then?

Now let’s go a step further. Suppose the Criteria committee have laid down that only 2 members every 6 months can be awarded membership of the HoF and not only is andsoisshe put forward but two others, yetanotherone and heraswell. This is now the responsibility of the Awards committee, outside of the remit of the criteria committee, so how is this decision made and who by? Yes it would be by the HoF committee, but on what grounds? Now regarding this last point regarding what grounds, is this now within the remit of the Criteria committee or the HoF committee? I have only scratched the surface in this example, but I am certain in my mind that there are a great deal more questions.

My suggestion now would be for the election process for the HoF committee to take place at a not too distant point in the future. Once this committee is elected, then they can also form an ad hoc group to iron out these processes, systems and difficulties, including the demarcation of responsibilities between the two groups (via perhaps, liaison between the two groups now formed). This is difficult in an online community but not insurmountable. However, I tshow the example (very simplistic for a reason) above to show why I am always banging on about ensuring that as much is considered BEFORE the whole thing gets going.

On a last note Blitz, and I am sure you were quite innocent in this, you asked me by PM if I wanted to be on the criteria committee or the Awards committee. “ok, do you want on the criteria committee or nominations and selections committee?” 6 minutes later I responded by saying I felt the criteria committee was really my bag “Criteria...got to be for me really.”, to which you immediately responded (within 2 minutes) that this was full! “criteria one is all filled up” I am sure that it was the pressure of keeping tabs on everything that caused you to ask me whilst knowing that one was already full, otherwise it means you deliberately asked me for your own reasons which I am sure wasn’t the case. The reason I mention this is to try to guide you. You really don’t have to micromanage this situation. There are many here on cc quite capable of running with the Awards committee nominations, elections etc. You really don’t have to respond to everything posted. Although, as always, your input, however vague, is always welcome.

[pmchugh]

I think fruitcake and blitzy need to hug.

[eye84free]

Just not feeling the love there..lol

[Lindax]

I have lost the plot here a while ago. Three committees?

1.- Criteria
2.- Nominations
3.- Final Selection into the HoF

The first one will only exist until the criteria are set. Why not turn that one into the second one? Then have a separate one do the final selection.

The first two (whether merged or not) will be the most work and I'm not too keen of being a part of them. I'm still open to be a part of the third one.

Lx

[Master Fenrir]

Originally, I thought there would be 3 Committees: Criteria, Nominations & Selections, and Judges. I liked this idea, because it soon became clear that the general public believed Blitz was loading the judging panel with "the chosen." I thought the Nominations & Selection committee, chosen by public vote, would prevent any bias of the judge's panel.

Then, FC and Chip proved that their eloquence trumped Blitz's excitement, and proposed 2 Committees: Criteria and Nominations & Selections, to which Blitz conceded. I'm not sure what the end process was supposed to be here. The 2nd committee creates a list of possible HoFers and the public voted on it? I had reservations. Persuasive PMs would be sent out calling for votes in a close race, multi accounts created solely for the purpose of voting, etc. It sounds silly, but it would happen. However, I went along as it seemed to me that Fruitcake had taken on the persona of The Voice of the People.

In my honest opinion, I believe that 3 committees would work best; however, I am in favor of the option that would make the most people happy and provide for the least amount of room for complaint.

[jpcloet]

Nominations could com from the Criteria Committee and I would suspect the first round would come from them. The public should also be able to nominate as well.

[Gold Knight]

Originally, I thought there would be 3 Committees: Criteria, Nominations & Selections, and Judges. I liked this idea, because it soon became clear that the general public believed Blitz was loading the judging panel with "the chosen." I thought the Nominations & Selection committee, chosen by public vote, would prevent any bias of the judge's panel.

I also feel this idea would work better, the nomination would committee would have enough work cut out for them that they should be seperate from the judges. They would have to first find players that they deemed worthy of this HoF (which im still not sure if the nomination committee would find and select players or it would be up to a public voice to also put players forward...?), but that would just be a start. They would need to sift through the criteria created by the first committee, though i am sure there are things that cannot be placed in a "criteria analysis" that would also have to be researched. I think then a resume would have to be created for each nominee, in which they could then be compared and analyzed by the committee and ultimately voted on for how many ever players we wish to be nominated (Say 2 HoF'ers per year, put 10/15 up to vote...?)

I think thats plenty of work for just one committee if they have to research a player's entire history. Plus, the resumes they put together could be placed in front of the third committee, the "judges", and i think my idea before of anonymus resumes could be voted on for entrance. This means the players name does not accompany their stats/history as to avoid any bias of the judges that may remain.

Please let me know if any of this helps or im off-track of what we're going for, but seems to make the most sense to me. Also would like an idea of the two questions i posted in my ramblings so i have a direction for the rest of this.

[Robinette]

wow...

i hadn't noticed this before...

this is quite a process... might i suggest you create a simple flow-chart...
you can use this one to start...

[Blitzaholic]

Originally, I thought there would be 3 Committees: Criteria, Nominations & Selections, and Judges. I liked this idea, because it soon became clear that the general public believed Blitz was loading the judging panel with "the chosen." I thought the Nominations & Selection committee, chosen by public vote, would prevent any bias of the judge's panel.

Then, FC and Chip proved that their eloquence trumped Blitz's excitement, and proposed 2 Committees: Criteria and Nominations & Selections, to which Blitz conceded. I'm not sure what the end process was supposed to be here. The 2nd committee creates a list of possible HoFers and the public voted on it? I had reservations. Persuasive PMs would be sent out calling for votes in a close race, multi accounts created solely for the purpose of voting, etc. It sounds silly, but it would happen. However, I went along as it seemed to me that Fruitcake had taken on the persona of The Voice of the People.

yeah MF, you are right, I caved in to fruitcake as well, but, really fruitcake, chip and denominator spoke so loudly, it seemed like they were the voice of CC, but, there was a fair amount that liked what I was doing prior, so to save face and argument, I remained open and changed, and I took many suggestions from the public of CC as well in that thread and changed things, I also stripped all 15 originally off the criteria committee who was on it before, cause some thought it was bias, lol, it wasn't, but, I stripped them all off that panel. It was suggested I try various ranks, and diversity of clans, public, map maker's newsletter writers, mods, former mods etc. so, we did all this. I also got the private forum, I spent over 30 exhausting hours approximately working on this off and on for years, months and recently weeks. I also gave the chair up, I have no interest, I also gave up control as others have asked. There was starting to get way too many cooks in the kitchen, all suggestions different ideas. I stayed open to them all and changed many things. Anyway, let's try to move forward.

I have lost the plot here a while ago. Three committees?

1.- Criteria
2.- Nominations
3.- Final Selection into the HoF

The first one will only exist until the criteria are set. Why not turn that one into the second one? Then have a separate one do the final selection.

The first two (whether merged or not) will be the most work and I'm not too keen of being a part of them. I'm still open to be a part of the third one.

Lx

however if any name from either committee comes up, how would this work? I would need to think about this, it is a good suggestion Lx.

Nominations could com from the Criteria Committee and I would suspect the first round would come from them. The public should also be able to nominate as well.

Seems like Jp agrees about the merge of criteria and nominations being one group and selections a 2nd group.

However, I am not sure if the public should vote or not due to what master fenrir said, I mean someone could create multi accounts and vote for themselves, pm tons a players and ask them to vote, etc. Not sure that would work well.

What I was thinking was the cc public could vote on the names of the 2nd committee named the selection committee and the top 15 votes form the poll would be in the final selection committee, again , this could be manipulated too. Once we establish who the 15 are in the selections committee, they would take the nominations of players we suggested that met the criteria. The thing is if the criteria committee comes up with the criteria and also nominates players and they find 3 of the 5 they nominated fits the criteria, what is the sense of sending it to the final selections committee? The criteria and nominations did all the work and establish these 3 made it for example? So then, what does the selection committee really do? Just review it to ensure we are accurate? See what I mean?

If we do establish the 15 for selections committee, I was thinking a player could get inducted if 10 of the 15 jurors of the selections committee agree, I mean that is two-thirds.

To me, the criteria committee has it's hands full and has a ton of work to do and it may take some more time. Perhaps, the criteria committee just sticks with the criteria as that is a bulk of a workload and the 2nd committee be the nominations and selections.

If we define all the criteria, then the other committee comes up with some names that they think
be eligible, then they just review them, if they meet the criteria, they are in, I mean each of the 15 members could vote, and discuss things out to ensure all are on the same page and they may need a separate forum themselves. But, the nominations and selections committee to me does not seem to be a lot of work at all if them 2 are merged, this is why I thought those 2 should be merged. That committee of nominations and selections needs to decide how often this will occur, is it review 5 worthy cc names every 4 months? all 5 could go in? I do not see why not, if all 5 meet a majority of the criteria. What you all think?

[denominator]

Nominations could com from the Criteria Committee and I would suspect the first round would come from them. The public should also be able to nominate as well.

Seems like Jp agrees about the merge of criteria and nominations being one group and selections a 2nd group.

No. Definitely not.

I don't have the time to dig up the post right now, but Fruitcake wrote an excellent post early on about having the Criteria committee and the Selection committee(s) separate. You absolutely cannot have the people that decide the criteria be the same people as those who choose the people in the hall of fame.

I personally support 2 groups - one for nominations and one for selections. This means that each person must be selected by two committees and again prevents anyone from holding too much power over any single part.

On a last note Blitz, and I am sure you were quite innocent in this, you asked me by PM if I wanted to be on the criteria committee or the Awards committee. “ok, do you want on the criteria committee or nominations and selections committee?” 6 minutes later I responded by saying I felt the criteria committee was really my bag “Criteria...got to be for me really.”, to which you immediately responded (within 2 minutes) that this was full! “criteria one is all filled up” I am sure that it was the pressure of keeping tabs on everything that caused you to ask me whilst knowing that one was already full, otherwise it means you deliberately asked me for your own reasons which I am sure wasn’t the case. The reason I mention this is to try to guide you. You really don’t have to micromanage this situation. There are many here on cc quite capable of running with the Awards committee nominations, elections etc. You really don’t have to respond to everything posted. Although, as always, your input, however vague, is always welcome.

Did I miss something? When and how was the Criteria committee chosen? Last I heard the only committee being formed was the selection committee:

This thread is to seek out those who would like to volunteer for the Selection Committee.

So who got on the criteria committee? And who chose the criteria committee? And how is it "full"?

[jpcloet]

Criteria was the volunteers

memberlist.php?mode=group&g=193052

[Chuuuuck]

I think 1 committee who publically does nominations and then that same committee will pick the winners.

[denominator]

Criteria was the volunteers

memberlist.php?mode=group&g=193052

I take an issue with that. I would have liked to have been on the Criteria Committee, but never posted in this thread because the first post clearly states that it is for the Selection Committee, not the Criteria Committee.

Again, the first post states:

This thread is to seek out those who would like to volunteer for the Selection Committee.

This thread will stay open for approximately 5 days. Once that time has ended, the names of all volunteers will be gathered and entered into a poll for all of the CC community to vote on. (I ended that sentence with a preposition. So bad.) The top 15 vote-recipients will be accepted to the Selection Committee.

1. The ability to work well in a group, specifically the other members of the Selection Committee.
2. Time and effort spent researching old games, threads, and clan wars in search of “old” talent and past performance.
3. Statistical analysis. The ability to use Map Rank is highly encouraged.
4. The ability to competently match a player with a set of requirements & criteria.
[spoiler=Current working requirements and criteria]Here are some questions the 1st panel of juror's can ask themselves to help with decision making on selecting potential inductees:

1) Has the player played close to 3 years or more on this site?
2) Is the player a good sport and or have a respectable reputation?
3) Has the player ever reached 3000+ points?
3a) If no, what was the highest point level reached?
4) Has the player ever been Conquerer?
5) Has the player been a premium member at least 2 years?
6) Has the player ever been a site worker, map maker, in CLA, and or a programmer of some kind?
7) Has the player organized and won any tournaments?
Has the player contributed more to CC then just the game?
9) Is the player versatile and skilled in different game types and maps?
10) Is the player outstanding, excellent, awesome, exceptional of some sort in gaming?
11) Has the player ever been banned from CC or involved in cheating?
12) Has the player inspired others and or a coach-mentor, helpful to players, teaches them the game

If you feel that you are capable of competently performing the above tasks, please feel free to volunteer yourself for the Selection Committee, and the CC general public will vote on you in a few days.

NOW, WHO WOULD LIKE TO VOLUNTEER FOR THE HALL OF FAME SELECTION COMMITTEE?

So tell me, where was the selection for the Criteria Committee made from. Everybody that volunteered, volunteered to be on the Selection Committee, not the Criteria Committee.

[jpcloet]

A few people might have to resign from the criteria committee as they are also on the list of Selection Volunteers.

[Georgerx7di]

wow...

i hadn't noticed this before...

this is quite a process... might i suggest you create a simple flow-chart...
you can use this one to start...

Oh robin, that's just beautiful. Makes all my time surfing the forums worthwhile.

[Gold Knight]

Denominator, i believe those people volunteered early on in the HoF process, not sure if it was in the original thread or not. Im sure that if you asked blitz he could at least gives us a time period when they were chosen, though from the looks it is a respectable committee of players. Wouldnt have any problem with you or anyone else inquiring about entrance into the committee, but might want to wait for an explanation...

[Lindax]

denominator: I think I somehow ended up in the "criteria committee", you can gladly have my place.

I'm still up for helping out with this but on the "other committee'....

Lx

[BoganGod]

as stated previously, am happy to help in anyway possible.

[Mr Changsha]

AndrewB
David_Wain
Blitzaholic (Chairman)
Incandenza
eye84free
osujacket
RL_Orange
dividedbyzero
GloriousL
AAFitz
Big Yuma Ripper
Nephilim
khazalid
scotland
merz
Mepps
artur1
RiskTycoon
jackal31
comic boy
hatchman
Chao
Big Whiskey
nikola_milicki
zips5000

Slight suggestion of vote-rigging!

Blitz heard to 'satisfied with the result'...

Fruitcake has let it be known he was 'offered a seat at the cabinet table but would rather gay wrestle saxitoxin than take part in this bullshit'

Well indeed!

On to the next election!

[laughingcavalier]

blitz has done a fantastic job of getting us to pursue him into higher and higher flights of irreality. Provided we are all on the wing, blitz really doesn’t mind what colour our wing feathers are, who is flapping hardest or which route we take – do not fear, we shall reach the sun!

The criteria committee is just getting itself started. I am on it, so I can assure you all that as my friend gk says it is a well-chosen group of disinterested and admirable players. Actually I think blitz has taken the line of: let’s get a group drawn from across the various parts of CC who don’t mind doing the dull bit and will progress this. Plenty of room for a sensible chap like denominator on board in my opinion.

We are currently wading through the latest round of posts from our beloved leader, and paying all due attention to the many comments HoF has received in these illustrious fora. Personally I see the process as the criteria group (1) outlines the criteria for what a HoFer is and (2) shoehorns the many suggestions from the numerous GD threads into a workable structure. When we’ve got that we bring it back in draft form to GD for comment from all, take it back into the criteria group for final review & tightening up, then launch it into action.

Fruitcake has let it be known he was 'offered a seat at the cabinet table but would rather gay wrestle saxitoxin than take part in this bullshit'

He is not allowed to do this. It is not in Robinette’s flowchart.

[Natascha]

I have lost the plot here a while ago. Three committees?

1.- Criteria
2.- Nominations
3.- Final Selection into the HoF

The first one will only exist until the criteria are set. Why not turn that one into the second one? Then have a separate one do the final selection.

The first two (whether merged or not) will be the most work and I'm not too keen of being a part of them. I'm still open to be a part of the third one.

Lx

I agree with Lindax.
First one can turn into second 1 & then go on with 2 committees looks like best solution to me.
If you need volunteers, I like to be in third one.

greetz,
Natascha

[Fruitcake]

I will answer more fully when my working day is complete.

But just as a guide, I can say that I would heartily disagree with the criteria committee morphing into the nominations committee. It is vital, as I have always stated, that those who decide the criteria shoud not, and cannot then be the same people who nominate candidates and keep the level of objectivity required in both camps.

[Natascha]

I will answer more fully when my working day is complete.

But just as a guide, I can say that I would heartily disagree with the criteria committee morphing into the nominations committee. It is vital, as I have always stated, that those who decide the criteria shoud not, and cannot then be the same people who nominate candidates and keep the level of objectivity required in both camps.

Ok got it. But then I still think 2 commitees to nominate & vote are necessary. Just don't change the criteria commitee into second one then.

[Fruitcake]

I will answer more fully when my working day is complete.

But just as a guide, I can say that I would heartily disagree with the criteria committee morphing into the nominations committee. It is vital, as I have always stated, that those who decide the criteria shoud not, and cannot then be the same people who nominate candidates and keep the level of objectivity required in both camps.

Ok got it. But then I still think 2 commitees to nominate & vote are necessary. Just don't change the criteria commitee into second one then.

Spot on Natascha. Will post later.

[sensfan]

I'm interested