[Unofficial] HALL OF FAME

[Blitzaholic]

Having only 2 criteria will not likely get you in. If others up for nominations have 10 solid requirements and you only have 2, then you will likely not be in the first few years....

sounds reasonable, and they could be re-elected again later on down the road, correct? with time, they may reach 4 let's say, then you re-evaluate again? Is this correct?

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

You should really, i mean.. really look over the criterias.

Most of the stuff is either unmeasurable or just stupid to have.

Blitz, you have made these to fit you like a glove. Just like your top5 list, many of those there are just stupid but they are still there because you are on it.

Someone should really remake the criterias if you ask me.

(PS, you did not have 3500+ points when you played most of your tournaments, you had an average score of 2500. But i'm sure you'll lie about that just like on your Medal-Score thing)

No, I think you are looking from a bad angle.. Lets face it.. Any criteria, blitz is gonna be on it. I give the guy the heads up because he is one of the few that actually trys to do stuff here. Is it self-serving? yeah probably, but it self serves because the guy probably fucking deserves it. Lets face it, could you or I come up with a top 5 thread or a hall of fame thread without blitzaholic being in the mix all over the place? No we couldnt.

So instead o being the internet dude that likes to tear down... throw your energy into building. You dont like the criteria, get involved, lobby for change.

I fit almost all the criteria and I think some of it is irrelevant too. So where does that fit me ?

[Blitzaholic]

can we all just look at the criteria and stick to the topic of any suggestions the public has specifically to improve this so we as a committee can take this back and re-examine it to finalize this? Thx, and regardless of what criteria we all come up with for the Hall of Fame, chances are I will meet most of them, so, say whatever you want, but, try to wrap your head around this for a moment, it is not about me as much as some of you try to make it to be, it is about CC and what are we looking for as criteria realistically that could make CC players eligible to perhaps become enshrined. We have spent many hours, days, weeks, months pouring out ideas and wanted to share our latest draft with the public, so, please all just try to stay on topic and make suggestions like some of you have to improve what we have so far, thank you. End of April is the deadline and we will explore the comments made so far and perhaps implement some changes.

Respects, criteria committee

[denominator]

The point of the criteria was to get the selections committee to look objectively at those areas and come up with the numbers themselves. I personally don't agree with the attachment of specific numbers to each criteria, but I've made my points within the criteria committee and this is what the criteria committee decided to go with, so I'm not going to contest that here.

We decided that getting into the Hall of Fame would be a 3 step process, in which each of the potential candidates has to fulfil 3 separate criteria. The first is the Base Criteria, which are hard, numerical caps and actually qualifies a large portion of people on CC. The second is the Mission Statement, in which the nominations committee would choose from the players qualified by Base Criteria who best fit the Mission Statement. The third is the selections committee which takes the nominated players, applies the Specialty Criteria, and decides on the best players to enter the Hall of Fame.

The Specialty Criteria are not hard caps or full-stop numbers. They are the 12 things that we, as the Criteria Committee, decided would be best in a Hall of Fame player. We fully realize that one player is not going fill all 12, nor should any player aim for that. The Specialty Criteria are there as guidelines for the Selections Committee. If player A has 80 cross-maps, 3500 games completed, and has run 12 tournaments, but Player B has 70 cross-maps, 4000 games completed, and has made 12 maps, who should get in? The Specialty Criteria are ranked 1-12 in what we deemed our order of importance. But it is critical to note that one player does not need to fulfil all 12 to get in.

As for whether Blitz is going to be in the Hall of Fame or not, or whether he makes these things self-serving, it is irrelevant. You have to realize that Blitz has done almost everything on CC here, and regardless of whether he makes the Hall of Fame or someone else does, he is likely to fit the criteria. I don't always agree with Blitz, but on this one he's done very well.

[pimpdave]

The Clean Slate rule is bullshit.

With mods like Night Strike in power at one time, it was impossible to keep a "clean slate". He is the embodiment of everything that was wrong with the moderation of the site at the time.

Just because you make a sport out of brown nosing, Blitzaholic, doesn't mean all of us have, and in many cases, bans were completely unjustified and motivated purely by imagined grievances, such as "disagreeing on a political ideology".

As evidence, I put forth the tenure of Night Strike. Twill was almost as bad, but not quite. Night Strike was like the vicious enforcer who wanted to be number one, like in cliche mob movies. Maybe that's why the cliche exists, or maybe it's not a cliche at all.

[rabbiton]

so now that we're done with the criteria discussions i have got to wondering again about the outcome of this riotous display of excruciating self-servitude.

last i recall, we had agreed that there would be statues that would be erected upon a mountainous structure and hoisted unto the homepage for all to drool over with their morning coffee.

so, that being given, i would like to suggest we make the hall of fame statue development a map foundry project!

imagine if you will, hundreds of conquer club minions chipping away, unpaid, on this mighty monument for the greater glory for 6 months, maybe 6 years if you can imagine the bickering that might ensure about getting blitz's nose jusssst right... and when it is done everyone will have had the chance the share in the fame that they themselves could never possibly achieve.

just imagine staring up at the cc homepage, seeing the glint in ol' granite-faced blitz's eye and knowing that *you* suggested the shadow effect on his lashes!

[Blitzaholic]

The Clean Slate rule is bullshit.

With mods like Night Strike in power at one time, it was impossible to keep a "clean slate". He is the embodiment of everything that was wrong with the moderation of the site at the time.

Just because you make a sport out of brown nosing, Blitzaholic, doesn't mean all of us have, and in many cases, bans were completely unjustified and motivated purely by imagined grievances, such as "disagreeing on a political ideology".

As evidence, I put forth the tenure of Night Strike. Twill was almost as bad, but not quite. Night Strike was like the vicious enforcer who wanted to be number one, like in cliche mob movies. Maybe that's why the cliche exists, or maybe it's not a cliche at all.

3. Clean Slate - They have not received a ban for a major infraction or multiple bans for minor infractions. Note: below a * defines CC's rules. This should be individualized.

perhaps you missed the part that this should be individualized.

[Robinette]

so now that we're done with the criteria discussions i have got to wondering again about the outcome of this riotous display of excruciating self-servitude.

last i recall, we had agreed that there would be statues that would be erected upon a mountainous structure and hoisted unto the homepage for all to drool over with their morning coffee.

so, that being given, i would like to suggest we make the hall of fame statue development a map foundry project!

imagine if you will, hundreds of conquer club minions chipping away, unpaid, on this mighty monument for the greater glory for 6 months, maybe 6 years if you can imagine the bickering that might ensure about getting blitz's nose jusssst right... and when it is done everyone will have had the chance the share in the fame that they themselves could never possibly achieve.

just imagine staring up at the cc homepage, seeing the glint in ol' granite-faced blitz's eye and knowing that *you* suggested the shadow effect on his lashes!

Bravo rabbiton!!! BRAVO!!!


I finally feel we can all get behind this project now!
For me, it was imagining working together to carve out our own Mt.Rushmore...
To create the ultimate honor for the hollowed great ones that await this distinction...

[White Moose]

Delete Me

[White Moose]

I'll try to be helpful now instead and say what i think is bad/good about the criterias.

So i'll go through all the criterias, from base to Speciality.

Base Criterias.

1. Longevity - A Conquer Club player who has been a member of this site for a minimum of 3 years.

I think the time a player have been member is rather irrelevant. Of course, it's a lot easier to make a diffrence in ConquerClub if you have been around longer. But if someone can do what for example Cairnswk (amazing Cartographer) have done for CC in just a few months/weeks/days.. then i think that player would be able to get into the Hall of Fame if the commitee decided so.

I think it would be rather strange if someone who really deserved to be in the Hall of Fame can't be just because they haven't been members for 3 years.

2. Sportsmanship - A player who is respected by the Conquer Club community for exceptional skills, friendliness, and has a rating of 4.5

This is a given one. Anyone who gets into the Hall of Fame must of course be very respected by the Conquer Club community. They must of course have shown exceptional skills in their area(s) of expertise and been overall a friendly player.

3. Clean Slate - They have not received a ban for a major infraction or multiple bans for minor infractions. Note: below a * defines CC's rules. This should be individualized.

This is also a good one. It's also very good that you've mentioned that it could be individulized. Someone could have done something rather bad and left the site only to come back and be amazing for the Conquer Club community.

4. Site Commitment - As primarily a gaming site, a minimum of 3,000 games must be played. (this helps measure premium status and dedication). The exception here would be if any person's focus was on organizing tournaments, map making, programming, mods, part of CLA, SoC, Newsletter Volunteer, Admin OR held a Team CC position or being a site worker of any kind, so this section here would need to be strictly individualized.

I think a minimum requirement for games is something that shouldn't even been mentioned either. There are many amazing players who haven't been involed in any of the things mentioned above, or even had premium, but haven't played many games anyway. Though, i think that those who would be in the Hall of Fame must have done something other then just been amazing players. Any of the things mentioned above would be enough. But i think players like Thai_Robert and mhennigan could be egiable for the Hall of Fame, at least they should be if they reached Conqueror. Because that would have been an amazing achievement. Players such as Blitzaholic would also be egiable for the Hall of Fame even though if he wouldn't have done so much for the community like he have. I mean.. being Conqueror for so long has he was is incredible.

I think the base criterias could be put down to just a few lines. Something like this perhaps:

A Conquer Club Hall of Famer is someone who have shown outstanding dedication and been a major help to make Conquer Club into what it is today. It's someone who is respected by the whole community for his achievements and overall personality.

Please note, i thought this up in a few seconds only. This isn't anything i think it SHOULD be, i just think it should be something like it. Förstått?

These Specialty Criterias is a lot better though. If someone excelled in one of these areas (not all though, as i will mention if you keep reading), then they should be egiable for the Hall of Fame.

01) Has the player received a Special Contribution medal?

To be honest, Special Contribution medals is pretty much like a Hall of Fame, just with a diffrent name. If you've recived a Special Contribution medal (SCM). Then you have done something incredible and been rewarded because of it. So i think anyone who recived a Special Contribution Medal should also be in the Hall of Fame. Of course the Commitee will have to decide in each individual case. I think that weather or not Wicked should be in the Hall of Fame (Even though she recived a SCM) is something that could be discussed quite a lot.

02) How many maps has the player cross mapped on (5+ unique defeats), is it over 100?

Pretty useless, this and the Nr. 11 Criteria should be under a single one called "Medals" or something.

03) What has the player's average score been over the entire career on CC, is it close to 2500+?

Also rather useless. Points only reflect the kind of games you are playing. I can play games i'm good at and get lots of points, and i can play games where it pretty much comes down to luck and get a really low score. Would i be a worse player just because i played games outside of my comfort zone and got a low score? No, i would probably be a better player since i've now learned to manipulate the luck involved in those games to my favor.

It would be like if someone who have only played Sequential and thinks very long for each game, then would change into playing tons of freestyle speed games. His/Her score would probably drop a lot. Would that decrease in points make him/her a worse player? No, he/she would have become a better one instead.

04) What is the player's highest earned score and rank?

This is a lot more intresting though when you speak about points. Since getting a lot of points require a lot of dedication, patience and skill in the area you get points from.

05) Has the player produced maps? If so, How many? Are the maps popular?

This is also a very good thing to look upon, we have been blessed with several amazing cartographers who have created amazing maps.

06) Has the play organized tournaments? If so, How many? Were any close to a year long?

This is also very good. But i don't think the individual length (in time) of a tournament should be relevant. Since how long (in time) a tournament is depends on how fast the participants play, how fast the Organizer is to update the tournament and such thing. For example the Clan Olympics tournament that Night Strike held could have been over many months earlier if Night Strike just had the time to update it faster.
How big tournaments in games, rounds, participants and overall creativity is a lot more relevant when looking at a tournament organizer. (creating a lot of tournaments with the same settings, but just changing a few maps isn't really that great, as opposed to several other orgaizers who came up with new ideas and had a intresting story in their tournaments.)

07) Has the player been involved as a moderator, clan organizer, in CLA, part of SoC, Newsletters, or programming?

This should be one of the biggest to look at. For example Chipv and yeti_C has been amazing to the Conquer Club community ever since they started making scripts.

08) Has the player won tournaments? If so, how many, and what quality of tournaments?

This is also a good one. The quality of the tournaments is quite hard to measure though. But the bigger and more games, rounds you had to play to win of course makes it harder and more of an achievement to win.

09) What is the player's relative Map Rank?

Quite useless. If you have a high score for a long time, only playing games you are great at against a random mix of opponents. Then your Relative rank will go down. Though, this could be used to find players who only target players of low rank to play against. Which is rather frowned upon these days.

10) What is the player's rating? If possible, what is the player's feedback ratio?

How you look at ratings needs to be individulized. Speed gamers will always get lower ratings then others. I have recived many bad ratings when i've been nothing but polite in speed games. Where as that doesnt happen even close to as often in any other game.

11) Does the player have a majority of gold medals? How many total medals does the player have?

This is also a good thing to look at. Not the biggest, but of course if someone who is close to getting into the Hall of Fame for have done something exceptional, then having a lot of medals aswell will of course be a benefit.
But as mentioned under Nr 04, these two should be under 1 speciality called something like "Medals, how many medals does the player have".. You get the picture.

12) How many clan wars has the player won? Is their clan respectable and successful as winners?

This is not so useful. Sure, it's a minor one. But nothing that should be looked at that close i think. Hall of Fame is for the individual, winning clan wars is a team effort. (Unless you have someone telling the whole clan what to do in all games, haha).


I've done my part for now i think. I hope my point of view will make a diffrence. But as i mentioned in a previous post aswell. Everyone has their own opinion. This is just what i think, you who reads this may think i have it all wrong. But thats your opinion to have.

If i said something that wasnt completely clear, then feel free to either post here or PM me so i can clarify if needed.

Thanks

[Blitzaholic]

I'll try to be helpful now instead and say what i think is bad/good about the criterias.

So i'll go through all the criterias, from base to Speciality.

Base Criterias.

1. Longevity - A Conquer Club player who has been a member of this site for a minimum of 3 years.

I think the time a player have been member is rather irrelevant. Of course, it's a lot easier to make a diffrence in ConquerClub if you have been around longer. But if someone can do what for example Cairnswk (amazing Cartographer) have done for CC in just a few months/weeks/days.. then i think that player would be able to get into the Hall of Fame if the commitee decided so.

I think it would be rather strange if someone who really deserved to be in the Hall of Fame can't be just because they haven't been members for 3 years.

2. Sportsmanship - A player who is respected by the Conquer Club community for exceptional skills, friendliness, and has a rating of 4.5

This is a given one. Anyone who gets into the Hall of Fame must of course be very respected by the Conquer Club community. They must of course have shown exceptional skills in their area(s) of expertise and been overall a friendly player.

3. Clean Slate - They have not received a ban for a major infraction or multiple bans for minor infractions. Note: below a * defines CC's rules. This should be individualized.

This is also a good one. It's also very good that you've mentioned that it could be individulized. Someone could have done something rather bad and left the site only to come back and be amazing for the Conquer Club community.

4. Site Commitment - As primarily a gaming site, a minimum of 3,000 games must be played. (this helps measure premium status and dedication). The exception here would be if any person's focus was on organizing tournaments, map making, programming, mods, part of CLA, SoC, Newsletter Volunteer, Admin OR held a Team CC position or being a site worker of any kind, so this section here would need to be strictly individualized.

I think a minimum requirement for games is something that shouldn't even been mentioned either. There are many amazing players who haven't been involed in any of the things mentioned above, or even had premium, but haven't played many games anyway. Though, i think that those who would be in the Hall of Fame must have done something other then just been amazing players. Any of the things mentioned above would be enough. But i think players like Thai_Robert and mhennigan could be egiable for the Hall of Fame, at least they should be if they reached Conqueror. Because that would have been an amazing achievement. Players such as Blitzaholic would also be egiable for the Hall of Fame even though if he wouldn't have done so much for the community like he have. I mean.. being Conqueror for so long has he was is incredible.

I think the base criterias could be put down to just a few lines. Something like this perhaps:

A Conquer Club Hall of Famer is someone who have shown outstanding dedication and been a major help to make Conquer Club into what it is today. It's someone who is respected by the whole community for his achievements and overall personality.

Please note, i thought this up in a few seconds only. This isn't anything i think it SHOULD be, i just think it should be something like it. Förstått?

These Specialty Criterias is a lot better though. If someone excelled in one of these areas (not all though, as i will mention if you keep reading), then they should be egiable for the Hall of Fame.

01) Has the player received a Special Contribution medal?

To be honest, Special Contribution medals is pretty much like a Hall of Fame, just with a diffrent name. If you've recived a Special Contribution medal (SCM). Then you have done something incredible and been rewarded because of it. So i think anyone who recived a Special Contribution Medal should also be in the Hall of Fame. Of course the Commitee will have to decide in each individual case. I think that weather or not Wicked should be in the Hall of Fame (Even though she recived a SCM) is something that could be discussed quite a lot.

02) How many maps has the player cross mapped on (5+ unique defeats), is it over 100?

Pretty useless, this and the Nr. 11 Criteria should be under a single one called "Medals" or something.

03) What has the player's average score been over the entire career on CC, is it close to 2500+?

Also rather useless. Points only reflect the kind of games you are playing. I can play games i'm good at and get lots of points, and i can play games where it pretty much comes down to luck and get a really low score. Would i be a worse player just because i played games outside of my comfort zone and got a low score? No, i would probably be a better player since i've now learned to manipulate the luck involved in those games to my favor.

It would be like if someone who have only played Sequential and thinks very long for each game, then would change into playing tons of freestyle speed games. His/Her score would probably drop a lot. Would that decrease in points make him/her a worse player? No, he/she would have become a better one instead.

04) What is the player's highest earned score and rank?

This is a lot more intresting though when you speak about points. Since getting a lot of points require a lot of dedication, patience and skill in the area you get points from.

05) Has the player produced maps? If so, How many? Are the maps popular?

This is also a very good thing to look upon, we have been blessed with several amazing cartographers who have created amazing maps.

06) Has the play organized tournaments? If so, How many? Were any close to a year long?

This is also very good. But i don't think the individual length (in time) of a tournament should be relevant. Since how long (in time) a tournament is depends on how fast the participants play, how fast the Organizer is to update the tournament and such thing. For example the Clan Olympics tournament that Night Strike held could have been over many months earlier if Night Strike just had the time to update it faster.
How big tournaments in games, rounds, participants and overall creativity is a lot more relevant when looking at a tournament organizer. (creating a lot of tournaments with the same settings, but just changing a few maps isn't really that great, as opposed to several other orgaizers who came up with new ideas and had a intresting story in their tournaments.)

07) Has the player been involved as a moderator, clan organizer, in CLA, part of SoC, Newsletters, or programming?

This should be one of the biggest to look at. For example Chipv and yeti_C has been amazing to the Conquer Club community ever since they started making scripts.

08) Has the player won tournaments? If so, how many, and what quality of tournaments?

This is also a good one. The quality of the tournaments is quite hard to measure though. But the bigger and more games, rounds you had to play to win of course makes it harder and more of an achievement to win.

09) What is the player's relative Map Rank?

Quite useless. If you have a high score for a long time, only playing games you are great at against a random mix of opponents. Then your Relative rank will go down. Though, this could be used to find players who only target players of low rank to play against. Which is rather frowned upon these days.

10) What is the player's rating? If possible, what is the player's feedback ratio?

How you look at ratings needs to be individulized. Speed gamers will always get lower ratings then others. I have recived many bad ratings when i've been nothing but polite in speed games. Where as that doesnt happen even close to as often in any other game.

11) Does the player have a majority of gold medals? How many total medals does the player have?

This is also a good thing to look at. Not the biggest, but of course if someone who is close to getting into the Hall of Fame for have done something exceptional, then having a lot of medals aswell will of course be a benefit.
But as mentioned under Nr 04, these two should be under 1 speciality called something like "Medals, how many medals does the player have".. You get the picture.

12) How many clan wars has the player won? Is their clan respectable and successful as winners?

This is not so useful. Sure, it's a minor one. But nothing that should be looked at that close i think. Hall of Fame is for the individual, winning clan wars is a team effort. (Unless you have someone telling the whole clan what to do in all games, haha).


I've done my part for now i think. I hope my point of view will make a diffrence. But as i mentioned in a previous post aswell. Everyone has their own opinion. This is just what i think, you who reads this may think i have it all wrong. But thats your opinion to have.

If i said something that wasnt completely clear, then feel free to either post here or PM me so i can clarify if needed.

Thanks

White Moose, excellent post! thank you so much, this is what this thread and committee was looking for, great feedback from cc and the public, your input has been noted and we will take this back and examine each and all of these. Thank you so much for taking the time and being thoughtful for each piece of the criteria.

also on your feedback here:

4. Site Commitment - As primarily a gaming site, a minimum of 3,000 games must be played. (this helps measure premium status and dedication). The exception here would be if any person's focus was on organizing tournaments, map making, programming, mods, part of CLA, SoC, Newsletter Volunteer, Admin OR held a Team CC position or being a site worker of any kind, so this section here would need to be strictly individualized.

I think a minimum requirement for games is something that shouldn't even been mentioned either. There are many amazing players who haven't been involed in any of the things mentioned above, or even had premium, but haven't played many games anyway. Though, i think that those who would be in the Hall of Fame must have done something other then just been amazing players. Any of the things mentioned above would be enough. But i think players like Thai_Robert and mhennigan could be egiable for the Hall of Fame, at least they should be if they reached Conqueror. Because that would have been an amazing achievement. Players such as Blitzaholic would also be egiable for the Hall of Fame even though if he wouldn't have done so much for the community like he have. I mean.. being Conqueror for so long has he was is incredible.

4. Site Commitment - As primarily a gaming site, a minimum of 3,000 games must be played. (this helps measure premium status and dedication). The exception here would be if any person's focus was on organizing tournaments, map making, programming, mods, part of CLA, SoC, Newsletter Volunteer, Admin OR held a Team CC position or being a site worker of any kind, so this section here would need to be strictly individualized.

I highlighted it in blue and hope this answers your concern with this area, so there are some exceptions and left to nominations and selections committee to view each player individually based on the criteria we established with assistnace form the cc community and criteria committee and (JP) the chair.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

01) Has the player received a Special Contribution medal?

I dont think this makes you an automatic qualifier for hall of fame. It is certainly a start. SCM's are handed out for special occasions and efforts.

02) How many maps has the player cross mapped on (5+ unique defeats), is it over 100?

cross mapped I think is irrelavant. Achieving 5 unique defeats per map is easy and you receive a medal for it. This could be added to medal count area.

03) What has the player's average score been over the entire career on CC, is it close to 2500+?

curious on how you will calculate this ?

04) What is the player's highest earned score and rank?

I think this and relative rank should be added together. You can run up a score and rank by farming.

05) Has the player produced maps? If so, How many? Are the maps popular?

good area but I think is a low key area. I dont think alot of players have knowledge and experience in this area to begin to form a map.

06) Has the player organized tournaments? If so, How many? Were any close to a year long?

you can add organized and played with tournaments medals won. I could care less on how long it lasted.

07) Has the player been involved as a moderator, clan organizer, in CLA, part of SoC, Newsletters, or programming?

same as map making, another low key area. Most mods received SCM's for their efforts already.

08) Has the player won tournaments? If so, how many, and what quality of tournaments?

see tournament area above.

09) What is the player's relative Map Rank?

see score and rank area above

10) What is the player's rating? If possible, what is the player's feedback ratio?

feedback can be tainted with players giving false feedback

11) Does the player have a majority of gold medals? How many total medals does the player have?

good area. shows ability to play all types of games.

12) How many clan wars has the player won? Is their clan respectable and successful as winners?

clans and clan wars are irrelavant



1 question

is the hall of fame being designed for game play or site work or both? Because if it is for game play that Im not sure why map making and other areas are being considered.

[Blitzaholic]

01) Has the player received a Special Contribution medal?

I dont think this makes you an automatic qualifier for hall of fame. It is certainly a start. SCM's are handed out for special occasions and efforts.

02) How many maps has the player cross mapped on (5+ unique defeats), is it over 100?

cross mapped I think is irrelavant. Achieving 5 unique defeats per map is easy and you receive a medal for it. This could be added to medal count area.

03) What has the player's average score been over the entire career on CC, is it close to 2500+?

curious on how you will calculate this ?

04) What is the player's highest earned score and rank?

I think this and relative rank should be added together. You can run up a score and rank by farming.

05) Has the player produced maps? If so, How many? Are the maps popular?

good area but I think is a low key area. I dont think alot of players have knowledge and experience in this area to begin to form a map.

06) Has the player organized tournaments? If so, How many? Were any close to a year long?

you can add organized and played with tournaments medals won. I could care less on how long it lasted.

07) Has the player been involved as a moderator, clan organizer, in CLA, part of SoC, Newsletters, or programming?

same as map making, another low key area. Most mods received SCM's for their efforts already.

08) Has the player won tournaments? If so, how many, and what quality of tournaments?

see tournament area above.

09) What is the player's relative Map Rank?

see score and rank area above

10) What is the player's rating? If possible, what is the player's feedback ratio?

feedback can be tainted with players giving false feedback

11) Does the player have a majority of gold medals? How many total medals does the player have?

good area. shows ability to play all types of games.

12) How many clan wars has the player won? Is their clan respectable and successful as winners?

clans and clan wars are irrelavant



1 question

is the hall of fame being designed for game play or site work or both? Because if it is for game play that Im not sure why map making and other areas are being considered.

great job, thx JR, we will bring these ideas back.

your question on is hall of fame for game play or site work. The answer is both like all other sports, some get into the hall of fame that are not athletes, but, they have to be something super special at something else if they not an athlete, kind of same idea here, at least we as the criteria committee see it as of now anyways.

[Blitzaholic]

The point of the criteria was to get the selections committee to look objectively at those areas and come up with the numbers themselves. I personally don't agree with the attachment of specific numbers to each criteria, but I've made my points within the criteria committee and this is what the criteria committee decided to go with, so I'm not going to contest that here.

We decided that getting into the Hall of Fame would be a 3 step process, in which each of the potential candidates has to fulfil 3 separate criteria. The first is the Base Criteria, which are hard, numerical caps and actually qualifies a large portion of people on CC. The second is the Mission Statement, in which the nominations committee would choose from the players qualified by Base Criteria who best fit the Mission Statement. The third is the selections committee which takes the nominated players, applies the Specialty Criteria, and decides on the best players to enter the Hall of Fame.

The Specialty Criteria are not hard caps or full-stop numbers. They are the 12 things that we, as the Criteria Committee, decided would be best in a Hall of Fame player. We fully realize that one player is not going fill all 12, nor should any player aim for that. The Specialty Criteria are there as guidelines for the Selections Committee. If player A has 80 cross-maps, 3500 games completed, and has run 12 tournaments, but Player B has 70 cross-maps, 4000 games completed, and has made 12 maps, who should get in? The Specialty Criteria are ranked 1-12 in what we deemed our order of importance. But it is critical to note that one player does not need to fulfil all 12 to get in.

As for whether Blitz is going to be in the Hall of Fame or not, or whether he makes these things self-serving, it is irrelevant. You have to realize that Blitz has done almost everything on CC here, and regardless of whether he makes the Hall of Fame or someone else does, he is likely to fit the criteria. I don't always agree with Blitz, but on this one he's done very well.

thank you very much denominator, great post, it is nice to know all our hard work is not going unrecognized and that it is for the greater good of CC overall. you have been an asset in the whole process denominator and have been very active in this process, I want to thank you for that and your vision to make this idea better, you have done a lot.

[White Moose]

White Moose, excellent post! thank you so much, this is what this thread and committee was looking for, great feedback from cc and the public, your input has been noted and we will take this back and examine each and all of these. Thank you so much for taking the time and being thoughtful for each piece of the criteria.

also on your feedback here:

4. Site Commitment - As primarily a gaming site, a minimum of 3,000 games must be played. (this helps measure premium status and dedication). The exception here would be if any person's focus was on organizing tournaments, map making, programming, mods, part of CLA, SoC, Newsletter Volunteer, Admin OR held a Team CC position or being a site worker of any kind, so this section here would need to be strictly individualized.

I think a minimum requirement for games is something that shouldn't even been mentioned either. There are many amazing players who haven't been involed in any of the things mentioned above, or even had premium, but haven't played many games anyway. Though, i think that those who would be in the Hall of Fame must have done something other then just been amazing players. Any of the things mentioned above would be enough. But i think players like Thai_Robert and mhennigan could be egiable for the Hall of Fame, at least they should be if they reached Conqueror. Because that would have been an amazing achievement. Players such as Blitzaholic would also be egiable for the Hall of Fame even though if he wouldn't have done so much for the community like he have. I mean.. being Conqueror for so long has he was is incredible.

4. Site Commitment - As primarily a gaming site, a minimum of 3,000 games must be played. (this helps measure premium status and dedication). The exception here would be if any person's focus was on organizing tournaments, map making, programming, mods, part of CLA, SoC, Newsletter Volunteer, Admin OR held a Team CC position or being a site worker of any kind, so this section here would need to be strictly individualized.

I highlighted it in blue and hope this answers your concern with this area, so there are some exceptions and left to nominations and selections committee to view each player individually based on the criteria we established with assistnace form the cc community and criteria committee and (JP) the chair.

I know. I wrote that because of those amazing players who haven't been involved in any of the above mentioned things (site-work), but still haven't played many games at all.

Just two examples, Thai_Robert and mhennigan. Two amazing players. Probably two of the best in the whole site. Should they be excluded just because they haven't played enough games? The same goes for many other amazing players.

I think you shouldn't look at the quantity of games played. Sure, it shouldn't be completely excluded either. But having a limit of 3000 games is very unnessecary. Had a quick look at the current top 50. Only 5 of those have played over 3000 games. That sais enough by itself.

[Blitzaholic]

Just two examples, Thai_Robert and mhennigan. Two amazing players. Probably two of the best in the whole site. Should they be excluded just because they haven't played enough games? The same goes for many other amazing players.

I think you shouldn't look at the quantity of games played. Sure, it shouldn't be completely excluded either. But having a limit of 3000 games is very unnessecary. Had a quick look at the current top 50. Only 5 of those have played over 3000 games. That sais enough by itself.

unfortunately for them, they probably will not make it, unless they play a lot more games, because they are not map makers, programmers, tourney organizers, etc. The criteria committee and cc public strongly favored premium as a requirement, we decided to be thoughtful as leave premium out and use a number of games minimum like 3,000 which is another way of wording premium, but not really, so freemium's could make it, but, would need to be active a lot and meet the minimum requirements. Before you bark up loud remember, this is not coming form me, it is coming from the criteria committee and most of the cc public, so although they nice players, just like Bo Jackson was in football, they all just don't meet the longevity and minimum games requirement, so therefore are not eligible.

[Prankcall]

Just two examples, Thai_Robert and mhennigan. Two amazing players. Probably two of the best in the whole site. Should they be excluded just because they haven't played enough games? The same goes for many other amazing players.

I think you shouldn't look at the quantity of games played. Sure, it shouldn't be completely excluded either. But having a limit of 3000 games is very unnessecary. Had a quick look at the current top 50. Only 5 of those have played over 3000 games. That sais enough by itself.

unfortunately for them, they probably will not make it, unless they play a lot more games, because they are not map makers, programmers, tourney organizers, etc. The criteria committee and cc public strongly favored premium as a requirement, we decided to be thoughtful as leave premium out and use a number of games minimum like 3,000 which is another way of wording premium, but not really, so freemium's could make it, but, would need to be active a lot and meet the minimum requirements. Before you bark up loud remember, this is not coming form me, it is coming from the criteria committee and most of the cc public, so although they nice players, just like Bo Jackson was in football, they all just don't meet the longevity and minimum games requirement, so therefore are not eligible.

I don't think it's any disadvantage in being Freemium when scoring. Imo it's probably easier to set your goals and achieve them playing 4 game max,your games can have all the attention they deserve.

[Robinette]

Just two examples, Thai_Robert and mhennigan. Two amazing players. Probably two of the best in the whole site. Should they be excluded just because they haven't played enough games? The same goes for many other amazing players.

I think you shouldn't look at the quantity of games played. Sure, it shouldn't be completely excluded either. But having a limit of 3000 games is very unnessecary. Had a quick look at the current top 50. Only 5 of those have played over 3000 games. That sais enough by itself.

unfortunately for them, they probably will not make it, unless they play a lot more games, because they are not map makers, programmers, tourney organizers, etc. The criteria committee and cc public strongly favored premium as a requirement, we decided to be thoughtful as leave premium out and use a number of games minimum like 3,000 which is another way of wording premium, but not really, so freemium's could make it, but, would need to be active a lot and meet the minimum requirements. Before you bark up loud remember, this is not coming form me, it is coming from the criteria committee and most of the cc public, so although they nice players, just like Bo Jackson was in football, they all just don't meet the longevity and minimum games requirement, so therefore are not eligible.

lol, you fellers sure have put a lot of work into this, and it has been fun checking in from time to time to see this evolve... now i myself would never expect to be considered to your unofficial Hall of Fame regardless of the specifics of your criteria, but after reading this last post, i would like to consider myself to be in this wonderful category of players that are nice, skilled, active, and yet totally ineligible...

Your 3000 game requirement gave me quite a chuckle,
and i pondered how many of the committee must play a lot of 1v1 games...

Next, i wondered how the current top 4 players would rate in eligibility:

rabbiton - 3 yrs active, 4.7 rating, Clean Slate, >1,500 games
mhennigan - 3 1/2 yrs active, 4.8 rating, Clean Slate, >500 games
Thai Robert - 3 yrs active, 4.8 rating, Clean Slate, >300 games
Emmdizzle - 2 yrs active, 4.8 rating, Clean Slate, >1,100 games

lol, you would actually have to combine ALL 4 of them to come up with the required game count...
too bad none of these players have the required dedication to this site

And just for fun... i thought i'd have a look see at how i measured up...

Robinette - 4 yrs active, 5.0 rating, Clean Slate, >600 games
At my current pace I will be eligible in just 20 more years..
clearly i too am lacking the proper dedication to this site...
either that, or i need to embrace 1v1 games (not gonna happen)

So then i wondered how i measured up to the Specialty Criteria list...

01) Has the player received a Special Contribution medal? Hey, I have one of these
02) How many maps has the player cross mapped on (5+ unique defeats), is it over 100? hmmm,,, only 7
03) What has the player's average score been over the entire career on CC, is it close to 2500+? more or less
04) What is the player's highest earned score and rank? 3196 score, the hedgehog emblem
05) Has the player produced maps? not a one
06) Has the play organized tournaments? umm, i've played in a few, does that count?
07) Has the player been involved as a moderator, clan organizer, in CLA, part of SoC, Newsletters, or programming? well, i was interviewed for the newsletter once
08) Has the player won tournaments? i won the (6 Player) League - 1 Alpha
09) What is the player's relative Map Rank? 0.859
10) What is the player's rating? 5.0
what is the player's feedback ratio? I've been rated by 145 players,,, but it appears i've never returned the favor
11) Does the player have a majority of gold medals? a majority? as in over 50%? well, that would be a no.
How many total medals does the player have? In total? well, that would be zero
12) How many clan wars has the player won? i don't belong to any clans

Like i said, i would never expect to be considered for any Hall of Fame list, so no need to explain it to me... But it does surprise me to see some wonderful candidates that are automatically excluded based on game play alone. So either you must play a butt load of games, or you need to do something wonderful for the site to be considered... it just seems overly biased to favor certain types of players... just my thoughts to help improve this, since nobody seemed to be laughing at my prior comics, which were quite funny i might add, lol

[Blitzaholic]

in sports, most if not all, like baseball, football, etc. have minimum game requirements, so does CC. HA played close to 1500 games at once just recently and is went UP in score to colonel, if a player can't do that over 4 years, I am not sure what to tell you nette, play more I guess. Basically, if you average only a small tiny 4 games per day for a year, it comes at 1460 games almost 1500 games, average that for 2 years and a player is eligible, so in your 4 years, if you averaged what a freemium could at only 4 games a day, you would have around 5,840 games, we are just asking half of that, 3,000 games. That is pretty manageable. It may take some players 4 years, or even 5 years, but, it is the HoF and if that is their goal they shoot for it, they will do it. However, that does not mean a player will get in, it just means they could be eligible.

[Robinette]

in sports, most if not all, like baseball, football, etc. have minimum game requirements, so does CC.

oh that is sooo NOT true..

Pro Football Hall of Fame - a player must have been retired at least seven years, 5 yrs retired for a coach. And all other can be voted at any time. NO MINIMUM NUMBER OF GAMES REQUIRED.

Baseball Hall of Fame - must have played at least 10 years in the majors and be retired for 5 years. NO MINIMUM NUMBER OF GAMES REQUIIRED, but must have played 10 seasons. Exceptions have been made.

Basketball Hall of Fame - must be fully retired for at least five years. No years of service criterion is applied to those who have made a "significant contribution to the game of basketball". Sportswriters and commentators are elected as full members. NO MINIMUM NUMBER OF GAMES REQUIRED.

National Soccer Hall of Fame - In any given year, a maximum of four male players and 2 female players, two builders (coaches, general managers, commentators, team owners and others who have helped build the game), and one on-ice official are inducted as members. Players and on-ice officials must have been retired for a minimum of 3 years to be eligible for nomination. NO MINIMUM NUMBER OF GAMES REQUIRED.

.... I am not sure what to tell you nette, play more I guess. Basically, if you average only a small tiny 4 games per day for a year, it comes at 1460 games almost 1500 games, average that for 2 years and a player is eligible, so in your 4 years, if you averaged what a freemium could at only 4 games a day, you would have around 5,840 games, we are just asking half of that, 3,000 games. That is pretty manageable.

This is not about me, this is not about the number of games that i have played, this is not about the number of games that i could have played, this is not about how manageable it is to play 3000 games, this is not about the fact that a freemium could do it in just 2 years...

I suppose if you were making criteria that created automatic membership, then yes, this would be a good idea.. but since this is simply criteria, and since it will all be vetted through a selection committee anyway, just why oh why do you want most players to be ineligible?

If this were to be a true Hall of Fame, then it should only include people who are retired, and no longer play the game <---please note the obvious presence of funny emoticon... this emoticon is placed here to inform you that this last bit is a joke

[army of nobunaga]

I dont know who your commitee is, but I would put white moose on it. You need compassionate people about the topic other than yourself blitz.

and robin is right... I watch all the sports. There is no min game requirement.. Just a min retirement time usually.

Wait,... a chick that knows this? Robin you may be a keeper.

[army of nobunaga]

probably perfect example is pistol Pete Maravich and jim brown... lol, I think robin knows who these guys are and maybe you dont.. too funny/. KEEPER

[HighlanderAttack]

in sports, most if not all, like baseball, football, etc. have minimum game requirements, so does CC.

oh that is sooo NOT true..

Pro Football Hall of Fame - a player must have been retired at least seven years, 5 yrs retired for a coach. And all other can be voted at any time. NO MINIMUM NUMBER OF GAMES REQUIRED.

Baseball Hall of Fame - must have played at least 10 years in the majors and be retired for 5 years. NO MINIMUM NUMBER OF GAMES REQUIIRED, but must have played 10 seasons. Exceptions have been made.

Basketball Hall of Fame - must be fully retired for at least five years. No years of service criterion is applied to those who have made a "significant contribution to the game of basketball". Sportswriters and commentators are elected as full members. NO MINIMUM NUMBER OF GAMES REQUIRED.

National Soccer Hall of Fame - In any given year, a maximum of four male players and 2 female players, two builders (coaches, general managers, commentators, team owners and others who have helped build the game), and one on-ice official are inducted as members. Players and on-ice officials must have been retired for a minimum of 3 years to be eligible for nomination. NO MINIMUM NUMBER OF GAMES REQUIRED.

.... I am not sure what to tell you nette, play more I guess. Basically, if you average only a small tiny 4 games per day for a year, it comes at 1460 games almost 1500 games, average that for 2 years and a player is eligible, so in your 4 years, if you averaged what a freemium could at only 4 games a day, you would have around 5,840 games, we are just asking half of that, 3,000 games. That is pretty manageable.

This is not about me, this is not about the number of games that i have played, this is not about the number of games that i could have played, this is not about how manageable it is to play 3000 games, this is not about the fact that a freemium could do it in just 2 years...

I suppose if you were making criteria that created automatic membership, then yes, this would be a good idea.. but since this is simply criteria, and since it will all be vetted through a selection committee anyway, just why oh why do you want most players to be ineligible?

If this were to be a true Hall of Fame, then it should only include people who are retired, and no longer play the game

Fully retired would be retarded.

Although in Major Sports being retired is a requirement there are not many players that can play past 40 years old. This is why they retire-because they cannot compete anymore.

I know Professional Foosball has a Hall of Fame and players that are in it are still playing the game professionally for example.

I do think three years experience should be a requirement, but after that eligibility would be reached.

[Blitzaholic]

in sports, most if not all, like baseball, football, etc. have minimum game requirements, so does CC.

oh that is sooo NOT true..

Pro Football Hall of Fame - a player must have been retired at least seven years, 5 yrs retired for a coach. And all other can be voted at any time. NO MINIMUM NUMBER OF GAMES REQUIRED.

Baseball Hall of Fame - must have played at least 10 years in the majors and be retired for 5 years. NO MINIMUM NUMBER OF GAMES REQUIIRED, but must have played 10 seasons. Exceptions have been made.

Basketball Hall of Fame - must be fully retired for at least five years. No years of service criterion is applied to those who have made a "significant contribution to the game of basketball". Sportswriters and commentators are elected as full members. NO MINIMUM NUMBER OF GAMES REQUIRED.

National Soccer Hall of Fame - In any given year, a maximum of four male players and 2 female players, two builders (coaches, general managers, commentators, team owners and others who have helped build the game), and one on-ice official are inducted as members. Players and on-ice officials must have been retired for a minimum of 3 years to be eligible for nomination. NO MINIMUM NUMBER OF GAMES REQUIRED.

.... I am not sure what to tell you nette, play more I guess. Basically, if you average only a small tiny 4 games per day for a year, it comes at 1460 games almost 1500 games, average that for 2 years and a player is eligible, so in your 4 years, if you averaged what a freemium could at only 4 games a day, you would have around 5,840 games, we are just asking half of that, 3,000 games. That is pretty manageable.

This is not about me, this is not about the number of games that i have played, this is not about the number of games that i could have played, this is not about how manageable it is to play 3000 games, this is not about the fact that a freemium could do it in just 2 years...

I suppose if you were making criteria that created automatic membership, then yes, this would be a good idea.. but since this is simply criteria, and since it will all be vetted through a selection committee anyway, just why oh why do you want most players to be ineligible?

If this were to be a true Hall of Fame, then it should only include people who are retired, and no longer play the game

oh it is true..
there is a number of games or years required nette, in football it is usually around 7 years or so, this is why there has been a lot of debate on broncos running back terrel davis who was awesome, had some super seasons, but his number of games and years may be limiting him the hall of fame, same as bo jackson, they both studs, and if you could make the hall of fame in football in 3 years which is 48 games minimum, they would make it, but, in the NFL it is longer than that, they just barely miss. terrel davis played 6 or 7 years and this is the only thing that prevents him from entering canton in Ohio to be a HoF, sad but true, he has mvp's, the stats, the super bowl, no longevity which is games played and years played.

same as baseball, you say 10 years, but, no one is going to make baseball HoF in 10 years if they only play half or a third of the 162 game season. so, in a sense the years minimum in sports are also games minimum too, you need to understand that. In all time sports stats record book, they also say in (minimum games played) to be in record books or they are not listed. anyways, peace.

I dont know who your committee is, but I would put white moose on it. You need compassionate people about the topic other than yourself blitz.

army if you followed the thread, you would of seen at least 2 times were jpcloet posted the criteria committee and it is comprised of 15+ players and a vast majority shared this view, 12 of the 15 said the same thing, so it is other than me army, again, if u do not know what your talking about, be quiet about it, because you are sounding silly. also, prior to the criteria committee, in the cc public and overwhelming vast majority shared needing to be premium for base criteria, we as a committee decided to use games played as a way to kind of show premium without using the word premium, so exceptions of freemium could make it maybe if they played a ton. anyways, thx for your post. finally, we took moose's post and jr's, jp's, all others back to the committee and we are reviewing them, and this was posted in the thread too.

it is 3 fold:

base
mission
specialty

and nette we decided players on cc for hall of fame do not need to be retired as that is absurd, agreed with HA post above. no sense in a having HoF for cc if u wont be here to know it or enjoy, in sports, they televise it, etc, so this has to be different for CC, only makes sense.

[Robinette]

If this were to be a true Hall of Fame, then it should only include people who are retired, and no longer play the game

Fully retired would be retarded.

and nette we decided players on cc for hall of fame do not need to be retired as that is absurd, agreed with HA post above. no sense in a having HoF for cc if u wont be here to know it or enjoy, in sports, they televise it, etc, so this has to be different for CC, only makes sense.

omigod.. guys, GUYS... i was kidding... didn't you see the laughing emoticon?
I'll go back and edit that post, so as to avoid further confusion