[Unofficial] HALL OF FAME

[reptile]

Moose, you do make some good points, and perhaps we should re-vote the minimum game amount. In fact it is best that the CC public that voices their opinion is heard. Believe me though, many times already Blitz has posted in the private forum your (those who have posted their thoughts) thoughts on each subject and changed things even. Sometimes you all agree, sometimes you don't but i can guarantee you though that blitz has and does take into account everyone's thoughts here as well as the committee's.

However i dont really see why everyone is calling out Blitz, this would not even be being discussed if it weren't for him. That being said even though it was his idea and suggestion it must be made fairly. I am sure that is why Blitz put together two committee's to make sure that it is not biased. No matter what decision is made not everyone on CC will be happy with it.

The 3000 game minimum vote as mentioned above was not even close, but if we need to take another look at it we will. Keep in mind that this is not a sport like football or baseball. Also CC will never be entirely fair (look at how often the dice or drop decides a game for goodness sake) but this is something we can control here and now. So in my opinion if it is worth looking over again and discussing it more then i do not have a problem with it, but you also have to understand that we do HAVE TO MOVE ON in order to take this HOF idea into more than just an idea at some point. There will always be someone that doesn't quite agree with everything and if we stopped and went back or kept talking about the same thing as long as there was someone that did not agree with it, the HOF will never exist.

Yes, i would agree Chariot of Fire is one of the best players on this site and is definitely HOF material.... but when the time comes, we shouldn't just give it to him because he has shown he is worthy. In sports terms (especially baseball) there are plenty of rookie's of the year that shouldn't be in the hall of fame because of what they are on pace for. That is a little extreme example as CoF has shown he is a capable player, but just a friendly example.

-----------------------

On a side note - keep the thoughts coming, this is the best way to make things fair as well as make sure that each point gets looked through thoroughly as this one is again. Lets try and keep it from getting personal though I am pretty sure we are all moving towards the same goal

[jackal31]

On a side note - keep the thoughts coming, this is the best way to make things fair as well as make sure that each point gets looked through thoroughly as this one is again. Lets try and keep it from getting personal though ;) I am pretty sure we are all moving towards the same goal

I couldnt agree with you more. Nothing gets accomplished when name calling comes out. And I really dont care who started it!

[laughingcavalier]

Must admit I took the minority view on the games minimum criterion, which was one of the subjects we discussed at some length, so I'm not going to defend it here. I will say though that the committee - including members no-one would dare call "blitz's acolytes" at least not to their face - talked a lot about site commitment and sportsmanship. Neither of these was high on my agenda when I joined the group, but I was persuaded of their importance. The way I see it is we players are here for pleasure, and so we want to honour those who bring us more pleasure, & the players who do that are likely to show great sportsmanship & commitment to the site.

Regarding other eligibility criteria,

2. Sportsmanship - A player who is respected by the Conquer Club community for exceptional skills, friendliness, and has a rating of 4.5+.
I agree with FC that it's subjective as it stands and would be happier with a phrasing that
2. Sportsmanship - A player who is respected by the Conquer Club community for their fair play, gameplay and attidude and so has a rating of 4.5+.

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.
We discussed this quite a bit, and interesting that Pimphawks questioned it in this thread, but no-one else has picked up on it.

On speciality criteria, I think we were trying for what Robinette said well:
you should keep the RULES loose, and the SELECTION tight.
We aimed to be giving the jurors questions they should ask, without tieing the jurors down to forced decisions. So jurors will have to persuade each other and make commonsense decisions on issues like: how does player a's phenomenal performance on one or two questions compare with another player's outstanding performance against three or four questions.
As denominator said we're looking again at these speciality criteria.

Let's all keep this civil.

[jackal31]

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

I think this too is a great example of what we are trying to do.

The questions you all are bringing up are as follows:
Are these great players? I would say yes.
Are these players deserving of HoF status? Yes, as long as they continue to do what they are doing.

Please understand, we should not and will not accept anyone who is here overnight. We have implemented special criteria and considerations for players of this caliber, as each case is reviewable. However, we created a set of criteria to first review. If I came across Thai Robert for example (and I was a voter), I would have to say no because this player is not active with the site. Playing less than 2 games per week across the 3 years of being apart of the community is not HoF material. Rabbiton is much closer, but again, a similar argument can be made.

These players will eventually make the grade if you will. Then they will become elidgible for HoF status....and its something to shoot for while they are here too.

[reptile]

In short, the HOF should be something that keeps the site interesting as well as something to shoot for. If we make it too easy or somewhat achievable in a shorter amount of time then it takes the "fun" out of it. Once achieved why keep trying? this gives players a long term enjoyable goal! Also it will help keep them committed to CC longer. And after all is that not one of the main idea's that we are trying to reward?

[nashlloyd]

We as a group have all discussed all aspects of the Hall of Fame sight it was a group not one person who voted an came up with the results you all see. An CC isn't Football, Baseball etc. so we weren't using any of them to come up with these results. Its another accomplishment CC has to offer that we've worked hard on that is achievable by all none of it is unreachable but it will make players do more than they normally do to achieve this goal or may choose not to. So to get in these arguments over something CC is gonna offer everybody an we've worked hard on is stupid. Lets finalize it an work for the goal or choose not to. That's one thing nice about CC is we all got a huge verity of game play an achievements to get..

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

is there a revised copy or are we being told what was written down as the rough draft is the final copy and thats the way it is ? I see a deadline added to the subject but nothing has been updated.

[AgentSmith88]

Blitz, you and your commitee should really rethink. Clearly you need a new set of eyes or just talk about it more in detail. Right now it really seems like you are the one who proposed this game requierment. It feels right aswell, since it's just the thing you would do. Making it harder for anyone else to get in so you can be among the only few.

Like Blitz said, it was my proposal to have a minimum game requirement. I did a quick re-read through the forum rules to make sure I'm not breaking any by posting what I have said within the Criteria Committee usergroup out here in the public forums, and I think I'm okay so long as I stick to what I posted:

I like the idea of a game minimum instead of "premium" - they both say the same thing, just putting in a game minimum makes in more quantifiable. For an actual number, I think we'd have to sit down and look at what reasonable players play. I know I'm probably going to end up with about 5000 games in 3 years, but is this average for CC? I would think that 1000 games played per year (average) is a reasonable requirement, it means that the players must have held premium for a long enough time to play a whole pile of games. This also sets us up later when we start working on the nitty-gritty of crossmapping and the like.

In the thread in General Discussion (I can't remember which is which), it was brought up over and over again that players making the Hall of Fame should be part of the site for a long period of time, show good sportsmanship, and support the site. There was much agreement on supporting the site, especially considering the low cost of $25/year. The committee decided that being premium was a fair thing to expect of Hall of Fame players, but like I said above, trying to figure out how long a player has been premium for is a very difficult task. I did some quick, basic checks on games played (higher end being HA, lower end being players like Robinnette), and figured I ended up on the higher end of average in terms of typical game load. Which meant that my 5000 over 3 years would translate to about 3000 over 3 years for an "average" CC player (I believe this works out to having about 40-50 active games consistently).

We also figured a game minimum would help to show a player's consistency. Someone like me (who I took to be about the average on CC) will hit high points and low points, but will only stay up in "Hall of Fame" range for a short period of time. It would be possible for me to spike my score temporarily by playing about 100 games on settings I know I will do well on (but not necessarily enjoy playing), then drop my game load down to 1 or 2 games for the next year and keep my high rank. This is then not a true representation of my actual skill level.

As said by Robinnette on several occasions about the other real Hall of Fame in Baseball, Football, etc. there are no accuall game requierment there. There are just a requierment on how long you were active. If that were to translate itself into CC. Then i think it should be the same. No game requierment, just how long you've been active (which mean how many years you've been a member of the site). I think it's rather silly to have a game requierment aswell. Some of the greatest players around that have been members for years, and stayed active for all those years still don't meet the game requierment. Robinette mentioned a few names which are among the greatest around. (Though Thai_Robert is a special case. Since hes been on and off in CC and not stayed active in all the years hes been a member). There are several others who i think are the best around who are more then 1000 games away from the 3000 limit. Chariot on Fire, just to mention one. Truly amazing player, extreamly respected team-player. Just have a look in the "5 players you respect the most thingy thread". CoF has been mentioned more then a few times.

As much as the CC Hall of Fame can be compared to a sporting Hall of Fame, the differences are vast. The biggest one, in my opinion, and the reason I was originally against a CC Hall of Fame, is:

By definition, in any Hall of Fame, all the players considered for entry must be retired from the profession in which they're being considered.

So anyone making it into the CC Hall of Fame must have formally retired from the game.

The second big difference is that CC is a hobby whereas sporting is a profession. It is understood that the best players in any given sport are going to play it over a long career, whereas the best players at CC are just as likely to come and go as their real life permits. Again, using myself as an example, I know that my real profession makes me busy in the summer and free in the winter such that I will play more CC game in the winter and less in the summer.

Further to the point, but conversely, comparing the CC Hall of Fame to a sports Hall of Fame again comes down to consistency. My only true knowledge of a Hall of Fame is to hockey, and in that sport I know that players that have played longer and more consistently will be favoured over those who play short inconsistent careers. It is the same in CC - we are choosing the best of the best CC players, and having the game requirement proves that they can consistently hold their high rank.

I would very much like to hear from someone else in this commitee on this subject. Instead of just hearing it from Blitz. It would be great to have a second mouth of the commitee. When was the last time the commitee really discussed anything concering this thread? You've mentioned a few times that this thread is so old and yadiyadiya, but that just means that something should have changed significantly since then. But the impression i get is that it's sayed almost the same since the start. I may be wrong on this point of course, as it's just an assumption.

I generally avoid General Discussion as most of what is posted here is complaints about the dice. I do, however, realize that sometimes Blitz is not the best liaison for matters such as these, and as such will make attempts to frequent this thread more often. I can tell you, however, that the comments being posted in this thread are being copied over to the Criteria Committee Usergroup where they are being discussed. Some of the Specialty Criteria are being amended, and we have discussed the game limit. It was an almost unanimous decision in favour of the game limit within the committee.

Just one last thing to mention. Blitzaholic, you really need to learn how to think outside of your own preset view and take in what other people say and perhaps change your opinion if whats said has value. Right now it just seems like you can't change your mind because it's already set to stone.

I will second this notion, and this is a large part of why I was saddened to see stahrgazer go. As much as she and I disagreed about the process and the criteria for selecting Hall of Fame players, having those discussions definitely helped steer the committee into considerations we may have otherwise overlooked.

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.

If the commitee would like me in it. Then i would join. Considering that Blitzaholic have something against me, since i don't think like him and don't agree with him all the time.. then i don't think so.

It's up to Blitz and the other members of the committee. I think we settled on 15 as a good number for the committee, but I'll bring it up within the usergroup and see what happens.

To me the biggest difference between CC and sports is the amount of quantifiable stats. You can look at a player and say "he had a .330 career average with 2,500 hits, 450 homers, and 200 SB" and then determine whether these stats are worthy of the HoF. There are not really any quantifiable numbers on CC. A rank changes all the time and medals only go up to certain amount of wins.

My only problem with the number was that someone with say 2500 games played who now only plays team games would have to purposefully join a bunch of games he didn't want to play in order to be considered. The point of CC is to have fun and I know plenty of people who would not want to spam joining games just to be considered for the HoF. I don't mind people who vote on who gets in having their own criteria (like 3000 games played), I'm just not sure it should be a hard and fast rule.

[reptile]

is there a revised copy or are we being told what was written down as the rough draft is the final copy and thats the way it is ? I see a deadline added to the subject but nothing has been updated.

Nothing is final yet. The deadline you see is just a deadline for all (public) to post their thoughts. All thoughts/ideas will then be brought up through the committee again for any final changes from the way i understand it. At that point and not before will it be the way it is.

------------

Also, is what is question the number (3k) that was the problem or the fact that there was a number?

[AgentSmith88]

is there a revised copy or are we being told what was written down as the rough draft is the final copy and thats the way it is ? I see a deadline added to the subject but nothing has been updated.

Nothing is final yet. The deadline you see is just a deadline for all (public) to post their thoughts. All thoughts/ideas will then be brought up through the committee again for any final changes from the way i understand it. At that point and not before will it be the way it is.

------------

Also, is what is question the number (3k) that was the problem or the fact that there was a number?

Both, depending on who you talk to. I don't think there should be any official number; others think the number should be lower. Consensus for the latter seems to be 2k, at least from what i've seen.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

is there a revised copy or are we being told what was written down as the rough draft is the final copy and thats the way it is ? I see a deadline added to the subject but nothing has been updated.

Nothing is final yet. The deadline you see is just a deadline for all (public) to post their thoughts. All thoughts/ideas will then be brought up through the committee again for any final changes from the way i understand it. At that point and not before will it be the way it is.

------------

Also, is what is question the number (3k) that was the problem or the fact that there was a number?

Both, depending on who you talk to. I don't think there should be any official number; others think the number should be lower. Consensus for the latter seems to be 2k, at least from what i've seen.

well if you need 3 years to make HOF you should keep it at 3K games. Only 1K per year.

[denominator]

To me the biggest difference between CC and sports is the amount of quantifiable stats. You can look at a player and say "he had a .330 career average with 2,500 hits, 450 homers, and 200 SB" and then determine whether these stats are worthy of the HoF. There are not really any quantifiable numbers on CC. A rank changes all the time and medals only go up to certain amount of wins.

There are TONS of stats associated with CC as well, and we focused on the most quantifiable ones. I am not entirely sure on this, but I do believe there is a script out there that will tell you a player's average score over their entire CC career (it may even be Map Rank). You could then say that "he had an average score of 2800, 43 medals, and won 988 singles escalating games" and then determine if these stats are worth of the Hall of Fame. There are plenty of quantifiable numbers, and even if medals only go up so high, the wins continue counting.

My only problem with the number was that someone with say 2500 games played who now only plays team games would have to purposefully join a bunch of games he didn't want to play in order to be considered. The point of CC is to have fun and I know plenty of people who would not want to spam joining games just to be considered for the HoF. I don't mind people who vote on who gets in having their own criteria (like 3000 games played), I'm just not sure it should be a hard and fast rule.

Or he waits patiently and continues playing the games he likes until he's played another 500. The 3-year and 3000-game minimums never go up, so if a player hasn't reached the base criteria, he just keeps playing. This is not a one-time entry Hall of Fame, it is being designed to have entry dates at a set time frame (currently being discussed), so as time goes forward more players will become eligible.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

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

I think this too is a great example of what we are trying to do.

The questions you all are bringing up are as follows:
Are these great players? I would say yes.
Are these players deserving of HoF status? Yes, as long as they continue to do what they are doing.

Please understand, we should not and will not accept anyone who is here overnight. We have implemented special criteria and considerations for players of this caliber, as each case is reviewable. However, we created a set of criteria to first review. If I came across Thai Robert for example (and I was a voter), I would have to say no because this player is not active with the site. Playing less than 2 games per week across the 3 years of being apart of the community is not HoF material. Rabbiton is much closer, but again, a similar argument can be made.

These players will eventually make the grade if you will. Then they will become elidgible for HoF status....and its something to shoot for while they are here too.

I like this post. If you start now to adjust and allow players just to bypass the requirements to make HOF, than where does it end ? They need to fulfill the requirements just like everyone else. Just because they met the criteria of 3 years doesnt mean they automatically make it in. They need to meet the majority of all the other criteria as well. Most of the reason they dont met the criteria is because they are non premium. They took advantage of free games for years. Without looking they are probably low on achievement medals, tourney wins, tourney organized, and many other criteria areas.

[Gold Knight]

But as was mentioned earlier, the criteria will be individualized based on a player-to-player basis (at least i think...). Mentioned were players that have contributed to the site in other ways than their gameplay, such as maps, TO's, etc. I think the 3k games is more for players getting in based mostly upon their gameplay, which i can see as a fair number for the most part. The point of eligibility of the HoF is that it should be REALLY HARD to get into; there would be little reward in getting into something that half of the CC community qualifies for. I certainly wouldnt want to see someone with my resume being mentioned with players like Blitz, JR24, and the likes as they have done far more than many of the people of the site and deserve to be put on their pedestal (even if they put themselves there sometimes... ).

I wouldnt get too bent out of shape about this, if a player is able to make a case while not meeting one of the criteria then im sure it will be handled appropriately. The proper players will get their recognition in the long run if the majority of CC is able to realize what theyve done for the site.

[Prankcall]

is there a revised copy or are we being told what was written down as the rough draft is the final copy and thats the way it is ? I see a deadline added to the subject but nothing has been updated.

Nothing is final yet. The deadline you see is just a deadline for all (public) to post their thoughts. All thoughts/ideas will then be brought up through the committee again for any final changes from the way i understand it. At that point and not before will it be the way it is.

------------

Also, is what is question the number (3k) that was the problem or the fact that there was a number?

Both, depending on who you talk to. I don't think there should be any official number; others think the number should be lower. Consensus for the latter seems to be 2k, at least from what i've seen.

well if you need 3 years to make HOF you should keep it at 3K games. Only 1K per year.

Maybe against different players? Some play only with-in a certain circle..To each their own...Not sure how someone can be considered when they have not even played more than 100 different people...Just my opinion...

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

is there a revised copy or are we being told what was written down as the rough draft is the final copy and thats the way it is ? I see a deadline added to the subject but nothing has been updated.

Nothing is final yet. The deadline you see is just a deadline for all (public) to post their thoughts. All thoughts/ideas will then be brought up through the committee again for any final changes from the way i understand it. At that point and not before will it be the way it is.

------------

Also, is what is question the number (3k) that was the problem or the fact that there was a number?

Both, depending on who you talk to. I don't think there should be any official number; others think the number should be lower. Consensus for the latter seems to be 2k, at least from what i've seen.

well if you need 3 years to make HOF you should keep it at 3K games. Only 1K per year.

Maybe against different players? Some play only with-in a certain circle..To each their own...Not sure how someone can be considered when they have not even played more than 100 different people...Just my opinion...

thats a good point. most high ranks only private games against a certain group. This would explain their lack of achievement medals. Ever take notice why almost no player over 2500 creates public 1 vs 1's ? Two days ago I counted 270 players over 2500 and not one game created by them in public to play 1 vs 1.

[jackal31]

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

I think this too is a great example of what we are trying to do.

The questions you all are bringing up are as follows:
Are these great players? I would say yes.
Are these players deserving of HoF status? Yes, as long as they continue to do what they are doing.

Please understand, we should not and will not accept anyone who is here overnight. We have implemented special criteria and considerations for players of this caliber, as each case is reviewable. However, we created a set of criteria to first review. If I came across Thai Robert for example (and I was a voter), I would have to say no because this player is not active with the site. Playing less than 2 games per week across the 3 years of being apart of the community is not HoF material. Rabbiton is much closer, but again, a similar argument can be made.

These players will eventually make the grade if you will. Then they will become elidgible for HoF status....and its something to shoot for while they are here too.

I like this post. If you start now to adjust and allow players just to bypass the requirements to make HOF, than where does it end ? They need to fulfill the requirements just like everyone else. Just because they met the criteria of 3 years doesnt mean they automatically make it in. They need to meet the majority of all the other criteria as well. Most of the reason they dont met the criteria is because they are non premium. They took advantage of free games for years. Without looking they are probably low on achievement medals, tourney wins, tourney organized, and many other criteria areas.

JR, keep in mkind too that tourney wins and organization are just optional criteria. I like to think about it like bonus material. If the forementioned players are just playing games and not contributing to tourney's, then thats okay, but they may get overlooked for the HoF. If they are regular participants of tourney's, then it will look better on their resume. And of course vice versa.

[Robinette]

if u do not know what your talking about, be quiet about it, because you are sounding silly.

And now i will quote the Pro Football Hall of Fame: "Any fan may nominate any qualified person who has been connected with pro football in any capacity simply by writing to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The only restriction is that a player and coach must have last played or coached at least five seasons before he can be considered."
But don't take MY word for it... Read it for yourself here: http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/selectionprocess.aspx

again, here it is nette

The only restriction is that a player and coach must have last played or coached at least five seasons before he can be considered. 5 seasons is your quote, and that is 80 games Robinette. Longevity is a requirement, and like I said, games have to be played in those minimum seasons. You cannot miss half the 16 game season and play 8 games per year for years and expect to make it, I know of NO one that has done that. Also, like I told you and it has been discussed for years about Terrel Davis, he played 6 or 7 seasons and you say 5 is minimum, even if that may be true, they look for longer years than that as evidenced by no one ever making the NFL HoF 5 years or less in the last 25 years, no one that I know of. Terrel Davis should be if you say minimum is 5 years, but, many do not vote him in because they think his 6 and 7 years is too little. New era, new rules, more padding, careers longer that they used to be. The fact you miss is the 5 year minimum is 80 games if you play all the games. So, although they do NOT directly mention the game requirement, they do in a way of the required minimum amount of years one plays and games are what they play in those years.

Also, you mention fans can nominate anyone, but, there are so many others involved, broadcasters, former football players, sports media, journalists, coaches, etc. and they have a more restricted list of players and by no means do they nominate any qualified player, they generally pick the best of the best during those eras, not just anybody eligible. They would need to stand out some more than the rest and played a minimum amount of seasons and games in those seasons. You could have a great quarterback who has played 5 seasons, but , the Pro Football hall of fame panel is going to say, or someone will ask and research: but, wasn't he injured a fair amount and missed half a season a couple times? If so, this will drop him from that list. Now if the quarterback played 9 or 10 years and have a couple shortened seasons, not as big a deal, see what I am saying. Longevity matters and during that longevity, you have to play games and produce at a high level, the Hall of Fame in any sports takes only the absolute bast and they filter out all the rest, this is why there is only a around handful inducted out of the thousands that played during those times.

OH. MY. GAWD.

Are you kidding me? I even provided you with the link, so you could actually READ the real thing for yourself. If you had you'd have seen an example that clears it up solidly...

For the record, the restriction is NOT that they PLAYED for 5 years, or 80 games, or more years if they had half seasons... it is EXACTLY what i had said it was... a 5 year waiting period. They do NOT mention a game count requirement, BECAUSE there is NO Game Count Requirement. PERIOD!

But, as inconceivable as your erroneous understanding of Football is for me to grasp, you are STILL missing the most obvious point that I've been trying to make... let me quote it for you, just maybe you will actually read and understand these words THIS time...

I could do this for each sport if needed, but the results will be the same... You are WRONG
Many people make the same mistake you have, assuming that the REASON someone isn't voted in is due to a RULE, rather that due to the decision of the committee... You see, this is the whole point I have been trying to make, which still, even now, i am pretty sure is still eluding you...

Anyway, this really isn't about any Sports Hall of Fame, it's about Conquer Club...

I'm just saying you should keep the RULES loose, and the SELECTION tight.

And might i add, i would have had MUCH more fun responding to this had AgentSmith not been on the case... Strikes me as odd though, that I could say it multiple times and he would not get it,,, you say it once and he listens... mnnnnn... i think i understand... cause football is a guy thing, right?

That's right honey. Now get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!

In all seriousness though, I don't think a player should have to play a bunch more games just to be considered. However since Blitz says this is a consensus of multiple people then I guess I will go with it. I guess since the HoF isn't even in place yet we shouldn't kill anybody (yet).

*with the sweetest voice you've ever heard*

Agent Smiiiiith... your sandwich is readieeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[reptile]

But as was mentioned earlier, the criteria will be individualized based on a player-to-player basis (at least i think...). Mentioned were players that have contributed to the site in other ways than their gameplay, such as maps, TO's, etc. I think the 3k games is more for players getting in based mostly upon their gameplay, which i can see as a fair number for the most part.

correct

I wouldnt get too bent out of shape about this, if a player is able to make a case while not meeting one of the criteria then im sure it will be handled appropriately. The proper players will get their recognition in the long run if the majority of CC is able to realize what theyve done for the site.

I would expect so and hope so

Maybe against different players? Some play only with-in a certain circle..To each their own...Not sure how someone can be considered when they have not even played more than 100 different people...Just my opinion...

thats a good point. most high ranks only private games against a certain group. This would explain their lack of achievement medals. Ever take notice why almost no player over 2500 creates public 1 vs 1's ? Two days ago I counted 270 players over 2500 and not one game created by them in public to play 1 vs 1.

Both great points, what would you recommend? (As far as the 1v1's i dont know how we could do anything about that.)

[Prankcall]

But as was mentioned earlier, the criteria will be individualized based on a player-to-player basis (at least i think...). Mentioned were players that have contributed to the site in other ways than their gameplay, such as maps, TO's, etc. I think the 3k games is more for players getting in based mostly upon their gameplay, which i can see as a fair number for the most part.

correct

I wouldnt get too bent out of shape about this, if a player is able to make a case while not meeting one of the criteria then im sure it will be handled appropriately. The proper players will get their recognition in the long run if the majority of CC is able to realize what theyve done for the site.

I would expect so and hope so

Maybe against different players? Some play only with-in a certain circle..To each their own...Not sure how someone can be considered when they have not even played more than 100 different people...Just my opinion...

thats a good point. most high ranks only private games against a certain group. This would explain their lack of achievement medals. Ever take notice why almost no player over 2500 creates public 1 vs 1's ? Two days ago I counted 270 players over 2500 and not one game created by them in public to play 1 vs 1.

Both great points, what would you recommend? (As far as the 1v1's i dont know how we could do anything about that.)

The 1vs1 is not an issue with me.The issue is while you may be great(even one of the best) you play only certain people and have not even ventured into Public games.This is because those players realize their win/loss point ratio would suffer dramatically.While they may say it's better game-play or what not(I am sure it is) the real reason is they Maximize points won and Minimize points lost(ofcourse this is only my opinion).

[Chuuuuck]

thats a good point. most high ranks only private games against a certain group. This would explain their lack of achievement medals. Ever take notice why almost no player over 2500 creates public 1 vs 1's ? Two days ago I counted 270 players over 2500 and not one game created by them in public to play 1 vs 1.

You must not of checked at the right time. I will occasionally throw my 1v1 public games out there. 1 at a time or so just because I enjoy playing them!

But I agree, I don't put them up all of the time. But you can't blame that on anyone over 2500, because if they did as you say and made more public 1v1 games then we all know they wouldn't be ranked where they are. We wouldn't have anyone ranked that high.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

But as was mentioned earlier, the criteria will be individualized based on a player-to-player basis (at least i think...). Mentioned were players that have contributed to the site in other ways than their gameplay, such as maps, TO's, etc. I think the 3k games is more for players getting in based mostly upon their gameplay, which i can see as a fair number for the most part.

correct

I wouldnt get too bent out of shape about this, if a player is able to make a case while not meeting one of the criteria then im sure it will be handled appropriately. The proper players will get their recognition in the long run if the majority of CC is able to realize what theyve done for the site.

I would expect so and hope so

Maybe against different players? Some play only with-in a certain circle..To each their own...Not sure how someone can be considered when they have not even played more than 100 different people...Just my opinion...

thats a good point. most high ranks only private games against a certain group. This would explain their lack of achievement medals. Ever take notice why almost no player over 2500 creates public 1 vs 1's ? Two days ago I counted 270 players over 2500 and not one game created by them in public to play 1 vs 1.

Both great points, what would you recommend? (As far as the 1v1's i dont know how we could do anything about that.)

The 1vs1 is not an issue with me.The issue is while you may be great(even one of the best) you play only certain people and have not even ventured into Public games.This is because those players realize their win/loss point ratio would suffer dramatically.While they may say it's better game-play or what not(I am sure it is) the real reason is they Maximize points won and Minimize points lost(ofcourse this is only my opinion).

your opinion is right on the money. its all about protecting points, rank, and win percentage. Count how many in the top 100 that actually play tournaments, 1 vs 1's and public games on a constant basis. I know Blitzaholic does but im sure there are not many others.

[Chuuuuck]

I think there is more than you think there JR. I do both and I know many others who do tournaments, but you are right, most are probably lacking in willingness to play 1v1 public.

[peanutsdad]

Truthfully, i believe the members of the HOF have to be well rounded. I'm not sure if having 3000 games would be a tell tale sign of being qualified for the HOF. But i also believe the members should have played 1vs1's, doubs, trips, quads, tourney's, they should have achievement medals that represent there contributions to CC, not just there personal rank/score. As an example i'll use myself, now i do not believe that i would in any way qualify for HOF, but as an example, i've been on the site for over 3 years, play all the time, in all aspects of the site (sans freestyle), and have less than 3000 games, yet found two players today in a 10 minute search that have over 3500 games, have less than 2 years on the site, are high ranked, but have a lower winning percentage than myself. HOF needs to encompass all of what they have done for CC, not just games played/score/rank.

[reptile]

Truthfully, i believe the members of the HOF have to be well rounded. I'm not sure if having 3000 games would be a tell tale sign of being qualified for the HOF. But i also believe the members should have played 1vs1's, doubs, trips, quads, tourney's, they should have achievement medals that represent there contributions to CC, not just there personal rank/score. As an example i'll use myself, now i do not believe that i would in any way qualify for HOF, but as an example, i've been on the site for over 3 years, play all the time, in all aspects of the site (sans freestyle), and have less than 3000 games, yet found two players today in a 10 minute search that have over 3500 games, have less than 2 years on the site, are high ranked, but have a lower winning percentage than myself. HOF needs to encompass all of what they have done for CC, not just games played/score/rank.

it will ... see the first post

Also, just that does not get you in... there is still a selection committee (judges)