Conquer Club

Phase 1: BASE CRITERIA:

Any member of Conquerclub is eligible for the Hall of Fame provided they meet the following measurable requirements:


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

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.

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.



Phase 2: Mission Statement:

"A CC Hall of Famer is recognized as one who has shown great character, game play, and support. They have excelled in displaying quality sportsmanship in every aspect of the site. They are the type of player whose game play stands out above most, and has contributed to the CC world in multiple facets. It is our honor to recognize these competitors as a foundation, who helped build CC into what it is today."


Phase 3: Specialty Criteria

We suggest the Nomination and Selection committees ask these questions about candidates, using their judgment to assess how well players have performed, paying particular attention to outstanding performances in particular areas and to players who have performed well in multiple areas:


01) Has the player received a Special Contribution medal?
02) How many maps has the player cross mapped on (5+ unique defeats)?
03) What is the player's highest earned score and rank?
04) Did he/she maintain score and rank over time or was it short lived?
05) Has the player produced maps? If so, How many? Are the maps popular?
06) Has the player organized tournaments? If so, How many? What quality were they (were some longer than 4 rounds)?
07) Has the player brought something new to the site (an idea of invention for CC enhancement) that excites or involves other players interests? Ex. the ideas of CLA, SoC, Newsletters, HoF, Map Rank, Stats, Records, Medals, Screenshots, etc.
08) Has the player won any tournaments? What was the length and time of them?
09) Does the player have a majority of gold medals? How many total medals does the player have?
10) Has the player been part of clan wars and contribute? Is their clan respectable and successful as winners? What was their level of competition?
11) Has the player been involved as a moderator, clan organizer, in CLA, part of SoC, Newsletters, or programming?




We think that there should be some kind of shiny new icon and or medal for this outstanding award.

Respectfully, Criteria Committee

i'm not sure that a HoF could work. there are too many criteria to take into consideration.
and subjectivity is a major issue.

making a HoF just for top players is not fair because some users did much more for this site than some of the top players. for example jota. great cartographer average player.

and who should decide what players deserve a spot in HoF??

DiM wrote:i'm not sure that a HoF could work. there are too many criteria to take into consideration.
and subjectivity is a major issue.

making a HoF just for top players is not fair because some users did much more for this site than some of the top players. for example jota. great cartographer average player.

and who should decide what players deserve a spot in HoF??

Good points you make DiM, this is why I started this to lay down all the foundations of the criteria, I mean in sports, some coaches who never played ball make the HoF, so certainly individuals who have enhanced the site tremendously would also be considered I would think. Just asking for all suggestions, not saying a HoF will ever occur, just an idea.

People could be put forward by other people and then a vote be passed on them...

C.

yeti_c wrote:People could be put forward by other people and then a vote be passed on them...

C.

voting is not that good. some people are retarded and vote stupidly.

DiM wrote:

yeti_c wrote:People could be put forward by other people and then a vote be passed on them...

C.

voting is not that good. some people are retarded and vote stupidly.

I understand your Burkean argument that people are inherently stupid and people who use "enlightened conscience" and "mature judgement" should decide. However, I propose that people power is the best system for electing members of the hall of fame. Candidates should firstly be proposed and then seconded by a top player of some form, whether be by a cartogropher or player to prevent people like hecter being entered

Blitzaholic wrote:

DiM wrote:i'm not sure that a HoF could work. there are too many criteria to take into consideration.
and subjectivity is a major issue.

making a HoF just for top players is not fair because some users did much more for this site than some of the top players. for example jota. great cartographer average player.

and who should decide what players deserve a spot in HoF??

Good points you make DiM, this is why I started this to lay down all the foundations of the criteria, I mean in sports, some coaches who never played ball make the HoF, so certainly individuals who have enhanced the site tremendously would also be considered I would think. Just asking for all suggestions, not saying a HoF will ever occur, just an idea.

i would like a HoF (although i'd never get in). probably a group of people could form a comitee and accept proposals and vote if the respective user is worthy of a spot in HOF.

now the problem is. should HoF spots be only for those that retire or for everybody.



PS: also a monthly awards session could prove nice. with premium account prizes like the highest rise in the scoreboard, the best map introduced that month, the biggest spammer (joking on this one), etc.

nagerous wrote:

DiM wrote:

yeti_c wrote:People could be put forward by other people and then a vote be passed on them...

C.

voting is not that good. some people are retarded and vote stupidly.

I understand your Burkean argument that people are inherently stupid and people who use "enlightened conscience" and "mature judgement" should decide. However, I propose that people power is the best system for electing members of the hall of fame. Candidates should firstly be proposed and then seconded by a top player of some form, whether be by a cartogropher or player to prevent people like hecter being entered

if the candidate passes a preliminary round (consisting of an analysis done by a few well chosen members) then i'm fine with mass voting. in a Y/N poll.

Flame king



Well almost at least lol.

all we need to do is make sure Jamie doesn't get in

I haven't been around long, but after the few games I've played and after perusing the site, I say a Hall of Fame would be a great idea. Here are some of the factors I would say to include:

1. Longevity (set a certain time that the player has to have been active for)

2. Score (setting a benchmark score might be tough because of the up and down nature of the scoreboard, but perhaps there could be a benchmark for average score that could be taken into account)

3. Rank (This would have to be considered, especially for the players that don't contribute anything in the forums, map-making, or in running the site)

4. Membership Status (You could argue that a true CCer would be willing to support the site by having a premium membership for a certain period of time, but on the other side, if someone reaches the rank of General through consistent gameplay with a free account, you have to consider that as a sizable feat)

5. Stats (This would be a great reason to begin keeping stats for singles wins, doubles wins, triples wins, assassin wins, second through sixth place finishes, etc. Personally, I would think that someone with say 2 years on the site, but with 500 singles wins, would have the upper hand over someone with say 100 singles wins and 600 doubles wins.)

6. Other Contributions (Someone with not quite as high of a score but multiple contributions as far as map designs that are popular should have that taken into account. Also, someone who plays well, has good stats, but perhaps contributes through helping the Forum community be a fun place to be by starting fun topics or helping others out should have that count for them as well.)

7. Feedback (This one is much more subjective, but I think that if there is a way to find validity in negative feedback, it should be taken into account but not be a major determining factor. Granted, any players currently on the site that would likely be considered probably won't have any problems with this)

Anyways, those are the base criteria I would use if I were to be setting something like that up. I'm sure it can be tweaked a bit and the details would have to be worked out, but I think it would be nice to see. Having a Hall of Fame would give some of the players something to shoot for.

As for whether or not the player should be retired in order to gain entrance, I don't think that should be a requirement for this reason: If they have retired from game-play, what good is it going to do them? They probably won't be on the site much, so what satisfaction will they get from being in the Hall of Fame?

I think there would need to be a committee that would decide on who gets in and who doesn't, but I don't think it should be just the Mods or Lack, it should be Lack, a couple of mods, but not all, and a couple members from each rank (General, Colonel, Major and Captain). I also think the voting members should only be on the committee for a set amount of time, excluding Lack given that he is the ultimate creator and if he ever steps down he can name his successor. The criteria for determining the best folks for the committee would be a little more difficult.

The last thing I would say is that if a player gains entrance to the Hall of Fame (provided retirement is not a requirement) I think that there should be a new icon designed for them. If they have made it to the Hall of Fame, then I don't think many players are going to complain if they don't see a General icon next to the player's name. Plus, it would give that player his due recognition if you ask me.

Well, that was really long. I'll stop now.

Sorry, just thought of one more thing.

There would also need to be a limit on how often new members are placed in the Hall of Fame. Something like once per year (three new members ma, or twice a year (two new max).

Another thought would be that certain players can get in on map-making alone, kind of like coaches in sports, or maybe someday there is a superbly good doubles team that nobody can touch for a really long time and they get in on that. There couldn't be very many exceptions, but there might be a few that would be deemed appropriate by the committee themselves of course.

DiM wrote:

yeti_c wrote:People could be put forward by other people and then a vote be passed on them...

C.

voting is not that good. some people are retarded and vote stupidly.

I bet loads would vote for simtom as a joke

firth4eva wrote:

DiM wrote:

yeti_c wrote:People could be put forward by other people and then a vote be passed on them...

C.

voting is not that good. some people are retarded and vote stupidly.

I bet loads would vote for simtom as a joke

I know I would!

hecter wrote:[I know I would!

like my sig hecter

firth4eva wrote:

hecter wrote:I know I would!

like my sig hecter

Ya man, don't sweat it. It was no problem (and sorry I didn't check my email sooner… Otherwise you probably would have been unbanned sooner ) But ya, it was no trouble.

Optimus Prime wrote:I haven't been around long, but after the few games I've played and after perusing the site, I say a Hall of Fame would be a great idea. Here are some of the factors I would say to include:

1. Longevity (set a certain time that the player has to have been active for)

2. Score (setting a benchmark score might be tough because of the up and down nature of the scoreboard, but perhaps there could be a benchmark for average score that could be taken into account)

3. Rank (This would have to be considered, especially for the players that don't contribute anything in the forums, map-making, or in running the site)

4. Membership Status (You could argue that a true CCer would be willing to support the site by having a premium membership for a certain period of time, but on the other side, if someone reaches the rank of General through consistent gameplay with a free account, you have to consider that as a sizable feat)

5. Stats (This would be a great reason to begin keeping stats for singles wins, doubles wins, triples wins, assassin wins, second through sixth place finishes, etc. Personally, I would think that someone with say 2 years on the site, but with 500 singles wins, would have the upper hand over someone with say 100 singles wins and 600 doubles wins.)

6. Other Contributions (Someone with not quite as high of a score but multiple contributions as far as map designs that are popular should have that taken into account. Also, someone who plays well, has good stats, but perhaps contributes through helping the Forum community be a fun place to be by starting fun topics or helping others out should have that count for them as well.)

7. Feedback (This one is much more subjective, but I think that if there is a way to find validity in negative feedback, it should be taken into account but not be a major determining factor. Granted, any players currently on the site that would likely be considered probably won't have any problems with this)

Anyways, those are the base criteria I would use if I were to be setting something like that up. I'm sure it can be tweaked a bit and the details would have to be worked out, but I think it would be nice to see. Having a Hall of Fame would give some of the players something to shoot for.

As for whether or not the player should be retired in order to gain entrance, I don't think that should be a requirement for this reason: If they have retired from game-play, what good is it going to do them? They probably won't be on the site much, so what satisfaction will they get from being in the Hall of Fame?

I think there would need to be a committee that would decide on who gets in and who doesn't, but I don't think it should be just the Mods or Lack, it should be Lack, a couple of mods, but not all, and a couple members from each rank (General, Colonel, Major and Captain). I also think the voting members should only be on the committee for a set amount of time, excluding Lack given that he is the ultimate creator and if he ever steps down he can name his successor. The criteria for determining the best folks for the committee would be a little more difficult.

The last thing I would say is that if a player gains entrance to the Hall of Fame (provided retirement is not a requirement) I think that there should be a new icon designed for them. If they have made it to the Hall of Fame, then I don't think many players are going to complain if they don't see a General icon next to the player's name. Plus, it would give that player his due recognition if you ask me.

Well, that was really long. I'll stop now.

Great suggestions optimus prime, also some records that are held could be included, and perhaps 6 to 8 candidates a year but only 1 or 2 get in per year maybe.

Pilate is the greates player to ever play, no question, but I think that you all forget about breatzsky, he quit, but if he stayed and played more he would easily be 1st place

Thanks, Blitzaholic. This sort of thing interests me for some reason. Trying to stack people up to see who is worthy I suppose. I like the idea of 6-8 candidates at the end of each year with one or two being inducted.

I think we need lackattack, ak_iceman and some other mods suggestions!

If this was HoF's 1st year, perhaps a couple of map founders from the beginning that are still making maps and others who enhanced CC a ton, would be a couple of candidates but maybe 3 to 5 candidates like I said need to be mentioned, have a panel, but only perhaps 2 or 3 get in per year, and maybe none, depending on the achievements or not, et cetera.

Also, as the sites grows, the newer members, well it may be more difficult as some points will have inflation with the growth of the site as the years move forward.

Optimus Prime wrote:Thanks, Blitzaholic. This sort of thing interests me for some reason. Trying to stack people up to see who is worthy I suppose. I like the idea of 6-8 candidates at the end of each year with one or two being inducted.

Yes, it is a very interesting idea.

Stimulates me to think as well.

I do think the criteria should be strict !!!

Strict criteria would be the most important thing I think because of that point inflation you are talking about. That's why I think keeping better statistics would be important for it to work. You will want to know how many times they came in first, second, third, etc.

I would be interested to see what the Mods have to say about it. Perhaps they could designate a group of folks to set up the criteria for them and then decide.

as far as longevity and stats, I would favor the cc player who played 2 years and maintained around a 2600 rank over the cc player who played 1 year and
maintained a 2800 rank.

this is just an example!


the reason why, is because of the demonstration over a longer period of time to stay up that high with the constant in flux of players is quite difficult, another reason is CC had or has had 27 Generals and only 8 now.

Very difficult to obtain, 20x more difficult to maintain it, especially over extended periods of time.

Also, there should not only be a bare minimum of a 2 year requirement of playing on here, but also a bare minimum of games played, perhaps 500 per year? So, if a CC player played 2 years but only 400 games??? Would not be accepted, or if a person played 18 months and played 2,200 games, would not be accepted, (regsrdless of there rank) has to be at least 2 years and 1,000 games played bare minimum after 2 years, or something like that, agreed?

I would nominate Augusta, he quit in like may after being active since january, and got all the way up to major which put him in the top 50 easily back then. He was a good player and very helpful.

Blitzaholic wrote:as far as longevity and stats, I would favor the cc player who played 2 years and maintained around a 2600 rank over the cc player who played 1 year and
maintained a 2800 rank.

this is just an example!


the reason why, is because of the demonstration over a longer period of time to stay up that high with the constant in flux of players is quite difficult, another reason is CC had or has had 27 Generals and only 8 now.

Very difficult to obtain, 20x more difficult to maintain it, especially over extended periods of time.

Also, there should not only be a bare minimum of a 2 year requirement of playing on here, but also a bare minimum of games played, perhaps 500 per year? So, if a CC player played 2 years but only 400 games??? Would not be accepted, or if a person played 18 months and played 2,200 games, would not be accepted, (regsrdless of there rank) has to be at least 2 years and 1,000 games played bare minimum after 2 years, or something like that, agreed?

I like the idea of averaging a certain number of games per year. That would pretty much answer the question of being required to have a premium membership over a free membership. The actually number per year you probably depend on some research to see what the top players average (throwing out the excessively active ones of course).