[Unofficial] HALL OF FAME

[denominator]

Blitz, you are still missing a vital issue.

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

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

I think you missed the point of Fruitcake's post entirely.

This is NOT an impartial thread. Read through who makes the post and many of the people posting are either going to be eligible for the HoF by the criteria laid out or are suggesting criteria that will make themselves eligible. Many of your posts seem to blatantly ignore any suggestions made contrary to your belief of what the HoF should be.

Realistically, having your "jurors" simply post here that they would like to be a juror is an absolutely horrific way to handle it. You've introduced bias into the system and haven't even allowed a thought to the possibility of the thousands of players on CC that don't frequent the forums, or the ones that never come into General Discussion. Furthermore, you have not gained an accurate cross-section of CC, something that must be a part of the jury. You have mostly high ranked players that are all in clans and frequent the forums - which is to say, your jury is made up entirely out of a small group of players.

I have no doubt that this group of "jurors" will be able to come up with a list of players for the Hall of Fame, and will likely come up with a list of players that would deserve to be in the hall of fame. However, you seem to have taken this as a personal quest, like many other threads in these same forums (1st 5s and Top 5s, Tournament Wins, Tournament Games, and Clandemonium all come to mind) where you are simply forcing something through the system at your pace rather than allowing CC to work it through at it's own collective pace. This is not to say that a Hall of Fame is a bad idea or that you shouldn't be the one running it, but you do need to slow down, step back, and look at what you are trying to accomplish with it. Right now, you are doing more harm to the idea than good.

[Blitzaholic]

I went and grabbed the criteria you posted on the first page and I'm going to give you some of my thoughts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Maintained RANK for long time YES, REQUIREMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ok, thanks for your feedback, I need to update page one in a big, what I am asking is what do you think are some things we should look at for, is there anything you feel is real important we missed or you could add or for us to stress more importance of?

[the.killing.44]

Blitz, I'm sorry but you have made this so much worse than I think it could and should be. How many criteria have you posted now, like 100? This is a bit ridiculous. I'm going to stand by my (and others') idea of a form of "mission statement" about what a HoF player is. I find it a bit hard to believe that as a juror I'm supposed to sift through 100 criteria to find things to back up a no-brainer HoF player. The one criterion I do like is being here for 2 full years, give or take a bit.

I also think you need to go back to what Fc said. I'm all for you remaining chair, because I don't think there's any argument you shouldn't (and won't) make it in. But rather than have a hand-picked jury, Fc's idea of a committee that you choose to elect jurors would be a much better idea, allowing the potential HoF'ers to have a say in what's going to happen, as you have rightly picked most of the current jurors, but also maintaining integrity within the ranks.

P.S. to everyone who is saying that sport HoF's have criteria to meet, you're just wrong. Players are voted on and that is the sole requirement they have to meet (past years of retirement, which doesn't work here).

P.P.S. Blitz PM'd a handful of people that he presumably wanted to be jurors, so saying that it's just post-and-enter thing isn't completely true. I do agree with the essence of your posts (talking to mainly denominator and Fc): Blitz's PM'd would probably be better off as committee members who would vote for jurors, though I don't see a reason why someone who isn't eligible for the HoF wouldn't be a juror, should clan bias et al not come into play.

[MyTurnToWin]

My random thoughts.

Many people, myself included, don't even know how to make a map. How about a special category for those that do? But NOT a requirement to enter the Hall of Fame for everyone.

I agree that there are players who play numerous maps rather than specialize. There needs to be a way to recognize them.

GOOD sportsmanship is high high high on my requirement list. A player who cusses at other players and uses foul language should never even be considered. Since we communicate via chat and PMs then it is deliberate and cannot be excused as "my temper" or "I didn't think before I spoke"... we are typing and have a delete key.

Some people never play team games while others only play team games. I think of it like having numerous Hall of Fames... one for team players, one for doubles, one for tourney players, one for.... well, you get the idea. In sports there are Hall of Fames for individual sports rather than just one big Hall of Fame for all people who are playing various sports. Plus Hall of Fames for various types of music, broadcasters, etc.

[rabbiton]

you know what i think?

i think we should eschew this lame duck hall of fame concept in favor of a model of reverence more akin to mt rushmore.

on the home page we erect a mountain of statues of the "cc greats", or "holy forebears". there would be say 4 forebears anointed to such cc greatness, or...

say if we agreed that 1 forebear stood out amongst all others, then we would just erect 4 statues of that cc hero, let's say, merely for arguments sake, 'blitzaholic', onto the mountain, and have each gaze upon the others admiringly.

and perhaps an odd sticky substance would ooze down the mountainside.

[Blitzaholic]

I have no doubt that this group of "jurors" will be able to come up with a list of players for the Hall of Fame, and will likely come up with a list of players that would deserve to be in the hall of fame. However, you seem to have taken this as a personal quest, like many other threads in these same forums (1st 5s and Top 5s, Tournament Wins, Tournament Games, and Clandemonium all come to mind) where you are simply forcing something through the system at your pace rather than allowing CC to work it through at it's own collective pace. This is not to say that a Hall of Fame is a bad idea or that you shouldn't be the one running it, but you do need to slow down, step back, and look at what you are trying to accomplish with it. Right now, you are doing more harm to the idea than good.

denominator this is a topic that has been off and on discussed for about 3 years now, hence the 1st post says the year 2007. I do not think 3 years waiting for this to become possible is rushing anything.

Blitz, I'm sorry but you have made this so much worse than I think it could and should be. How many criteria have you posted now, like 100? This is a bit ridiculous. I'm going to stand by my (and others') idea of a form of "mission statement" about what a HoF player is. I find it a bit hard to believe that as a juror I'm supposed to sift through 100 criteria to find things to back up a no-brainer HoF player. The one criterion I do like is being here for 2 full years, give or take a bit.

the.killing.44, lol, I am collecting info. that cc'ers have been posting and pm;ing me on their views of what their opinions are of suggestions to make a possible hall of fame. I am not going to use that all, I am going to shorten it over time, no worries, it will be much more simplified.

I also think you need to go back to what Fc said. I'm all for you remaining chair, because I don't think there's any argument you shouldn't (and won't) make it in. But rather than have a hand-picked jury, Fc's idea of a committee that you choose to elect jurors would be a much better idea, allowing the potential HoF'ers to have a say in what's going to happen, as you have rightly picked most of the current jurors, but also maintaining integrity within the ranks.

umm, killing, I did pm some folks to see if they would be interested in the juror, correct, but, it is not like they are my friends or that I am close to them, take you for example, I barely know you at all, yet, I pm'd you to ask if you were interested, why? because the little I do know of you, I think that you would be an honest and fair juror and you post a lot.

also, how do you suggest I choose a committee?

P.S. to everyone who is saying that sport HoF's have criteria to meet, you're just wrong. Players are voted on and that is the sole requirement they have to meet (past years of retirement, which doesn't work here).

well, that is not always true, a vast majority of athletes in their sport are not even eligible or considered to be in the hall of fame of there sport. only the ones that really show greatness in some area or areas.

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

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

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

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

well said dowian2

[Blitzaholic]

you know what i think?

i think we should eschew this lame duck hall of fame concept in favor of a model of reverence more akin to mt rushmore.

on the home page we erect a mountain of statues of the "cc greats", or "holy forebears". there would be say 4 forebears anointed to such cc greatness, or...

say if we agreed that 1 forebear stood out amongst all others, then we would just erect 4 statues of that cc hero, let's say, merely for arguments sake, 'blitzaholic', onto the mountain, and have each gaze upon the others admiringly.

and perhaps an odd sticky substance would ooze down the mountainside.

lmaoff

rabbiton, this has been a 3 year old idea that I thought may be a good thing for CC. It could be something else players may want to strive for.

My random thoughts.

Many people, myself included, don't even know how to make a map. How about a special category for those that do? But NOT a requirement to enter the Hall of Fame for everyone.

I agree that there are players who play numerous maps rather than specialize. There needs to be a way to recognize them.

GOOD sportsmanship is high high high on my requirement list. A player who cusses at other players and uses foul language should never even be considered. Since we communicate via chat and PMs then it is deliberate and cannot be excused as "my temper" or "I didn't think before I spoke"... we are typing and have a delete key.

Some people never play team games while others only play team games. I think of it like having numerous Hall of Fames... one for team players, one for doubles, one for tourney players, one for.... well, you get the idea. In sports there are Hall of Fames for individual sports rather than just one big Hall of Fame for all people who are playing various sports. Plus Hall of Fames for various types of music, broadcasters, etc.

ok, thanks a lot for your suggestions sir.

[khazalid]

you know what i think?

i think we should eschew this lame duck hall of fame concept in favor of a model of reverence more akin to mt rushmore.

on the home page we erect a mountain of statues of the "cc greats", or "holy forebears". there would be say 4 forebears anointed to such cc greatness, or...

say if we agreed that 1 forebear stood out amongst all others, then we would just erect 4 statues of that cc hero, let's say, merely for arguments sake, 'blitzaholic', onto the mountain, and have each gaze upon the others admiringly.

and perhaps an odd sticky substance would ooze down the mountainside.

-

[Qwert]

1x no farming, what any player deems as farming or what CC says?

Map rank can very good to show you who is farmer.
Player who play over 500 or more games with huge majority of low ranked player(recruits,privates),in one map,its definitly farmer,and hes atention its focus,to defeat players who are new,and who are not familiar with some complex map.
Map rank will show you that.

[Blitzaholic]

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.

again, this would not work for CC.

should be during and after.

[Blitzaholic]

1x no farming, what any player deems as farming or what CC says?

Map rank can very good to show you who is farmer.
Player who play over 500 or more games with huge majority of low ranked player(recruits,privates),in one map,its definitly farmer,and hes atention its focus,to defeat players who are new,and who are not familiar with some complex map.
Map rank will show you that.

not really, high ranks could play tons of low ranks in clan challenges and tourneys all the time.

it would have to be the definition CC set forth as ? marks and not your opinion.

[Blitzaholic]

If CC ever decided to have a Hall of Fame, what do players think the criteria should be?

I was thinking like sports: stats, longevity as being two of them? Also took the suggestions of CC players ideas into consideration. We need 12 to 15 Jurors and some reserves. Blitzaholic manager of the operation.

I'm on the committee

ok, JR is 1 of them, need 11 more?

I like the idea of a Hall of Fame blitzy, and I agree with the requirements in general and I would consider being a juror if I was asked.

Lindax is 2, need 10 more?

I'm loyal and honest = )

Scott-Land is 3, need 9 more?

I'd help out on this conceptual committee, why not.

Incandenza is 4, need 8 more?

I'd be up for it

the.killing.44 is 5, need 7 more?

I'll help you out with the jury if you would like.

Chuuuuck is 6, need 6 more?

count me in

eye84free is 7, need 5 more?

I would be interested in being on a committee to nominate and vote.

HighlanderAttack is 8, need 4 more?

Well I haven't read it all yet but its sounds OK. Just let me know where to go.

barterer2002 is 9, need 3 more?

I would like to be on the committee.

TheOtherOne is 10, need 2 more?

If it makes sense to add me to the mix, than Im up for it.

AAFitz is 11, need 1 more?

comittee me..

hwhrhett is 12, full

Yeah, I'd be in for this.

reserve juror

hmmm if you need another.. id be willing to help...

reserve juror

I'd be happy to be involved, if no one had a problem with it. I think I'd be a pretty impartial judge and i've been around on cc since early 2007.

reserve juror

I would love to be a judge, if you would accept me despite my low rank.

reserve juror








these were the potential jurors, do you think we should scrap them all? how so we form an impartial committee?

[Qwert]

not really, high ranks could play tons of low ranks in clan challenges and tourneys all the time.

it would have to be the definition CC set forth as ? marks and not your opinion.

Hardly,do you play 500-1000 games in one map with low ranked players?
I think that these extreme playing use very small number of players,and its easy to notice.

[Blitzaholic]

I vote Blitz as the first hall of famer on CC, he meets all of the criteria I consider that is needed. Anyone second this? I know it's only my opinion but he has certainly showed his talent in games and forum contribution. I know there are many other worthy members but Blitz wins first place and many more to follow. We could name the award after him as many awards are named from legends of sport.. BLITZ AWARD.

Happy to join the committee as a current captain in my second year on CC and will be around for many years in the future.

86

Lets work on getting this implemented before we start handing out non-existant honors...

correct, let's just focus on the implementation process.

now, to less important things.
1- if we are going to establish this, we will need some sort of rules to get into jury. you will need fair and positive people. we cant have harsh people who will try to overlook someone just because they dont like him/her

2- i agree with HA. i think the only requirement for someone to be considered should be presence in CC for 3+ years. other then that i dont see anything that important. being conqueror? thats bullshit. ive been here for more then one year and all the conquerors have been freestyle players. and the list you have posted looks to me like HoF will be sort of NFL HoF. if you are good QB, you are automatically in. if you are WR/RB/TE/OL/DEF you need to be outstanding to get in.

3- to get into HoF, all the jurors have to give positive votes. one negative, and you are out.

4- all the candidates should be chosen by some kind of committee. jurors would only vote for them, others would applied them.

those are just some ideas

trying to come up with ideas for a fair juror, you have any?

[Blitzaholic]

not really, high ranks could play tons of low ranks in clan challenges and tourneys all the time.

it would have to be the definition CC set forth as ? marks and not your opinion.

Hardly,do you play 500-1000 games in one map with low ranked players?
I think that these extreme playing use very small number of players,and its easy to notice.

I disagree, and if CC has not banned a player for cheating or farming, then you should not either.

[Master Fenrir]

ok, thanks for your feedback, I need to update page one in a big, what I am asking is what do you think are some things we should look at for, is there anything you feel is real important we missed or you could add or for us to stress more importance of?

As far as player criteria goes, I have nothing additional to add. As far as your entire set-up goes, yes.

I didn't read FC's post yet, however, based on Killing's post, I'm assuming he said something along these lines.

1) You need 2 committees. The first to nominate players to the ballot, the second to act as judges and vote. One committee should be hand-picked, the other should be forum-voted. As it seems the judges have already been picked, I'd like to put my name up for vote for the second committee, should something like this happen, as I think it'd be fun doing the research.

If each committee consists of 12 people, each member of the first committee could each select two unique players, and then the 12 judges could select 3-5 of the 24 nominees each year to enter the Hall of Fame.

You'd probably need a private user group with private forum priveleges to work this all out, though I'm sure you've thought of that.

2) If you're going to do this, you do need two separate Halls. A Player's Hall of Fame and a Contributor's Hall of Fame for CC Staff, moderators in their various forms, map-makers, tournament organizers, script writers and other such people. The potential problem I see with this is, does it make the Special Contributions medal obsolete? I dunno, I'm thinking of jpcloet. He deserves something for the CLA.

3) More of a question : Should a player be elected to the Hall of Fame, how are they recognized? A Hall of Fame tab beside the Scoreboard? A medal? A tag under your name similar to the staff that says Hall of Famer? I like the tab or tag idea, personally.

[denominator]

I have no doubt that this group of "jurors" will be able to come up with a list of players for the Hall of Fame, and will likely come up with a list of players that would deserve to be in the hall of fame. However, you seem to have taken this as a personal quest, like many other threads in these same forums (1st 5s and Top 5s, Tournament Wins, Tournament Games, and Clandemonium all come to mind) where you are simply forcing something through the system at your pace rather than allowing CC to work it through at it's own collective pace. This is not to say that a Hall of Fame is a bad idea or that you shouldn't be the one running it, but you do need to slow down, step back, and look at what you are trying to accomplish with it. Right now, you are doing more harm to the idea than good.

denominator this is a topic that has been off and on discussed for about 3 years now, hence the 1st post says the year 2007. I do not think 3 years waiting for this to become possible is rushing anything.

Thank you for ignoring the bulk of my post to prove my point:

Many of your posts seem to blatantly ignore any suggestions made contrary to your belief of what the HoF should be.

Instead of countering many of the points I made, you ignored them and instead pointed out that the thread was started back in 2007.

This thread had 12 pages of posts through 2 years. In the past week it has had another 11. Of the nearly 150 posts in this past week, you have 49, often double and triple posting. You are rushing this through.

You continually ignore posts made contrary to your view and simply thank people for posting when they do support your ideas.

also, how do you suggest I choose a committee?

I'm not entirely sure when and where it became your job to choose a committee, but there are far better methods than simply whoever posts in the thread, or you inviting people to be committee members. Perhaps a public nomination?

This thread was inactive for a full year, and you brought it back. It's been discussed here, hotly, for the past week, and you're jumping to your own conclusions already, on what criteria should be and who the "jurors" should be.

There really should be no criteria that need to be met to get into the Hall of Fame. A Hall of Fame isn't like a list of top 5s or first 5s. It's a fluid list of the players deemed great. The only restriction should be if a player has been banned, or farmed, or broken any CC rules, making them ineligible. Beyond that, the best thing to do would be to have a list of "considerations" that the "jurors" are recommended to look at when choosing who gets into the Hall of Fame.

[HighlanderAttack]

Here is an idea:

15 jurors vote for 10 prospective Hall of Fame canidates

Then a poll is made with the 10 prospective Hall of Fame canidates


Then all of CC can vote

Top Five get in the Hall of Fame

Just trying to think outside the box

[Blitzaholic]

I have no doubt that this group of "jurors" will be able to come up with a list of players for the Hall of Fame, and will likely come up with a list of players that would deserve to be in the hall of fame. However, you seem to have taken this as a personal quest, like many other threads in these same forums (1st 5s and Top 5s, Tournament Wins, Tournament Games, and Clandemonium all come to mind) where you are simply forcing something through the system at your pace rather than allowing CC to work it through at it's own collective pace. This is not to say that a Hall of Fame is a bad idea or that you shouldn't be the one running it, but you do need to slow down, step back, and look at what you are trying to accomplish with it. Right now, you are doing more harm to the idea than good.

denominator this is a topic that has been off and on discussed for about 3 years now, hence the 1st post says the year 2007. I do not think 3 years waiting for this to become possible is rushing anything.

Thank you for ignoring the bulk of my post to prove my point:

Many of your posts seem to blatantly ignore any suggestions made contrary to your belief of what the HoF should be.

Instead of countering many of the points I made, you ignored them and instead pointed out that the thread was started back in 2007.

This thread had 12 pages of posts through 2 years. In the past week it has had another 11. Of the nearly 150 posts in this past week, you have 49, often double and triple posting. You are rushing this through.

You continually ignore posts made contrary to your view and simply thank people for posting when they do support your ideas.

also, how do you suggest I choose a committee?

I'm not entirely sure when and where it became your job to choose a committee, but there are far better methods than simply whoever posts in the thread, or you inviting people to be committee members. Perhaps a public nomination?

This thread was inactive for a full year, and you brought it back. It's been discussed here, hotly, for the past week, and you're jumping to your own conclusions already, on what criteria should be and who the "jurors" should be.

There really should be no criteria that need to be met to get into the Hall of Fame. A Hall of Fame isn't like a list of top 5s or first 5s. It's a fluid list of the players deemed great. The only restriction should be if a player has been banned, or farmed, or broken any CC rules, making them ineligible. Beyond that, the best thing to do would be to have a list of "considerations" that the "jurors" are recommended to look at when choosing who gets into the Hall of Fame.

well, this is why we need more form the cc community to post ideas. I brought it back up again, because it was left alone for quite awhile. I like the discussion of many getting involved. Thx for you input, so no criteria form you, just no bans, will add that. thx again for your time.

[Blitzaholic]

ok, thanks for your feedback, I need to update page one in a big, what I am asking is what do you think are some things we should look at for, is there anything you feel is real important we missed or you could add or for us to stress more importance of?

As far as player criteria goes, I have nothing additional to add. As far as your entire set-up goes, yes.

I didn't read FC's post yet, however, based on Killing's post, I'm assuming he said something along these lines.

1) You need 2 committees. The first to nominate players to the ballot, the second to act as judges and vote. One committee should be hand-picked, the other should be forum-voted. As it seems the judges have already been picked, I'd like to put my name up for vote for the second committee, should something like this happen, as I think it'd be fun doing the research.

If each committee consists of 12 people, each member of the first committee could each select two unique players, and then the 12 judges could select 3-5 of the 24 nominees each year to enter the Hall of Fame.

You'd probably need a private user group with private forum priveleges to work this all out, though I'm sure you've thought of that.

2) If you're going to do this, you do need two separate Halls. A Player's Hall of Fame and a Contributor's Hall of Fame for CC Staff, moderators in their various forms, map-makers, tournament organizers, script writers and other such people. The potential problem I see with this is, does it make the Special Contributions medal obsolete? I dunno, I'm thinking of jpcloet. He deserves something for the CLA.

3) More of a question : Should a player be elected to the Hall of Fame, how are they recognized? A Hall of Fame tab beside the Scoreboard? A medal? A tag under your name similar to the staff that says Hall of Famer? I like the tab or tag idea, personally.

ok, so you are suggesting I hand pick one committee of 12? then put the other committee of 12 up for a cc vote on a poll?

[Blitzaholic]

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

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

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

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

no, that's fine, it is good to have some fun, but if either of you have some ideas or suggestions to help improve this, post away, feel free.

[trapyoung]

I'm on the committee

ok, JR is 1 of them, need 11 more?

I like the idea of a Hall of Fame blitzy, and I agree with the requirements in general and I would consider being a juror if I was asked.

Lindax is 2, need 10 more?

I'm loyal and honest = )

Scott-Land is 3, need 9 more?

I'd help out on this conceptual committee, why not.

Incandenza is 4, need 8 more?

I'd be up for it

the.killing.44 is 5, need 7 more?

I'll help you out with the jury if you would like.

Chuuuuck is 6, need 6 more?

count me in

eye84free is 7, need 5 more?

I would be interested in being on a committee to nominate and vote.

HighlanderAttack is 8, need 4 more?

Well I haven't read it all yet but its sounds OK. Just let me know where to go.

barterer2002 is 9, need 3 more?

I would like to be on the committee.

TheOtherOne is 10, need 2 more?

If it makes sense to add me to the mix, than Im up for it.

AAFitz is 11, need 1 more?

comittee me..

hwhrhett is 12, full

Yeah, I'd be in for this.

reserve juror

hmmm if you need another.. id be willing to help...

reserve juror

I'd be happy to be involved, if no one had a problem with it. I think I'd be a pretty impartial judge and i've been around on cc since early 2007.

reserve juror

I would love to be a judge, if you would accept me despite my low rank.

reserve juror

It's like the Fellowship of the Ring... that turned out fine... right?

[Master Fenrir]

ok, so you are suggesting I hand pick one committee of 12? then put the other committee of 12 up for a cc vote on a poll?

Yes. I'm find with the judges hand-picked as they are. In my opinion, the other committee should be selected by doing the following:

1) A thread is made in the GD. It explains what the job is and that it will require time, research, and committment. It explains that a committee member nominating his friend BumblyJoe123 won't fly and this is serious bi'ness. The thread is left open for 1-2 days, asking for serious volunteers.

2) The thread is locked/altered or a new thread is started. This thread is a poll with the name of EVERY player who volunteered (depending on how big the polls are capable of getting, I'm not sure). The first post also has them name-linked to thier profile so voters can check out the candidates. Voters should be allowed to cast a few votes, but not many. Say 3?

3) The poll is then left open for some time...maybe even a week for those who only play weekdays/weekends, and then locked.

4) The top twelve vote-recipients become the Nomination Committee.

[denominator]

well, this is why we need more form the cc community to post ideas. I brought it back up again, because it was left alone for quite awhile. I like the discussion of many getting involved. Thx for you input, so no criteria form you, just no bans, will add that. thx again for your time.

This would be my recommendation of how to run it:

You need an odd number of jurors greater than 10. 15 sounds about right to me. I haven't entirely devised a system of selecting jurors, but I know "post here if you want to be a juror", or you inviting people to be jurors is not the right way.

Secondly, you take your list of criteria (all of it) and rank it by importance. This is a community decision and what this thread is about. Then form it as questions for the jurors. For instance,

1) Is the player a good sport?
2) Has the player ever reached 3000+ points?
2a) If no, what was the highest point level reached?
3) Has the player ever been Conquerer?
4) Has the player been a premium member for the majority of his/her career?
5) Has the player won any tournaments?

And so on and so forth down your list of criteria.

Then, decide a timeline on which people will be voted into the Hall of Fame. Will it be 5 players yearly, 10 players yearly, 20 players yearly, 5 players monthly, 5 players weekly, 1 player daily, etc. You can't just enter a pile of players at any time - set up a clear and readily available timeline.

Now, start a usergroup for your jurors that you selected in step 1. This isn't a clan, so anyone would be eligible to be a juror. Each week, or month, or year (decided above), allow ANYONE on CC to nominate ANYONE for Hall of Fame. If I feel like nominating KingOfGods, I can, and if I feel like nominating Driftwood 747, I can (if you're wondering who these two are, check out the scoreboard). I would set a rule that each player can only nominate one person per nomination period, and if the same player gets nominated more than once it is irrelevant (see below).

At the end of your nomination period, you take the list of nominated players and hand it to the jurors. The have their own private forum to discuss and deliberate over each of the criteria that the CC public laid out, and then they will select the top X players that will be inducted (decided above). Then it goes public who is in the Hall of Fame.

This is a rigid timeline with non-rigid criteria. I will agree that the criteria are important, but they should be flexible to allow players who excel at CC in different aspects to qualify to the Hall of Fame. As it stands now, you have rigid criteria with a flexible timeline and questionable jurors.

As I see it, this thread needs to have two things come out of it. 1) A fair method for selecting jurors, and 2) A list of criteria, ranked by importance.

[Blitzaholic]

well, this is why we need more form the cc community to post ideas. I brought it back up again, because it was left alone for quite awhile. I like the discussion of many getting involved. Thx for you input, so no criteria form you, just no bans, will add that. thx again for your time.

This would be my recommendation of how to run it:

You need an odd number of jurors greater than 10. 15 sounds about right to me. I haven't entirely devised a system of selecting jurors, but I know "post here if you want to be a juror", or you inviting people to be jurors is not the right way.

Secondly, you take your list of criteria (all of it) and rank it by importance. This is a community decision and what this thread is about. Then form it as questions for the jurors. For instance,

1) Is the player a good sport?
2) Has the player ever reached 3000+ points?
2a) If no, what was the highest point level reached?
3) Has the player ever been Conquerer?
4) Has the player been a premium member for the majority of his/her career?
5) Has the player won any tournaments?

And so on and so forth down your list of criteria.

Then, decide a timeline on which people will be voted into the Hall of Fame. Will it be 5 players yearly, 10 players yearly, 20 players yearly, 5 players monthly, 5 players weekly, 1 player daily, etc. You can't just enter a pile of players at any time - set up a clear and readily available timeline.

Now, start a usergroup for your jurors that you selected in step 1. This isn't a clan, so anyone would be eligible to be a juror. Each week, or month, or year (decided above), allow ANYONE on CC to nominate ANYONE for Hall of Fame. If I feel like nominating KingOfGods, I can, and if I feel like nominating Driftwood 747, I can (if you're wondering who these two are, check out the scoreboard). I would set a rule that each player can only nominate one person per nomination period, and if the same player gets nominated more than once it is irrelevant (see below).

At the end of your nomination period, you take the list of nominated players and hand it to the jurors. The have their own private forum to discuss and deliberate over each of the criteria that the CC public laid out, and then they will select the top X players that will be inducted (decided above). Then it goes public who is in the Hall of Fame.

This is a rigid timeline with non-rigid criteria. I will agree that the criteria are important, but they should be flexible to allow players who excel at CC in different aspects to qualify to the Hall of Fame. As it stands now, you have rigid criteria with a flexible timeline and questionable jurors.

As I see it, this thread needs to have two things come out of it. 1) A fair method for selecting jurors, and 2) A list of criteria, ranked by importance.

ok denominator, those are great suggestions, thanks so much, this is what I have been trying to accomplish the whole time. Your idea is a lot more open then what I had though, because I didn't just want anyone to be on committee, but, cc players thta are honest and respectable, so anyone would not cut it.