[Unofficial] HALL OF FAME

[Incandenza]

To be honest, 15 judges would work fine. But if you're going to go with 12, then, well, I'll withdraw. It would look bad for a full third of the panel to all come from one clan.

[Blitzaholic]

To be honest, 15 judges would work fine. But if you're going to go with 12, then, well, I'll withdraw. It would look bad for a full third of the panel to all come from one clan.

In a sense that don't matter Inc., the players that make it speak for themselves, they just need to meet a majority of the 12 criteria which I provided below. This thread is almost 3 years old. The 12 jurors would research the candidates and see which ones meet the most criteria, it could be up to 7 to 10 players, and it could range from like 1 to 5 candidates per year that make it in. My hope was that this be done in a private user group forum called Hall of Fame, it would be comprised of the 12, or maybe 15 jurors. ALL jurors would look at the names selected in privacy and all review how many criteria each one meets, you would all compare notes to prove the accuracy, then after you 12 talked it over, you would post to the public what 2 or what 3 you choose this year to make CC HOF. The names that did not make it automatically get rolled over into next year along with some new ones.

HERE is the 12 criteria:

1. Longevity: played minimum of 2 years

2. Hit Score of 3500 + @ least 1x

3. Made 1st 5 and Top 5 lists

4. Maintained RANK for long time

5. Membership status of Premium a vast majority of time

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

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.

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

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

10. CC players who played Tournaments and Won @ least 1

11. Obtained Conquerer or # 1 on Scoreboard

12. Versitile, demonstrates greatness in a plethera of game plays and gaming styles, on many maps


I do not think CC players would have to meet all the criteria, but, I think they should meet at least 9 or 10.

[hwhrhett]

i foresee problems as at least a few jurors belong in the hall of fame, what of this?

[Gold Knight]

Like the idea of this, not sure i'd have the longevity here to make such informed decisions but think that some players should be recognized beyond a medal that everyone can achieve. The only thing I was wondering about is whether players need to still be active to gain entrance, as retired sports players also receive the honor, but in CC retired players wont be able to recognize it. Also need to make sure this panel has basically been here since the beginning, and i think the same type of versatility needs to be held by the panel.Wouldnt really be logical to have a majority of team-game-judges weighing in on singles/assassin/term players.

Look forward to seeing where this goes, as i really am not a big fan of medals as they are too abundant and easy to achieve, and think symbols should be held for those that are truly worthy of the honors...

[Chuuuuck]

A few things to note. I think 15 judges is too many, but I also like the idea of having an odd number to help in deciding votes, unless we are going to say it has to come to a unanimous decision. I also think some might feel the judges panel is bias if 1/3 of them comes from the same clan.

I think it would be very cool if hall of fame players could get their name highlighted in games like a mod is but maybe a different color in addition to just a medal. Make it very prestigious and recognizable.

I think a cool way to handle nominations so it stays on peoples mind and is always something to talk about is make it where the panel and the community as a whole can each nominate a player once per month (say on the first of the month). The community nomination can be by a vote with a poll and then the panel can pick their own nominee however they want. I think yearly inductions is too far apart. Maybe induct every 6 months. So this way you have 12 nominees and then the panel would discuss and let in 3 of them, maybe 4 (this number is debatable).

I think most of the criteria for being let in is pretty good. I will think about it some more and see if I have any more ideas.

If one of the judges panel is up for nominations then I think we could have "alternate judges" that would feel their spot during that time period.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

"I also could do this another way. Have you all look at page 1 at the criteria????? Do you have any suggestions to make the eligibility requirements better? Anything I should delete or add"?

this should apply to the judges too.

1- 3 year member min.
2- very active on forums
3-
4-
5-

[Blitzaholic]

so you are saying we should have a criteria for jurors as well as for hall of famers? we also probably should have reserve jurors? The criteria is all their for the candidates eligibility. all the jurors need to do is come up with like 7 to 10 names, post them in a hidden user group forum, then those 12 jurors research them players going by the criteria here, you all compare notes and see how many meet them and discuss. I would also be in the user group as the manager or supervisor, whatever, something like that, but, I would not be involved in the voting, I could maybe be reserve if someone did not show to help post ideas. I would be there to lend support, give out stats, help resolve conflicts if any arise, etc.

[Blitzaholic]

A few things to note. I think 15 judges is too many, but I also like the idea of having an odd number to help in deciding votes, unless we are going to say it has to come to a unanimous decision. I also think some might feel the judges panel is bias if 1/3 of them comes from the same clan.

you must of missed the posts above, like I shared with george, inc, now you chuuuuck, it is based on the 12 criteria that mnay posted in here for years, so really matters none if there was 6 from one clan. What is more important it we have 12 that have a lot of CC experience. This is NOT a popularity contest, you 12 jurors evaluate the the hall of fame candidates and if they meet like 10 or more of the 12, it does not matter if you like them or not, they would be in. make sense now? The 12 jurors would all help each other to make sure a player that makes the hall of fame is accurate and truthful, so you need to review the 12 criteria for eligibility, study that, then go from there.

i foresee problems as at least a few jurors belong in the hall of fame, what of this?

This is why we would need some reserve jurors and the ones that were elected would sit out of the panel that time.

[Agent 86]

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

[Fruitcake]

1. Longevity: played minimum of 2 years

2. Hit Score of 3500 + @ least 1x

3. Made 1st 5 and Top 5 lists

4. Maintained RANK for long time

5. Membership status of Premium a vast majority of time

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

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.

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

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

10. CC players who played Tournaments and Won @ least 1

11. Obtained Conquerer or # 1 on Scoreboard

12. Versitile, demonstrates greatness in a plethera of game plays and gaming styles, on many maps

WOW- blitz you only missing medal for map making,and your road to become member of hall of fame will be open

you forgot self puffery qwert

[Gold Knight]

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...

[chipv]

I vote Blitz for CC President and general nice guy.

But seriously it should be called Hall of Blitz.

(You need 12 judges for this millionth occurrence of self-aggrandizing threads? Hilarious)

The criteria at best are vague and unqualified, nobody actually qualifies at the moment.
I think if the criteria are tweaked enough, we can get Blitz in there!

[freakns]

all right, as i said to you in PM, im interested if that brings me closer to see Natashas panties!

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

[Blitzaholic]

chip the criteria for HOF was from many players ideas, pm;s and posts in this thread. You do realize the start of this ideas was the year 2007 and the foundation of criteria had been laid down with many members of cc. Is there some criteria you would like to add? Did we miss some things? I know I need to update it, because the last update of this was about one year ago.

here was last years criteria:

1. Longevity: played minimum of 2 years

2. Hit Score of 3500 + @ least 1x

3. Made 1st 5 and Top 5 lists

4. Maintained RANK for long time

5. Membership status of Premium a vast majority of time

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

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.

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

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

10. CC players who played Tournaments and Won @ least 1

11. Obtained Conquerer or # 1 on Scoreboard

12. Versitile, demonstrates greatness in a plethera of game plays and gaming styles, on many maps


I do not think CC players would have to meet all the criteria, but, I think they should meet at least 9 or 10.


with some inflation, I propose this update for criteria:

1. Longevity: played minimum of 2.5 to 3 years

2. Hit Score of 3500 + @ least 1x

3. Made a 1st 5 and Top 5 list of some sort

4. Maintained high RANK for long time

5. Membership status of Premium a vast majority of time

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

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.

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

9. Medals of 35+ and held a reasonable high score in the process

10. CC players who played Tournaments and Won @ least 1

11. Obtained Conquerer or # 1 on Scoreboard

12. Versatile, demonstrates greatness in a plethera of game plays and gaming styles, on many maps


I do not think CC players would have to meet all the criteria, but, I think they should meet at least 9 or 10.

[Lindax]

Hey Blitz,

I don't want to discuss the criteria because I may become a juror. I have one proposal though, how about something like: The nominee can not have been busted or banned?

In general I also think it may be a good idea to find somebody to re-write the criteria in a more official language (no offense Blitz ). I think some are not exact enough. I'd give it a try, but you'd get a mixture of Spanish, Dutch and Japanese....

Lx

Oops, forgot something: Obviously a juror cannot vote for or against himself/herself (where are the lady-jurors?). If you have 15 people why not take 12 and have 3 reserve jurors?

Lx

[jpcloet]

I propose this update for criteria:

2. Hit Score of 3500 + @ least 1x
3. Made a 1st 5 and Top 5 list of some sort
4. Maintained high RANK for long time
5. Membership status of Premium a vast majority of time
9. Medals of 35+ and held a reasonable high score in the process
10. CC players who played Tournaments and Won @ least 1
11. Obtained Conquerer or # 1 on Scoreboard

2. Many top players don't even aim to get points, you value points wayyy too much
3. Most of the top 5 lists are yours, again something only you seem to value
4. High is subjective
5. Difficult to prove
9. Medal hunting is greatness?
10. Why do you have to play tournaments?
11. This is complete BS, again valuing points more than everything else.

If you are going to do this, you should have categories

1. Players
2. Forum
3. Buildiers

[Blitzaholic]

Hey Blitz,

I don't want to discuss the criteria because I may become a juror. I have one proposal though, how about something like: The nominee can not have been busted or banned?

In general I also think it may be a good idea to find somebody to re-write the criteria in a more official language (no offense Blitz ). I think some are not exact enough. I'd give it a try, but you'd get a mixture of Spanish, Dutch and Japanese....

Lx

Oops, forgot something: Obviously a juror cannot vote for or against himself/herself (where are the lady-jurors?). If you have 15 people why not take 12 and have 3 reserve jurors?

Lx

ok, I suppose we could have 15, good suggestions Lx.

go ahead and make some suggestions for the criteria, I am open.

I encourage all to post criteria for eligibility into the CC HOF.

[Qwert]

you forgot self puffery qwert

i dont know what this mean?

Well blitz i think that you need to have one supreme rule:

1A.If map rank show farming,player its automatic off.

[Georgerx7di]

I propose this update for criteria:

2. Hit Score of 3500 + @ least 1x
3. Made a 1st 5 and Top 5 list of some sort
4. Maintained high RANK for long time
5. Membership status of Premium a vast majority of time
9. Medals of 35+ and held a reasonable high score in the process
10. CC players who played Tournaments and Won @ least 1
11. Obtained Conquerer or # 1 on Scoreboard

2. Many top players don't even aim to get points, you value points wayyy too much
3. Most of the top 5 lists are yours, again something only you seem to value
4. High is subjective
5. Difficult to prove
9. Medal hunting is greatness?
10. Why do you have to play tournaments?
11. This is complete BS, again valuing points more than everything else.

If you are going to do this, you should have categories

1. Players
2. Forum
3. Buildiers

I think #10 is valid JP. You have to accomplish something to get into the hall of fame, a tourney is something, it takes some skill. Ultimately there is no one goal for a player on cc, not like winning the masters or the superbowl, so it is hard to say if a player is a great player. Most of your criticism I agree with, but #10 I think has some value.

Also, I would like to see the hall of fame be a place for "good players", not just a place to congratulate people for all the peripheral contributions. Those are great, but does anyone really care about a sport caster being in the hall of fame, not really, people look for the players.

[Georgerx7di]

Here are some criteria that I would want to see.

65%+ in dubs with gold dubs medal.
65%+ in trips with gold medal.
65%+ in quads with gold medal.
22%+ in 6 players standard games with gold medal
22%+ in 6 player terminator with silver medal
22%+ in 6 player assasin with silver medal.

(there could be some sort of table, if most of your standard games are 8 player, then something like 18 or 19% would be the mark maybe).

Has reach the top 100 on the scoreboard.
Has won 5 tourneys.

A person wouldn't have to meet all of these, maybe most of them. Just some ideas, but I think win percentage by game type is valuable. I think having been conqueror could be one, but I understand the argument against it. There are a bunch of great players who have never been above 3,500, simply because they don't focus on points.

[Lindax]

Here are some criteria that I would want to see.

65%+ in dubs with gold dubs medal.
65%+ in trips with gold medal.
65%+ in quads with gold medal.
22%+ in 6 players standard games with gold medal
22%+ in 6 player terminator with silver medal
22%+ in 6 player assasin with silver medal.

(there could be some sort of table, if most of your standard games are 8 player, then something like 18 or 19% would be the mark maybe).

Has reach the top 100 on the scoreboard.
Has won 5 tourneys.

A person wouldn't have to meet all of these, maybe most of them. Just some ideas, but I think win percentage by game type is valuable. I think having been conqueror could be one, but I understand the argument against it. There are a bunch of great players who have never been above 3,500, simply because they don't focus on points.

You may be forgetting one thing, like most seem to do: You do not need to comply with every single requisite, out of 12 for example, 10 would be enough to be considered....

Lx

[TheOtherOne]

Here are some criteria that I would want to see.

65%+ in dubs with gold dubs medal.
65%+ in trips with gold medal.
65%+ in quads with gold medal.
22%+ in 6 players standard games with gold medal
22%+ in 6 player terminator with silver medal
22%+ in 6 player assasin with silver medal.

(there could be some sort of table, if most of your standard games are 8 player, then something like 18 or 19% would be the mark maybe).

Has reach the top 100 on the scoreboard.
Has won 5 tourneys.

A person wouldn't have to meet all of these, maybe most of them. Just some ideas, but I think win percentage by game type is valuable. I think having been conqueror could be one, but I understand the argument against it. There are a bunch of great players who have never been above 3,500, simply because they don't focus on points.

The win percentage is a good idea, but i would have to say that we shouldn't split them up by games, but rather we should just take into account an over-all win percentage will suffice. 65% overall is a good start.
wining 5 tournys in to much, maybe 2 or 3.

New criteria

1> 20+ win streak
2>500+ forum post
3> currently active

[Bones2484]

The win percentage is a good idea, but i would have to say that we shouldn't split them up by games, but rather we should just take into account an over-all win percentage will suffice. 65% overall is a good start.
wining 5 tournys in to much, maybe 2 or 3.

I really don't care about the HoF at all (and agree with Chip/jp's comments), but just wanted to say that using "overall win percentage" is pure garbage. It will be inflated for 1v1 players and lower for anyone else. George's percentages accounted for playing larger-scale games.

Unless the whole point of this is to reward players who farmed to the top, of course (as a majority of the criteria are dependent on point gain).

[slowreactor]

I propose this update for criteria:

2. Hit Score of 3500 + @ least 1x
3. Made a 1st 5 and Top 5 list of some sort
4. Maintained high RANK for long time
5. Membership status of Premium a vast majority of time
9. Medals of 35+ and held a reasonable high score in the process
10. CC players who played Tournaments and Won @ least 1
11. Obtained Conquerer or # 1 on Scoreboard

2. Many top players don't even aim to get points, you value points wayyy too much
3. Most of the top 5 lists are yours, again something only you seem to value
4. High is subjective
5. Difficult to prove
9. Medal hunting is greatness?
10. Why do you have to play tournaments?
11. This is complete BS, again valuing points more than everything else.

If you are going to do this, you should have categories

1. Players
2. Forum
3. Buildiers

I agree with jp. It almost seems as if everyone's getting wrapped up over the best PLAYERS, but we're completely forgetting the strongest forum contributors. Think about it this way: The baseball hall of fame doesn't just have the best players in history, it also has the best managers, executives, and those who changed baseball history. So why should we just limit ourselves to one aspect of CC?

[the.killing.44]

I propose this update for criteria:

2. Hit Score of 3500 + @ least 1x
3. Made a 1st 5 and Top 5 list of some sort
4. Maintained high RANK for long time
5. Membership status of Premium a vast majority of time
9. Medals of 35+ and held a reasonable high score in the process
10. CC players who played Tournaments and Won @ least 1
11. Obtained Conquerer or # 1 on Scoreboard

2. Many top players don't even aim to get points, you value points wayyy too much
3. Most of the top 5 lists are yours, again something only you seem to value
4. High is subjective
5. Difficult to prove
9. Medal hunting is greatness?
10. Why do you have to play tournaments?
11. This is complete BS, again valuing points more than everything else.

If you are going to do this, you should have categories

1. Players
2. Forum
3. Buildiers

I agree with jp. It almost seems as if everyone's getting wrapped up over the best PLAYERS, but we're completely forgetting the strongest forum contributors. Think about it this way: The baseball hall of fame doesn't just have the best players in history, it also has the best managers, executives, and those who changed baseball history. So why should we just limit ourselves to one aspect of CC?

Forum- or Community-based contributors have the Special Contribution medal lack hands out.