[Charan]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

I've always felt that the HoF process could be more systematic. I've never liked the fact that it seemed to be led primarily by nomination threads. Nomination threads should be a part of it, but should not be the primary basis of it. The issue with nomination threads is that, not only is it a popularity contest, it is skewed in favor of what is freshest in people's minds, and a lot of people's memories don't go back as far as is sometimes necessary to ensure that the right people make it into the Hall of Fame at the right time. What we need is a way of weighing HoF nominations against other HoF nominations. We should keep it only for battle related accomplishments. There are plenty of other ways to acknowledge people who have made an impact over the years. There are the LetsBeef Promoter, Forum Top Poster, Great Thinker, and Donor awards. We can even create a new award if we don't think some people quite fit into these. But battling is the site's core activity, and the Hall of Fame should reflect that.
If I were to overhaul the HoF process, I would first start by reducing it to either one or two per year for each category (text, audio, tracks) instead of one each month as the current schedule indicates.
We only have two grand championships each year but a new Hall of Famer is inducted each month? That basically makes it easier to get into the Hall of Fame than to win a grand championship in certain regards. It shouldn't be like that. The whole point of the HoF is that it is something to be coveted, so inductions should be a lot more rare.
How long candidates have been members and how long they were active should be a factor. I've seen some people inducted where, even though they deserved it or would've deserved it eventually, were inducted way before others who had accomplished similar things but who aren't fresh in the site's memory.
There should be a points system similar to the "Greatest of Champions" thread where points are given for each factor (battle accomplishments, length of membership, site impact, or whatever other factor we decide to add). Nomination threads can also earn someone points, but it shouldn't weigh more than those other factors. Then when it's time to induct the one or two people for that category that year, everyone who was nominated in the category should have their points weighed against each other before we decide who to nominate that year.

Perfectly stated.

[Charan]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

I've always felt that the HoF process could be more systematic. I've never liked the fact that it seemed to be led primarily by nomination threads. Nomination threads should be a part of it, but should not be the primary basis of it. The issue with nomination threads is that, not only is it a popularity contest, it is skewed in favor of what is freshest in people's minds, and a lot of people's memories don't go back as far as is sometimes necessary to ensure that the right people make it into the Hall of Fame at the right time. What we need is a way of weighing HoF nominations against other HoF nominations. We should keep it only for battle related accomplishments. There are plenty of other ways to acknowledge people who have made an impact over the years. There are the LetsBeef Promoter, Forum Top Poster, Great Thinker, and Donor awards. We can even create a new award if we don't think some people quite fit into these. But battling is the site's core activity, and the Hall of Fame should reflect that.
If I were to overhaul the HoF process, I would first start by reducing it to either one or two per year for each category (text, audio, tracks) instead of one each month as the current schedule indicates.
We only have two grand championships each year but a new Hall of Famer is inducted each month? That basically makes it easier to get into the Hall of Fame than to win a grand championship in certain regards. It shouldn't be like that. The whole point of the HoF is that it is something to be coveted, so inductions should be a lot more rare.
How long candidates have been members and how long they were active should be a factor. I've seen some people inducted where, even though they deserved it or would've deserved it eventually, were inducted way before others who had accomplished similar things but who aren't fresh in the site's memory.
There should be a points system similar to the "Greatest of Champions" thread where points are given for each factor (battle accomplishments, length of membership, site impact, or whatever other factor we decide to add). Nomination threads can also earn someone points, but it shouldn't weigh more than those other factors. Then when it's time to induct the one or two people for that category that year, everyone who was nominated in the category should have their points weighed against each other before we decide who to nominate that year.

Perfectly stated.