Originally Posted by Kiwi Peewee

I think the problem with having a cut-and-dry points system is that every era has been wildly different as far as how easy points would have been to earn. I think something like HOF needs to be subjective.

For instance, Bobby Milk's induction page is all about how he was a marquee battler who was wildly famous and memorable at the time he was active. If we say for argument's sake this is true, I think this would make him worthy of HOF, because in his era there were very few tournaments, and most of the site's key activity seemed to happen in the basic arena. Conversely, in our current era tournaments are way more common and have become basically the only competitive part of the site where serious battles everyone takes seriously go down (with the possible exception of the PPV cards). Anyone qualifying for HOF from our era would have to have won multiple titles to be taken seriously at all qualifying. Edgeworth has already got more titles than DaDDiO and Illimit put together, and while he's future HOF in my eyes he definitely hasn't done enough yet, although DaDDiO and Illimit are two of the most clear-cut Hall of Famers you can imagine.

I do think the HOF needs a more transparent and structured approach though. Is it for the people who have had the most memorable impact on the site? The people who have had the most success? The people who have written the best bars of their time?

First of all, I'd like to thank you for responding without wetting yourself like some people.

Second. You make some fair points. But the way I see it, it's unfair for the guys who dominated back in the day and gets overlooked by the new wave of members. Personally I think @Manhattan should be HOF.. @Celcius if he wins the GC should be HOF. Mani Mula if hes not already should be HOF... Just C should be HOF...

Basically the only way to get HOF is win like 5-6 titles. That shits wack imo. Not everyone's going to do that especially since were only limited to like 1 and a half GCs a year each format

Originally Posted by Kiwi Peewee

I think the problem with having a cut-and-dry points system is that every era has been wildly different as far as how easy points would have been to earn. I think something like HOF needs to be subjective.

For instance, Bobby Milk's induction page is all about how he was a marquee battler who was wildly famous and memorable at the time he was active. If we say for argument's sake this is true, I think this would make him worthy of HOF, because in his era there were very few tournaments, and most of the site's key activity seemed to happen in the basic arena. Conversely, in our current era tournaments are way more common and have become basically the only competitive part of the site where serious battles everyone takes seriously go down (with the possible exception of the PPV cards). Anyone qualifying for HOF from our era would have to have won multiple titles to be taken seriously at all qualifying. Edgeworth has already got more titles than DaDDiO and Illimit put together, and while he's future HOF in my eyes he definitely hasn't done enough yet, although DaDDiO and Illimit are two of the most clear-cut Hall of Famers you can imagine.

I do think the HOF needs a more transparent and structured approach though. Is it for the people who have had the most memorable impact on the site? The people who have had the most success? The people who have written the best bars of their time?

First of all, I'd like to thank you for responding without wetting yourself like some people.

Second. You make some fair points. But the way I see it, it's unfair for the guys who dominated back in the day and gets overlooked by the new wave of members. Personally I think @Manhattan should be HOF.. @Celcius if he wins the GC should be HOF. Mani Mula if hes not already should be HOF... Just C should be HOF...

Basically the only way to get HOF is win like 5-6 titles. That shits wack imo. Not everyone's going to do that especially since were only limited to like 1 and a half GCs a year each format