So you're telling me that when I eventually get nominated for the HoF that my @Danny Tanner account gets a nice little HoF title added to it, too, all because it's the same person?

That's the issue I have with this: Danny has jack shit on that account, but it has the same person writing the bars on it. Why then should it have a HoF title? If anything, that devalues the title itself by having it on multi accounts with nothing in terms of accomplishment.

Back.....the fuck......UPPPPP

You're Danny Tanner??? :eek:

See this is exactly my point: I use Danny to drop some TROLLISH scheme verses. No one associates it with me because everyone knows damn well I don't write like that, but since it's the same person, it's eligible for the HoF??? Nah.

So you're telling me that the entire HOF title has been in absolute ruins for years because both Revan and RULE have a title at the same time?

Whether you agree with it or not, it's been like that for a decade. You either wish to create a new rule entirely due to this Punk situation and remove their HOF titles....or just uphold the rule (which of course yous wouldn't do, because we wouldn't need a thread then right?).

I think a new rule should be put into effect to combat this then.

If you want to be Hall of Fame, you must choose 1 account for the title, and all others get deleted.

This ensures that people will think twice before begging for HOF because they know they can't have 4-5 accounts magically pop up with HOF spots. And it also adds credibility to the account being enshrined, almost the same as a blue verified tick on Instagram or Twitter. If they can't survive in this world without their 5-6 multis accounts, then they can't be HOF. It's a great honor, and a great sacrifice at the same time.

This has nothing to do with Revan and RULE. It's the Stobbart and Wargrave accounts I'm using as an example.

And just because it's been like that for a decade doesn't mean it has been right for a decade. The Punk situation turned in to something that isn't even the main point of this conversation, tbh. Keep in mind, I'm one of the folks who voted yes on his induction and still think he deserves it because his induction is for Track, not Text or Audio.

That's the part where I see issue with Stobbart, Wargrave, MahVulus, and So Amazin in the HoF: The accounts from RULE and Meta4 that actually accomplished something (RULE, Revan, Meta4) are the ones that deserve the HoF title. Not the multis that have an unspectacular resume to them or almost no resume to them at all.

Or how about when the discussion on punk was happening the staff team where not around the time the HOF was initiated and had absolutely no idea or remembered that RULE (& other old heads)has HOF across 4 accounts?

Rather than generalising everyone under the ‘staff umbrella’ trying to create a conspiracy theory as you’ve always done, consider that different people had different beliefs about HOF then and different people have different beliefs now. ‘Regimes’ change and with that comes a different perspective of things.

Imagine thinking the current mod team is somehow responsible for the RULE/UA decisions made at the time.

Mod teams change. Views on things change. I don’t see what’s wrong with changing rules? (If that’s what we decide to do), like, why is that negative? Why is it better to continue a tradition just because it exists even if it makes no sense?

Sorry Hall of Famers, because Punk isn't allowed in the HOF anymore yous have to lose your titles.

You know you’re stretching this just to troll.