HOF?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Excuse my Alzheimzers, but isn't HOF at this time of the year?

[FactionHeir]

Actually earlier.
I think I told sapi about it a week or so back and was told that the staff had actually forgotten about it.

Needless to say after that reminder, sapi our hardworking and caring mod has banded up with the honorable KukriKhan to bring us this (well, last) year's HoF as soon as TosaInu approves of it.

[CountArach]

Sounds good!

I realised we were missing it when I was organising something similar on another forum.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
When nominating stories/AARs please make sure these ones aren't left out.
.

[Bijo]

HOF? That is the Hall of Fame award, correct? Whenever I check(ed) those awards I never really saw much of descriptions or requirements. So what are they exactly all about? Can someone provide a good explanation?

[UltraWar]

Hopefully I actually win something.

[FactionHeir]

HOF? That is the Hall of Fame award, correct? Whenever I check(ed) those awards I never really saw much of descriptions or requirements. So what are they exactly all about? Can someone provide a good explanation?

They are awarded to anyone (outside of Junior Members) who is nominated and subsequently voted as the most deserving in a category. The categories seem to change slightly each year in that regard.
They are usually something along the lines of "most helpful" "best contributor" etc and are thus relatively subjective.
When judging a member or higher for those awards, one should consider any contribution (positive and negative) they have made over the last year (i.e. 01.01.2007 - 31.12.2007), not outside of those bounds, although that is not always easy when you come to think of it.

[Bijo]

Thanks.

So what exactly would be seen as "good contributions" to, for instance, receive "best contributor"?

And am I correct to assume that -- showing a simple example -- if a member has made one good contribution this would count as a +(1) and that if he or she also made a bad contribution this would count, logically, as a -(1), therefore the negative one would negate the positive one and state a contribution of 0?

So suppose someone made a thousand good contributions (+1000) but he or she did not behave well at certain times, made some bad contributions, and this together has a value of -- let' say for example -- -740 the member would have had a so-called "score" of +260? And the higher the "score" the more probability one would have to receive such an award?

[FactionHeir]

Well, yes and no.
Its up to everyone to decide for themselves whether someone merits the nomination/vote.
You certainly can bring up examples of someone's contributions to highlight it for others, but in the end, its up to you to decide who you support in a given category, not just the contribution total of each member/nominee.

[Bijo]

Damn, you sure are fast with your reply.

Well, what you are saying -- if it is true -- does not appear fair or just. It seems as if -- and you can correct this statement if wrong -- that when people make contributions it hardly matters as ultimately it's about what people prefer or support REGARDLESS of what has been contributed?

Speaking of having the decision whether someone merits a vote or nomination (as I read from your reply)... it sounds like this system -- if existent as such -- could easily invite rigging, dirty politics, and so on.