Printable View
lol youve just contradicted yourself there. you said fame is subjective then said they're working on a wrongly defined meaning of fame. Maybe their definition of fame is just different to yours as fame is subjective?
Names aside as I haven't really looked at it properly, I do agree with you. I think each individual should have at least 2-3 achievements next to their name to prove that they've earned their place on that page.
How is that a contradiction? Their definition of fame is anyone can be famous as long as they work for us - based upon fact (objective) than widespread opinion (subjective). That's not fame, that's being a volunteer on a fansite :P Fame is widely accepted as being:Quote:
Originally Posted by Inseriousity.
The condition of being known or talked about by many people, esp. on account of notable achievements.
The majority in the list are only famous for being staff, the description of them even hints this. There is no sense of individual achievement in the Hall of Fame. If they want to list their staff, then make a new page and leave the Hall of Fame for people who are actually famous for being themselves and for what they did, rather than for what they were in Habbox. Their defintion seems more objective (factual - x was a GM) than subjective (wide spread opinion - x was a great GM who did ...).
So rename hall of fame to notable staff and then make a hall of fame?
Indeed, that would be the wiser option.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chippiewill
i'm confused, what's the point on two seperate hall of fames? what exactly can you be famous for on this site/forum other than for being staff lol
Tbh I was gonna bring up that very idea, but I've got the answer you're looking for Jen. There isn't any point, the people who go on here do it leisurely and the staff that come on here do a job. Plus nobody outside of the community gives a hoot who's popular and who's not, if anything it's alienating.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttons
A Hall of Fame are for people who have made a significient/special contribution to whatever sphere they are in not because are 'famous' as such as far I know such as the music industry etc. We seem to be going off the original definition where people who in the past did. They many not visit the forum now but I don't see that as a reason for them not to be included as they were in the past. No point rewriting history here just because not many members remember them now. I think one hall of fame is fine and should include staff and members alike.
So the majority of the current "Hall of Fame" (a.k.a. past and present managers) shouldn't be there then? They've not made any special/significant contributions, they were just managers who worked for Habbox - hardly fame and awe inspiring. Again, let the members decide. I don't get why management are again deciding what and who is famous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
Also, your definition of fame is very supervisual. Fame can come and go, there's no point adding people no-one particularly remembers. Ever heard people say "they were famous in their time" in a sentence? It's exactly the same here.
Seriously, the definition you lot are going by is lousy. If you were in charge of compiling a list of influential, important and notable Kings and Queens, you would put them all in the list, for the simple fact they were royalty, rather than any measurable amount of significance.
The proof is in the pudding anyway, you can tell who is famous in the current list by the biography that accompanies the individual. The ones with a generic "they were a general manager and made substantial contributions" are the ones who aren't famous, for the simple fact that the description used means sweet naf all :P
I kind of skipped over the majority of the 9 pages and read like 2...what happened to the old page Alkaz did? It was very well researched and was completed with the assistance of many of the members of the Ex-Staff forum, most notably MissAlice who did a lot of work on the project. I understand that it was considered too inclusive, but it would be very useful as a research source for the new HoF since the new one (no offense) isn't that well-researched, mostly because only a handful of staff reach back before the 8F8 days.
Perhaps a well seasoned ex-staff member like yourself would prove of valuable assistance in assembling said list?
I was asked to write the events page so obviously I'm going to think events is the best... :P!Quote:
Originally Posted by Competitions
init woooo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
I split the events department page up into various sections so that it was tidy and informative. I assume Mark liked it and copied it to the rest? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Competitions
I don't think having a discussion like this is a good way to decide on the HoF because I highly doubt there's many active members around today who actually remember such influential users, let alone write a paragraph on them, singing their praises. A much better way would be having users submit people who they feel are worthy, and why. GM would be able to take a look at the list: taking into account who submitted which name before carrying out some research on whether the claims are true. Yes it's subjective and yes it's time consuming, but I do think users such as nvrspk4, GommeInc and the likes would have much more expertise in the field than someone such as myself. Just an idea.
Do you mean superficial? How so? I was talking about members who were included in the original hall of fame made a long time ago. Just because they no longer with us doesn't mean they should not be included.Quote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
This is an update of the original not a completely new one. Anyway it is not up to me which is quite a good thing as I probably would have a 'Hall of Infamy' which would include a couple on the list. But that is just my own opinion.
That's the one :P Because it's only going by what they worked as for Habbox (on the surface, going by the immediate perceptions), which is boring and generic, and doesn't really tell you why they are famous other than "because they are". If they are famous, it should be why the members like them, and the staff as a secondary source. At the moment, it's like saying Amy Winehouse was/is famous becuase she was a singer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
Old staff could be included, but the majority in that list weren't famous to begin with, they just did a job like any other (according to the information provided). The main point really is to get what the members think, as they're the ones that can tell you who is famous and isn't (even yourself, you said it would be your opinion, which is what fame is - opinion :P)
I'd be more than happy to help, but as I mentioned, if we can find that old page it would cut out a loooot of work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chippiewill
Pretty sure more people around here know who you and I are than whoever Nuxty is, just as one example. However...Quote:
Originally Posted by buttons
Is a good point, and for this reason it may well be best just to call the section "staff history" than "hall of fame" and forget about doing a who's hot and who's not page, as you can't debate the fact that someone did work hereQuote:
Originally Posted by RyRy
I think there are a lot of older forum members who maybe haven't been involved in staff that deserve a place in the 'Hall of Fame' - GommeInc and FlyingJesus to name just two members. I guess it is hard to decide where to draw (concerning impact on Habbo and impact on the Forum [Habbox itself]) the line although the present list on Habbox I agree is only a Staff list.
The problem I see there is what to consider famous - are the very popular people who had a large impact but still had a tendency to bully people they didn't like allowed on the Hall of Fame? What about the people who are awesome but decided to go on a rampage on their way out and get banned (or those who got banned for less than a rampage, but still). Will there be a minimum requirement for behavior in terms of bans? If so, many of the prominent members will get left out.
I think a members hall of fame would be better done by letting the community remember them - putting it down on an official site page creates headaches. Plus, unlike staff where there are announcements and documentation, the members from the first five to six years of Habbox wouldn't really get a fair run.
The hall of fame at the moment is pretty much get to agm and ur on there, i mean Rosie (defiantly) Hecktix (no) but i suppose its all down to personal opinions.
I'm starting to think this too. The page would be difficult to compile and is completely useless to anyone outside Habbox. Famous people on here do not need to be listed, as it's down to the individual member who they 'think' is famous. Besides, if the majority of a forum think someone is famous then why put the effort into listing them? It's like listing what people like in their sandwich, listing the pooular ones won't change anything. In short, renaming the page to "Past Staff" seems a wiser choice, especially if by the current standards fame is only measurable by what position someone held in Habbox (General Manager down to Department Manager).Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
I disagree because there are members who haven't been staff but have had a huge impact on Habbox and deserve to be recognized. It's a nice feature for current and future members to read through and they can see what the past users were like,it's also a nice homage to those past members who use to visit the forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
I don't think there should