^Of course. I just thought it might be nice to ask Chad's opinion...

Can do. I'll tally results Wednesday afternoon

Terrific 👍

Don’t know if I’m allowed to comment here, but here’re my two cents anyways:

I personally feel like the HoF is a perfectly good idea, especially to bring forth more ignored, but still superb theories to the forefront, and highlight the very creme of the pieces in the community. It, I feel, also encapsulates why I love this community so much: we’ve got people writing elaborate, well written pieces out of passion alone.

Personally, this round was the thinnest. I didn’t participate this time around, simply because I didn’t find anything to say. Everything I wanted to say were already told, and by the time I could figure out what to say, the upvote poll was already up.

Maybe the whole collegium needs to be reworked. For one, I’d suggest increasing the time this takes; sometimes we just need time to fully organise our thoughts. Second, increase the time interval between each session: I feel it would certainly give more room for new entries.

Regardless, these were just my thoughts.

Thank you

Since this committee is set up to keep a public project going- “by the people, for the people”, as it were- I see nothing wrong in a member of the community expressing his views on what this project’s next move should be. If anything, I think it’s really helpful to get as many perspectives as possible. Thanks for your feedback, bro 😎

I agree with @Shreekomandar on most of his arguments.

I, too, think that the concept of the HoF (to highlight generally acclaimed works and put them in an extra category as to make it easier to find those works among endless other, less complex posts) is a good idea.

As to suggestions for improvement regarding the way those posts are selected: I agree with Shreekomandar that it would be helpful to extend the time of nominating and debating. I personally enjoy those threads as well, however, I nearly forgot to nominate and debate this time because I didn't have much time for the Wook the past week. I would have regretted missing the debate. Therefore, I would suggest to raise the amount of time given each for nominating and debating to, for example, five days.

As for the intervals between the different selections, I personally don't think they should be increased. So far, I've always found it challenging to decide which essay I wanted to nominate. So, I'm glad that there are at least three selections a year. I personally wouldn't reduce this amount. While the intention of this selection is to seek out the most appealing essays, I think there are enough potential candidates overall per year that it would be valid to accept more than one or two entries into the HoF each year.

And regarding the amount of participants in this debate, it's true that there weren't exactly a lot of them this round. But unless I misremember, there was at least one more participant this round than last time, so, who knows, the enthusiasm about this selection might very well increase over time again😅

It's been quite a while since we revealed the winner of this round. Could one of the mods- @Ajjviolin96 @Joupena or @Jedi Sarith LeKit- move Slingy's post into the HOF?

Thank you 😎

^ I moved it as soon as it was announced. Unless there was some kind of error that couldn't save the change I made, thus still keeping the post in the CP thread.

Ah, so that’s what happened! Thanks 🙏