SMW Central Hall of Fame - Discussion & Feedback

The Hall of Fame was a new, permanent addition to the site that came about in 2024 to honor and showcase the long history of SMW Hacks in the community.

In this thread you can discuss inductees past, present and future or leave your thoughts about the process, the write-ups or any other feedback you may have to the organizers or the committee.

Hello fellow nerds:

I am a member of the Hall of Fame Committee -- I typically have tried to keep to myself but it was really nice to give back in some way to this community. Below are links to my personal nominating documents. I am publishing them here because I do not feel right judging others without being fully transparent about my process -- to me this is similar to contest judging. For more context, I am mostly a standard player now so my nominations reflect that a bit.

Please Note: These are my initial nominations before any rules were set in place surrounding qualifications for the hall of fame (notably, we did not allow filebin or off-site hacks to be included). They are not particularly well-written documents, but just something I could build off of later if I needed to. I will also NEVER reveal any of the discussions that took place between the committee publicly or privately, so don't even bother asking. If you want to discuss something in my nomination list you can find a way to privately message me.

2023 nominations
2018 nominations

Thanks for the kind words and for publishing your process. I think that goes a long way with how we've decided to honor some of the great hacks the community has to offer.

---

NewPointless

I'm flattered to know that Eh was considered as a nomination by someone. Though I can see why it didn't get the chuck award. Maybe next time!!

So, I have a question: Here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a hack gets recognized in the Hall of Fame, but it was published in 2022, but then, it received an update this year.

What version of the hack is the one elegible in this case? Which year will it be elegible for HoF: 2022 or 2024? What's being considered here?

Granted, small sample size, but we are focusing on a hack's initial year, not in years it receives updates. In your example, we would consider the hack as a 2022 hack. We did that with multiple hacks that received significant updates in 2023. There may be exceptions, but we by and large will direct committees to follow this idea.

Once a hack is in, it's in. One hack can't be a two-time inductee.

---

I'm not a doctor.

Okay so for feedback: I'm glad that the Hall of Fame exists as a formalized return/successor for Featured Hacks. I think it is a positive to spotlight the best and most interesting hacks to play within a given year of their release. However, there is one major concern that I have that I do want to bring to your attention - Why is it that the average userbase has no say in the nomination process? I think that is a major flaw I have in the execution is that the hacks that deserve consideration by the committee shouldn't simply be decided by the committee on what is worth spotlighting. It should also be on what the userbase at large experience which hacks they believe are worthy for consideration to be in the Hall of Fame within a given year and therefore, a nomination thread for the userbase to spotlight the hacks should be made to help out with the process, especially when committee members may miss a few hidden gems within their discussions. Because as it is currently, the userbase doesn't have an explicit say when they should because of having no nomination thread.

Why I say this? The first reason is that Featured Hacks being its direct predecessor had a working nomination system in which the userbase nominate the hacks they played for featuring. The userbase gave their reasons why they believe a hack deserved featuring and the process worked as intended for the most part. The problem that doomed Featured Hacks came from the periods of inactivity from the hack mods to read, play, and consider what was said alongside their respective moderation duties. Consequently, it created a backlog that was unsustainable to clear. It is that precise reason why I argued that hack moderators need not apply in my thread I made months ago when I suggested Featured Hacks to return. The current committee however, I see it as a solution to the problem with the inactivity of the hack moderators that were tasked to maintain Featured Hacks in the past because the committee is specifically tasked to play and discuss the hacks to be considered instead of other duties that hack moderators had to do.

The second reason is that the Cacowards in which the Hall of Fame also owes its existence to still has its nomination thread actively maintained by the Doom modding community that the Hall of Fame could have pulled from what is argubly the best aspect of the Cacowards. The Hall of Fame is meant to be SMW hacking community's own Cacowards and therefore, taking that wouldn't hurt the identity of Hall of Fame at all especially when you look at how the Cacowards nomination thread's own rules aren't all that dissimilar to how Featured Hacks for SMWC worked in the past.

The summary is that the Hall of Fame needs a nomination thread because it shouldn't just be limited to the committee having all the say, the userbase should be allowed to nominate hacks for the committee to consider in case of hidden gems they miss in their discussions, because it is the draw of how the Cacowards worked for the Doom Community, and how the good aspect of the previous Featured Hacks system worked.

---

Modern Redrawn Mario Bros. 1.5 (last update - February 14, 2023, some new bonus frames, tons of minor touchups to various poses)

On Pixel Art Requests: Depends on what it is and if I have the time for it. If its complex and I don't have the time, don't expect me to accept it.

Projects I support:


Collapsed text: Show/Hide

[19:43] <StrikeForcer> I also want to say that "because everything on the internet is definitely true!" is a derailment tactic that serves as a shorthand change for "I dont accept the facts"

[19:44] <StrikeForcer> When the information posted clearly is fact-based.

Late, but TDW, I do have my questions regarding this.

What if somebody biased or acts differently than others decided to nominate in the thread? It would affect which hacks make into the HoF, and can result in for example: a rather undeserving hack making it into the podium.

The second, is how would the nominating be split if users were allowed to nominate. Not everyone has the same mindset, and depending on how things are split, can affect what hacks make it into the HoF as well.

I think this is entirely fair to ask, but I would also add that it assumes the committee members aren't members of the userbase. I can assure you, they are. They are hack moderators, makers, players, streamers, and creators, and they participate in the discussions here on the forums and in Discord. They do not operate in a vacuum, and they are some of the users we trust to know which of those "hidden gems" deserve merit. Indeed, were it not for the suggestions of multiple committee members, some hacks would not be in the HoF now simply because they were unknown to the majority.

If you have a hack you think deserves merit for HoF consideration, then I would suggest you talk about that hack. Leave it a 5* rating, and write a glowing review. Talk about it in the Discord server. Our Committee members see those ratings, reviews, and conversations, and they know what hacks are eligible and deserving of recognition by participating in the community.

Also, the committee members are listed in the HoF page.



Every hack released within a year is considered. Nominations would only be an extra data point for the Committee's consideration; the ultimate decision would be theirs. If an "undeserving" hack is added to the HoF, it will be because the Committee came to a consensus that it was deserving, not because of outside pressure or ulterior motives. We strive to have a diverse Committee for this very reason; to avoid groupthink and to ensure multiple perspectives from across the community are represented.

---

I'm not a doctor.

HEY THERE,
The Hall of Fame is a fantastic addition to the site! It's great to see the long history of SMW Hacks being honored and showcased. I'm excited to discuss the inductees and hear everyone's thoughts on the process and write-ups. Kudos to the organizers and committee for putting this together!

With all due respect, I have never thought the HoF committee members are not members of SMW Central, please do not assume I am saying something that seems to be considered exclusionary to what counts as being a member of the site, because that is not my intention.

With that said, your point on suggesting a hack deserving consideration to be included in the Hall of Fame: You are talking to someone who would publically (be it on the forums, on SMWC's discord channel being #smw-hacking, and sometimes on various SMW Twitch streams) talk about the myriad of SMW hacks he believes are worth Hall of Faming for their overall standout creative quality from the rabble. I am more than willing to do just that because I am interested in seeing the best of the best SMW hacks the community has outputted over the years be immortalized in its halls. But the point I was making with my above post is that the userbase at large who isn't a member of the HoF committee, and the fact that there isn't a specific dedicated thread for said userbase to directly suggest to the committee members to look at SMW hacks that they may not have considered, unlike Doomworld's Cacowards Mentionation thread (of which I linked in the previous post) which allows for that very thing.

The lack of such a thread existing for SMWC's HOF lead me to believe that I, and others who are not part of the committee, feel like that we do not have a say in which hacks we think outside of the HOF committee get considered for featuring. I am not sure if you, the staff, would allow me to make a dedicated thread that allows just that, which I feel that a thread very much like the aforementioned Cacoawards mentionation thread existing but for SMW hacks, would solve that issue for me.

---

Modern Redrawn Mario Bros. 1.5 (last update - February 14, 2023, some new bonus frames, tons of minor touchups to various poses)

On Pixel Art Requests: Depends on what it is and if I have the time for it. If its complex and I don't have the time, don't expect me to accept it.

Projects I support:


Collapsed text: Show/Hide

[19:43] <StrikeForcer> I also want to say that "because everything on the internet is definitely true!" is a derailment tactic that serves as a shorthand change for "I dont accept the facts"

[19:44] <StrikeForcer> When the information posted clearly is fact-based.

A thread for community nominations was on the table for this but we it isn't feasible launch that right at the start of the year when not a lot has yet happened in the world of smw hacks. Nevertheless keep your eyes out.

What years can we nominate for and how is a hack's release calculated?

---

NewPointless

For the year as stated in the thread (which is the present year) January 1 to Dec 31. There's room to fudge the days if a hack was released within the year but didn't get moderated before the change of the year (as what happened with ~omh).

We do have plans for input on hacks from the past but we haven't figured out the logistics of community nominations on that front, the present year is easy to schedule since it will be consistent.

Okay I just saw the two nomination threads in question and I thank you for addressing my feedback on that issue. However, I do have two concerns upon reading the recently-created nomination threads. In the Community Nomination for Past Years Thread, you state the following:



Yet for the thread for current year states no such thing/. Is it intentional for the inconsistency for one thread (the thread for historic year submissions) that explicitly forbids nominating hacks that are not in the SMWC Hacks Section while the other (current year submissions thread) says nothing at all about nominating hacks not in the aforementioned section?

The other concern I have is related to the aforementioned rule of nominating hacks only hosted in the Hacks Section. You say that cannot vouch for the quality and intentions of the creator of their respective hacks released outside of SMWC as your justification for that rule existing. I do not think with such a rule existing is all that fair to the creators of said hacks to be excluded from the process. You absolutely can judge their quality and intentions like any given hack whose creators bothered to submit their work into the section. Additionally, there have been hacks that are not hosted in the Hacks Section that have either notability in their quality (e.g. Mario Game, Run The Gauntlet, SMW YEAH!) and/or historical value to SMW Hacking (e.g. Mario Fantasy, Bowser's Return (which btw used to have a page in the Hacks Section), Super Mario LD), especially when it comes to hacks made during acmlmboard's heyday that are worth nominating.

---

Modern Redrawn Mario Bros. 1.5 (last update - February 14, 2023, some new bonus frames, tons of minor touchups to various poses)

On Pixel Art Requests: Depends on what it is and if I have the time for it. If its complex and I don't have the time, don't expect me to accept it.

Projects I support:


Collapsed text: Show/Hide

[19:43] <StrikeForcer> I also want to say that "because everything on the internet is definitely true!" is a derailment tactic that serves as a shorthand change for "I dont accept the facts"

[19:44] <StrikeForcer> When the information posted clearly is fact-based.

@SF - The Dark Warrior the fact of the matter is that this is the SMW Central Hall of Fame, it's not meant to be a full-picture look back on all hacks of "historical significance"--many of which may pre-date this community's existence--or that are self-published or come from other SMW hacking communities. You spoke about it being "unfair" to creators to be "excluded" but it's not fair to have SMW Central step in and represent people or communities who have (or had, in the case of those that have faded) their own voices elsewhere, or are independent for whatever reason. In other words, it's not within our rights to speak for those people or claim to represent those communities or all of SMW hacking.

Unlike the cited Doomworld, SMW Central is very centralized as both a distribution point for hacks--hacks get published and hosted here*--as well as a place to get resources and tools and meet and collaborate with people. All this forms a unique community, granted there is a lot of overlap with other communities and there are smaller communities in SMWC's orbit, but the Hall of Fame is set up to highlight the passion and work of the community of creators who participate here. Also, SMW Central is not an independent commentator on the entire SMW hacking scene in the way Doomworld was from its beginnings, we have a heavy bias to our own history and community and need to be deferential to what exists outside of us as well as what pre-dates us.

*setting aside the fact that past admin/moderators put other people's hacks in the archive without their knowledge/consent, such as the VIP series and Kaizo 1-3.

All that said, there's also a number of practical reasons the Hall of Fame is limited to the hacks archive:

1. The hacks archive is, for all intents and purposes, permanent. If we're going to feature a hack in the HoF we must know it will be there in perpetuity and off-site or independently hosted/file bin hacks are less reliably available or will be around only at the whims of the creator.
2. The quality of what is in the archive is known and trustable. Since they've gone through the moderation process we can vouch for these hacks being up to some minimum standard and are fully playable, work on known setups, etc.
3. Things only get into the archive through intentional publication. If something is published to SMW Central those creators are saying they want to be a part of the hacks archive and essentially consenting to or acknowledging to being part of the community--this is what we speak to when we mean the creator's intent, people may intentionally not publish here.