Im about to go through all old major battles again and check if the Hall of Completionists is correct and that noone is missing.

Over the past years, completionism has become a lot more common. And since Chip Champion came up with his definition of what a "completed" major is over a decade ago (every entry needs a score over 20, only entries submitted by the botbr themself (no collabs submitted by others), only battles with 6 or more formats), I wonder if it makes sense to update these guidelines for modern BotB.

I would like to ask everyone to post what a completed major is for them. Lets discuss this here.

My own understanding as of right now is:

- botbr has to submit to every format (the "SUBMIT" button on the info-page of the battle has to turn into "RE" for every format)
- if a botbr collabs with someone else in order to achieve this, a little note (collaborations involved) is added to the entry on the lyceum page
- score doesnt matter to get into the hall of completionists
- average score is calculated based purely on the entries the botbr submitted by themself
- entries submitted by someone else, where the botbr got added as a collab are fully ignored
- only a thing for major battles with six formats or more

are there any other things that are important here? or is someone disagreeing with any of the points?
should collabs count, even if the botbr isnt the primary submitter? if a botbr submits to a format twice through a collab, are those entries used to calculate the average score as well?
is six formats a good threshold or should it also count as completionism if you submit to every format of a smaller major?

once thats figured out, i will update the article using a little script to make sure its all complete (pun) and noone is forgotten

I don't see why collabs uploaded by someone else are treated differently than collabs uploaded by the botbr in question

I also think collabs of all kinds should count towards both completionism and avg score. I'm not sure if maybe the collab system is even newer than the original hall concept (where I could see there being a case for no completionism if entries were submitted by a "collab account" instead, at least back then) but it feels needlessly convoluted to dig into who submitted the thing. (heck, the fact that users can submit multiple entries to a format via collab tags is already a bit of a hack, or a consequence of how the system works at least.) average score should include every entry they're involved with, too!

I've never minded the "collaborations involved" note because it does add a little extra info about whether you did it solo or not... but I also feel that completionism is such a huge task to achieve regardless that I wonder if it's a little insulting to include, too.

collabs (whether you are the submitter or not) seem fine to me - honestly in some regards, it's actually harder/more work to collab.

and appreciate minimum score not being a factor. I do think that there's a sort of minimum level of effort that I expect for Major entries, but I can express that in the numbers I personally pick for voting categories, I'm not worried about denying people completion status based on score.

('completion-save entries' seem like they can be dealt with the same as 'boonsave entries' - gentle warnings and reminders and possibly mod action if it becomes an actual problem.)

oh also the 'six formats or more' feels like a good rule of thumb, but also I wouldn't be mad about someone counting themselves as completioning a five format battle 🤷