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 🤷

in my opinion completionism is only the first step to completionist greatness, as in its one thing to submit to all formats and its another to do that AND also get good scores. and i think with that said everyone who manages to get submissions for all formats deserves a place in the hall no matter what, since just doing that is already difficult enough as it takes alot of discipline to keep up (especially for advent) and schedule things, and all the other stats like average score just say how well you did with that run, which can make it more impressive than just getting bare minimum scores on everything, so i do think its important to include scores in general but not make it a requirement to get in (although i wouldnt be entirely against a threshold for super low scores just to prevent "completion-save entries" like blockblockblock said, though that would probably just be an issue of low effort and would be moderated seperately anyway.)

my opinion on collabs is a little what dami suggested and its that including that collabs were involved as an astersk kind of implies the run is somewhat invalidated because it wasnt completely solo. its what i initially thought was the case. personally i think collabs are totally fine since for all intents and purposes botb treats collab entries exactly the same way as any solo entry you submit on your own (i.e you get fave alerts, it shows up in your entry list etc.) and similar to what blockblockblock mentioned, just collabing and getting the teamwork and organisation required to complete a collab entry is already quite difficult, and working on collab entries can be itself harder at times since theres pressure to make sure your work doesnt conflict with other's, theres the waiting for others to finish etc. etc. though ofc that always depends on the format. im not an expert in collabs, ive only done a few, but the point is that its not really a situation where the act of collabing that can split the workload should invalidate your contribution to a "valid" completionist entry, since its still ultimately your work either way

maybe im just stating the obvious here, but yeah. personally i just think the hall would be better off if it didnt mention if collabs were involved since its a little unnecessary. id love to see what others can say about this though since ive probably missed something in regards to this

I also think collabs should count, regardless of who submitted them. As blockblockblock points out collabs often actually take even more effort than solo.

I guess that the original rule was made to disqualify the kind of entry where one person does 95% of the work and the collab person just adds one little thing. Not sure how common that is these days. I don't know of any reliable way to differentiate between that kind of situation... Perhaps it could just be honor system, up to the completionist if they want to opt an entry out of being counted for completionism. But even if some people do end trying to get a "fake" completionist by doing a bunch of tiny collabs where they add one small thing, I really don't mind.

i think the matter of that risk with certain collaborators just being there for completionist only really matters if most of someone's entries to a battle are collabs. if only one or two entries were collabs then i think its negligible since they still put the effort into doing most things solo. i think this is even more the case if the entrant is the submitter, since that says alot about the ownership of that entry since youre not going to have the main coordinator of the entry be someone secondary on the list of collaborators.

i think i was going to mention something about how there is some distinct difference between collabs where the completionist is the submitter versus when theyre a secondary collaborator, but as i mentioned with botb treating the entry basically exactly the same as it would if the entry was solo, its probably just a matter of semantics, but im also not sure considering that idea that i suggested that being a submitter implies you were the main coordinator and "owner" behind the collab.

ultimately its not something that can really be policed in that regard. i would just say secondary collabs are probably fine unless its clear something fishy is going on and someone might just be tagging along for that completionist. given how theres no real reward for doing completionist and the whole honour system thing, i really doubt this is or will be a real issue to tackle

What about the other way around, if you get a shiny little star for doing it all on your own

Sometimes one BotBr will do the majority of the 'work' in a collab (in the sense of time spent writing, playing, recording, etc.) while their collab partner contributes some smaller addition - but that smaller addition, or perhaps a simple suggested change, can end up being the thing that really makes the completed work.