Quicksand Fans

Apparently this is too controversial of a topic.

This is a good way to start Drama and is best avoided in my opinion

I fail to see any negative in acknowledging the achievements of our peers.

I think Green Heart is right on this one.

At the crux of the problem with this sort of thing is the fickle nature of what is scene as success within the community. The polite way to put it is that there are widely varied 'tastes' within QS enjoyment. The other way to say it is that one guy's ultimate boner material could well be a turn-off for someone else.

The best thing we had going regarding the idea of a Hall of Fame was the (rather comprehensive) rating/award system we had at Deep Sinking. But beyond the demise of that board, the community's online presence is now seriously fragmented. So that period of concentrated ratings/approval is passed - and will never return.

I submit that the internet at large, and (perhaps more significantly) wallets, choose the winners on a constant basis. Whether its the algorithms on various social media platforms, or the financial success of producers, 'votes' are being cast all the time.

Admittedly, some artists, creators and producers are more savvy at promotion than others. But that's the world we live in.

SecretDude77 wrote:Apparently this is too controversial of a topic.

Controversial? No. It’s more the fact that these things almost never pan out the way they are supposed to and someone or group of someones walks away butthurt. Who should or shouldn’t be recognized or celebrated will always be subjective and it’s really hard to put things like these on without people taking it personally. I say nay.

SecretDude77 wrote:I fail to see any negative in acknowledging the achievements of our peers.

The inherent flaw in this is that a HOF acknowledges the achievements of SOME of our peers.

Either you are highly selective, and therefore exclude people for reasons that are unavoidably controversial while potentially including people who could be contentious inclusions, or you include everyone who reaches a certain bar, and therefore diminish the purpose of a HOF.

This will eventually turn out to be a circle-jerk of QS fetishists hyping each other.

Viridian wrote:

SecretDude77 wrote:I fail to see any negative in acknowledging the achievements of our peers.

The inherent flaw in this is that a HOF acknowledges the achievements of SOME of our peers.

Either you are highly selective, and therefore exclude people for reasons that are unavoidably controversial while potentially including people who could be contentious inclusions, or you include everyone who reaches a certain bar, and therefore diminish the purpose of a HOF.

This will eventually turn out to be a circle-jerk of QS fetishists hyping each other.

Fact is UMD does something similar like Wammer of the Day or some junk and it always turns into a point of contention for people rallying behind their favorite producer or model or bashing a niche etc. It’s a nuisance honestly. I doubt Dave and the gang wanna bring that level of bitching and moaning here.

TK421 wrote: ...Fact is UMD does something similar like Wammer of the Day or some junk and it always turns into a point of contention for people rallying behind their favorite producer or model or bashing a niche etc. It’s a nuisance honestly. I doubt Dave and the gang wanna bring that level of bitching and moaning here.

The point of QSF is to share QS information and (especially) boner material. Always has been and always will be.

dlodoski wrote:

TK421 wrote: ...Fact is UMD does something similar like Wammer of the Day or some junk and it always turns into a point of contention for people rallying behind their favorite producer or model or bashing a niche etc. It’s a nuisance honestly. I doubt Dave and the gang wanna bring that level of bitching and moaning here.

The point of QSF is to share QS information and (especially) boner material. Always has been and always will be.

In that case, I cast my vote for QSF to be inducted into the nonexistent QS HOF.