FMW OOC Thread

Hannibal Frost wrote:

Getting voted for is a privilege, and I think it should be earned by at least some form of a promo.

I get that idea... I do. I have several problems with it.

The first problem that I have with that is that it leaves us no way to resolve no-show matches. Those matches have to exist sometimes, and we can't just end them in a no-contest or something like that. For example, this time around we had 2 no-show matches for tournament qualifiers. Now, given that we have to give out 8 spots for the tourney in 2 shows (.2 and .3)... we don't really have time to start throwing out those matches if we want to have the tourney. And I really don't want to just make it the head writer's call, because that will just lead to bitching and favoritism and hurt feelings.

The second problem I have is that sometimes people have advanced knowledge about who's going to promo (supposedly), and this could lead to some people not being able to vote for who they want. For instance, if I knew that Anwyl was going to promo, but hadn't yet, and his opponent put up something shitty just so they could say they had a promo... why shouldn't I be allowed to vote for Anwyl? It could be the case that by the time Anwyl posts his promo, I won't have time to change my votes.

The third problem I have is squatter promos. We've seen a few of these as of late, where somebody will post something entirely half-assed, like maybe a paragraph in length, and they'll post it early to get votes. I understand that strategy, but I entirely despise it. With that rule in place, I could see that problem getting worse.

The fourth problem I have is that it punishes those who show late far too much. As I said before, we try to put the deadlines on weekends in order to allow as many people as possible to have time to get in/finish their work and read and vote on the work of others. If, for instance, we had a V&P session go from one Saturday to the next, with voting being on Friday and Saturday... when would those workers and students have the time to get their promos finished? I guess what we would have to do is something like make promo only time end on Friday/Saturday, and end the voting & promo period Sunday/Monday. The problem I have with THAT, is that the raters (who already get things to me entirely to late, with the notable exception of one Nick Gray) would have to read all of the promos either late Sunday or sometime Monday. In short, they would end up probably getting my scores in even LATER.

Basically, my argument is this. People here, especially some of the veterans, have shit to do. Me and Bryson understand that. Bryson is pretty busy himself, and even though I'm not since I just graduated and would currently be how-you-say.... unemployed... I certainly have been busy before and I know that sometimes there's just no way you can promo early. There's a lot of people like that here, and I like to make them feel included, and not disadvantaged. It's not that I don't appreciate the Chris Austins and Leon Caprices of the world that get their shit done, on time and usually early. I appreciate the hell out of those guys, and we try to do a lot for them. But I don't want to give them an even bigger advantage than they already have (it's sort of like one of Rawls' arguments with the veil of ignorance... you don't give advantages to the advantaged).

John Andrews wrote:

someone who gets their promo in on time, well before the deadline and the other fella finally submits a bomb shell promo AFTER an extension which kind of totally changes the ball game and the guy with the extension wins. I know life isn't fair but there should at least be some sort of penalty or consideration since the promo was turned in late.

Um, I so agree.

I must say I find it very peculiar how I was the only person in my match to promo well before the deadline YET YNG got the first 2 votes and one of those votes said AND I QUOTE "YNG deserve it". They deserve what? Just because they are in the midst of a "push" they don't deserve to lose? So they deserve extra time to get their stuff in? When I read that, I almost quit because what that says to me is no matter what I post, if the powers that be are pushing whoever they feel like it, then my promo doesn't mean jack shit.

Then why the hell am I promoing?

I don't feel as though people who are given extensions should get a full promo score. That shit should be reduced by 1.0 or something because it's completely unfair to the ONE person who got their shit in before the deadline. Yes, real life comes first. So if it does then really, why should that person care about losing in an e-fed? Why are they being protected?

X wrote:

John Andrews wrote:

someone who gets their promo in on time, well before the deadline and the other fella finally submits a bomb shell promo AFTER an extension which kind of totally changes the ball game and the guy with the extension wins. I know life isn't fair but there should at least be some sort of penalty or consideration since the promo was turned in late.

Um, I so agree.

I must say I find it very peculiar how I was the only person in my match to promo well before the deadline YET YNG got the first 2 votes and one of those votes said AND I QUOTE "YNG deserve it". They deserve what? Just because they are in the midst of a "push" they don't deserve to lose? So they deserve extra time to get their stuff in? When I read that, I almost quit because what that says to me is no matter what I post, if the powers that be are pushing whoever they feel like it, then my promo doesn't mean jack shit.

Then why the hell am I promoing?

I don't feel as though people who are given extensions should get a full promo score. That shit should be reduced by 1.0 or something because it's completely unfair to the ONE person who got their shit in before the deadline. Yes, real life comes first. So if it does then really, why should that person care about losing in an e-fed? Why are they being protected?

^This.

While I've long given up on why people vote, I have to agree with Frost here - you should have to actually promo before you can get voted for. Edible, your own complaint about people posting 'squatter promos' as you called them goes against your 'just put something up rather than nothing'. I'll be the first to admit that real life kicked me in the nuts this show - it's evident to anyone that I didn't really try.

Edible wrote:

The second problem I have is that sometimes people have advanced knowledge about who's going to promo (supposedly), and this could lead to some people not being able to vote for who they want. For instance, if I knew that Anwyl was going to promo, but hadn't yet, and his opponent put up something shitty just so they could say they had a promo... why shouldn't I be allowed to vote for Anwyl? It could be the case that by the time Anwyl posts his promo, I won't have time to change my votes.

I don't think this is at all an issue. If he's posted late - after the voting has opened - that should be his penalty if he hasn't promoed. It's well known that I was for penalties, not to mention the .05 vote values, but I'd rather have the former than the latter, and in this case I think the penalty of not being allowed to gain votes is a penalty in itself, one which could work quite well.

To be honest, this seems like the majority are one side of this debate, Edible.

Skyler Striker wrote:

^This.

While I've long given up on why people vote, I have to agree with Frost here

Frost?

And just so we're clear. I'm not bitching. I like FMW. I was here when it FIRST began.

But man, that comment about YNG deserving a vote even when they did absolutely nothing until an extension came reeks of favortism. Even if you believed that, Edible, I don't think it should've been said especially as a Head Writer as all it did was make me question how things are done around here...now.

I meant Frost's previous post, X - don't worry, I know who you are!

I agree with Frost when he says:

Frost wrote:

I agree that voting should lie with whatever strategy the voter wants to go with, but I see no problem with there having to be a PROMO for it to get voted for.

Getting voted for is a privilege, and I think it should be earned by at least some form of a promo.

Not controlling the votes themselves, but maybe not opening up the ability to vote for that wrestler until he/she promos.

Although I also agree with most of X's previous two posts.

X wrote:

I must say I find it very peculiar how I was the only person in my match to promo well before the deadline YET YNG got the first 2 votes and one of those votes said AND I QUOTE "YNG deserve it". They deserve what? Just because they are in the midst of a "push" they don't deserve to lose? So they deserve extra time to get their stuff in? When I read that, I almost quit because what that says to me is no matter what I post, if the powers that be are pushing whoever they feel like it, then my promo doesn't mean jack shit.

Then why the hell am I promoing?

I'm going to assume this is more or less directed at me, since I wrote something akin to that. Understanding that I might be mistaken in this.

I've said before that I don't vote on promo strength. I vote based on who I want to see win a given match, because I think that person winning would make a storyline or angle more enjoyable. I try to be transparent with that, but this is now the second time it's gotten under somebody's skin. I might be the only person that votes the way I do... I don't know. I certainly don't think that my thought process is reflective of the entirety of FMW. If the last few pages of this thread have shown anything, it's that I have some different ideas compared to others here. I understand that, and perhaps it's not appropriate for me to be sharing those opinions with my vote when nobody else does. If that's the case, then feel free to tell me so.

I want to make it clear that my position as head writer had nothing to do with my votes for Corr/Anarchy, and neither did the extension. Of the three people I talked to, who influenced me to extend this time around... NONE of them were YNG members. Furthermore, both of your opponents actually managed to promo before the original deadline, so I don't see why talk of the extension applies to your match, unless you're just talking about voting influence. The only person in your match that would be getting that penalty would be your partner, Butters.

As for penalties... this argument has been hashed out before. The argument against goes that participation is discouraged with penalties, because if you're getting those penalties they basically ensure that you'll lose anyway as long as your opponent has put up a comparable promo. That would especially be true if a full point would be deducted as you advocated for just now (seriously, a point plus the fact that you're likely down on votes = auto-lose). So... why would such a person promo? You, and others, have eloquently stated the opposing side. As for where I stand, I don't really care if there are or aren't penalties, so long as we have happiness and participation.

As for pushing and whatnot... you're on Anarchy and I don't have a lot of influence there, being the Amm guy. That being said, I'm pretty sure that the reason Bryson put you on *his* show is that he wanted to something with your character. So please don't take my votes as a sign of anything about the direction of your character, as I'm honestly not that involved with what Bryson does on that brand aside from my own storyline. My votes were made from the perspective of a fan (save for the vote on my own match). I voted against you, because in my eyes YNG should establish themselves as the entrenched power on Anarchy (because they're, ya know, Bryson's stable), so that their eventual fall from grace will be even more powerful... whether that's at the hands of Ryder Strong, Callum Pullen or even #1 draft pick Butters... that person gets a pretty big boost as the slayer of YNG when that happens. To me, that's the better story. But that's just my opinion. I try to be open and honest about the things I do here, and voting is one of them. Again... if I'm too candid... I'm more than willing to tone it down.

If you want to know why promos matter, just remember this. AT MOST, voting swings a competitive match by a point. Which is not insignificant, but in most competitive matches it's not nearly a full point. I've never seen it be the case where someone with a clearly better promo is losing in the voting by more than a handful of votes. Meanwhile, the 4 or 5 raters (sometimes only 3... since raters don't score their own promos) can account for as many as 5 points, and in cases where somebody has a clearly better promo... it usually shows in those scores. So if you don't feel like promoing and promoing well helps you win... I just have to say that I can't see that as true. If you show up and are better than your opponents, me and Bryson can do nothing about that, and we wouldn't.

Also... jesus I have posted way too many multi-paragraph responses in this thread. I'm sorry if I'm boring any of you. But... I feel it's necessary to be open, transparent and honest about how I run my end of things here. I do appreciate you all speaking up, and I'm trying my best to address all of your concerns the best I can... which happens to be somewhat long-winded. But I want it to be known that I intend nothing malicious or negative with anything I've done here, my goal is always to try and include everyone in a way that's fun and enjoyable.

I have to agree with the voting. I don't think we should bar someone from voting for a no-show, but if they vote for a no-show, it should be discounted. As for your point about having to decide no-show matches? Fuck 'em. I've no-showed, and I didn't even expect to be treated as well as I did. If you don't care enough to post a promo, you lose. I don't care what your reason is, you should NOT get to win on a no-show. Tag matches are different, but I still share the same sentiment, but you should not get to win a match if you couldn't be assed to show.

With tag team matches, I'm of the opinion that whoever no-showed gets pinned, no matter what.

As for singles matches? If both guys no show, no one should win, simple as that. It's probably the biggest rule in e-feds "You no-show, you lose." Someone who no-shows should not win, EVER. Have the match get cancelled, have the guys get double counted out or DQ'd or both get destroyed by someone else. No-shows should not win, EVER.

X wrote:

And just so we're clear. I'm not bitching. I like FMW. I was here when it FIRST began.

But man, that comment about YNG deserving a vote even when they did absolutely nothing until an extension came reeks of favortism. Even if you believed that, Edible, I don't think it should've been said especially as a Head Writer as all it did was make me question how things are done around here...now.

I understand that and I apologize.

Nick2 wrote:

With tag team matches, I'm of the opinion that whoever no-showed gets pinned, no matter what.

That's sort-of the unofficial rule that the writers go by. Whenever such a thing happens on my end, I usually make a note of it to the writer than so and so should be the one taking a pin. It's not written down anywhere, but that's how it works.

Quote :

Have the match get cancelled, have the guys get double counted out or DQ'd or both get destroyed by someone else. No-shows should not win, EVER.

I... personally don't really like this idea for a rule. I would point to this show especially, since those tourney spots more or less have to be filled. I have toyed with the idea before of making no-show matches into some sort of shenanigans match, but the part I worry about is this. As I said before, I consider voting to be a sort of "check" on the power of the head writers/staff. If we throw out voting on no show matches, I'm... slightly uncomfortable that it gives that much discretion to the staff. But, perhaps that's a silly fear of mine. It's just that I think that voting is supposed to be expressing something about what people want to happen in a democratic way... and I don't see replacing it with the head writers deciding to do some sort of shenanigans as a good thing. I mean, I could turn no-show matches into The Mystery Opponent matches if that's the kind of thing you all want (Bryson would have to sign off on this too, since, ya know, we can't have contrasting standards between brands)... but I don't see how that improves the show. But... maybe it would encourage turnout. I remain skeptical about that.

Skyler wrote:

To be honest, this seems like the majority are one side of this debate, Edible.

I understand that. I'm simply trying to answer these as if they are questions as to why this place works the way it does, and why I've done what I've done this last week and beyond. Ultimately, I'm not the one that makes these kinds of changes. If we're seriously going to make changes to how the voting and promo period work, that's something that's going to be decided more by Drew (the President) and Bryson (the senior HW). I have some say in that, and I have some opinions on things that maybe would be good changes for here, though obviously my opinions are a bit different from all of you. That being said... this is a pretty well-known thread, and I think that if and when those issues are discussed... these arguments will be pretty well known. And I think we know that these sorts of things will have to be addressed.

When I was HW, no-shows got squashed. No matter who it was. Even if you promoed the show before, no-show is roughly a squash. I never saw the point of having a staffer waste time on trying to make someone look good when they didn't even bother to show.

Even if real life dealt you a bad hand, if you can't show for a match, then it's pretty much like you didn't "show up" for your match.

Speaking of which. Edible, at some point I want to have a chat with you and Bryson. I have some grievances to air and I'd rather do it in private while both of you are around so there will be no confusion. If it helps, X kinda alluded to some of the things I wish to discuss.

RCA wrote:

When I was HW, no-shows got squashed. No matter who it was. Even if you promoed the show before, no-show is roughly a squash. I never saw the point of having a staffer waste time on trying to make someone look good when they didn't even bother to show.

Even if real life dealt you a bad hand, if you can't show for a match, then it's pretty much like you didn't "show up" for your match.

Speaking of which. Edible, at some point I want to have a chat with you and Bryson. I have some grievances to air and I'd rather do it in private while both of you are around so there will be no confusion. If it helps, X kinda alluded to some of the things I wish to discuss.

I feel like I do squash no-shows, or at least make those matches very one sided. That's something I mostly agree with, and try to implement.

I'm on AIM right now, if you wish.

It's better to have to fill a spot next show, then to have someone who no-showed getting into the tournament. My opinion, at least.

Edible14 wrote:

It's just that I think that voting is supposed to be expressing something about what people want to happen in a democratic way...

If you think that this happens in no-show matches you're deluding yourself. Voting becomes a popularity contest in a case like this (which it tends to be in most every match anyway).

I would but as I said, I'd prefer if both of you were there at the same time. You mentioned that you had little influence, if any on Cor/Anarchy outside of what Apostasy is doing and the things I'm concerned with, concern both brands.

Also, I would hope that if Bryson is virtually free to do with Cor/Anarchy as he sees fit, then you have the same autonomy, or close to it, on Amm.

RCA wrote:

I would but as I said, I'd prefer if both of you were there at the same time. You mentioned that you had little influence, if any on Cor/Anarchy outside of what Apostasy is doing and the things I'm concerned with, concern both brands.

Also, I would hope that if Bryson is virtually free to do with Cor/Anarchy as he sees fit, then you have the same autonomy, or close to it, on Amm.

Understood. I'm on pretty much anytime I'm needed. If you ever see Bryson on and I'm not, just have him call/text me and I'll likely be on pretty quickly.

As for autonomy... For the most part, I'm getting to that point with Amm. I still ask Bryson a lot of questions about what he thinks about this idea or that idea. There's also several booking threads on Amm that Bryson knows more about than I do, as I only took this job over recently and there were some long-term plans in place (Rise and Fall of GSW being one such thing, that's been in the works since the summer. Also, the tourney is something he's mostly responsible for, despite it being on my show). In addition, I ask Bryson to "check" the shows as they are being posted in the Head Office before being moved out here, mostly just so I have a fresh set of eyes to make sure there aren't any notable continuity errors or things like that (I do the same check for him as well).

But, I do understand that Bryson has a lot more experience at this than I do. And I do put a lot of faith in his judgement on things. That being said, I do make my own calls on a lot of things. But, I'm still of the mindset that I should always be receptive to constructive criticism, both from him and anyone else.

Does that answer your question?

Skyler Striker wrote:

Edible14 wrote:

It's just that I think that voting is supposed to be expressing something about what people want to happen in a democratic way...

If you think that this happens in no-show matches you're deluding yourself. Voting becomes a popularity contest in a case like this (which it tends to be in most every match anyway).

So? Popularity contests indicate something, don't they? I mean, if I'm casting a vote for Nick Bryson, it's because I want Nick Bryson to win, even if that's purely because he's somebody I know IRL. I'm not saying that voting in this way is super-meaningful, but that voting is an expression of some desire to see someone win. That's... the entire point of voting in my eyes. You think person X should win, so you vote for them. As I said, I don't care about people's motivations behind those votes. I think that's what you really have issue with.

Maybe I'm not understanding your objection here.

Nicholas Gray wrote:

It's better to have to fill a spot next show, then to have someone who no-showed getting into the tournament. My opinion, at least.

Problem is this, and you can see this just by peering into the HO. We have 2 shows to send up 8 tournament qualifiers before Lethal Injection. If I were to throw out the 2 no show winners from this Ammunition, I would have to put up 6 matches on the next card just for the tourney. And what happens if one of THOSE matches is a no-show match? Then I'm basically left with putting somebody in who never won a qualifier, and fabricating some sort of reason for that.

That would still leave us with me and Bryson basically deciding who we put in the tournament, and there's just no way that ends well, I think. Because whatever motivation me and/or Bryson have for that decision is one that's easy to criticize and easy to be offended by. If, for example, we were to decide that Dazz Andrews gets a spot in the tourney for showing two consecutive shows, how do you think that would sit with anyone else who could also say that they have shown up for those shows?

Edible14 wrote:

Skyler Striker wrote:

Edible14 wrote:

It's just that I think that voting is supposed to be expressing something about what people want to happen in a democratic way...

If you think that this happens in no-show matches you're deluding yourself. Voting becomes a popularity contest in a case like this (which it tends to be in most every match anyway).

So? Popularity contests indicate something, don't they? I mean, if I'm casting a vote for Nick Bryson, it's because I want Nick Bryson to win, even if that's purely because he's somebody I know IRL. I'm not saying that voting in this way is super-meaningful, but that voting is an expression of some desire to see someone win. That's... the entire point of voting in my eyes. You think person X should win, so you vote for them. As I said, I don't care about people's motivations behind those votes. I think that's what you really have issue with.

Maybe I'm not understanding your objection here.

As I said a few posts previously, I've leanred over time that not everyone will vote for the same reason as I do and I've learned to accept that.

That said, surely even you - who's just said you don't care about motivation for votes - can see that we come here because we all enjoy writing and wrestling; that's our common connection, what draws us to the site. We don't come for politics or polls on 'who you like best out of the people on this forum'. If everyone voted purely on their friends there would be no point in anyone promoing at all, because the same people would keep on winning over and over and over. I can't be the only one who believes that the quality of your writing - or the fact that you were willing to write when your opponent wasn't - should mean SOMETHING.

I'm also not sure I understand your objection to the 'votes only count if you promo' suggestion. People still have the freedom to vote for whoever they want. If you have faith that the person you voted for is going to show up, and they do, then they don't lose anything because your vote for them becomes active. If they don't show, then the person who did show is rightly rewarded. The person who has not yet promoed doesn't receive a penalty unless they don't show so they're not discouraged from promoing later rather than never.

Skyler Striker wrote:

That said, surely even you - who's just said you don't care about motivation for votes - can see that we come here because we all enjoy writing and wrestling; that's our common connection, what draws us to the site. We don't come for politics or polls on 'who you like best out of the people on this forum'. If everyone voted purely on their friends there would be no point in anyone promoing at all, because the same people would keep on winning over and over and over. I can't be the only one who believes that the quality of your writing - or the fact that you were willing to write when your opponent wasn't - should mean SOMETHING.

As I said before to X, there is plenty of reason to promo, even if nobody votes on promos at all (which isn't the case, obviously). There's the whole big promo scoring system that ensures that, yes, putting up a promo gets you something. I obviously believe that quality of writing should mean something. I'm not advocating for voting being the sole determinant of winners here. The quality of your promo does mean something under the current system. I don't understand how we've gotten to the thought that it doesn't.

Skyler Striker wrote:

I'm also not sure I understand your objection to the 'votes only count if you promo' suggestion. People still have the freedom to vote for whoever they want. If you have faith that the person you voted for is going to show up, and they do, then they don't lose anything because your vote for them becomes active. If they don't show, then the person who did show is rightly rewarded.

First, I was under the impression from the wording that the votes wouldn't count even if the person showed later, and that you could only vote for people who had already shown.

Second, I kind of don't see the point if it's the way you're suggesting. There has, to my knowledge, never been a case where a no show beats a show. I'm pretty sure it's impossible, because unless you're promo scores less than a 1 and you're SEVERELY unpopular... there's just no way that's ever going to happen. So what you're arguing for is that if someone doesn't show, they don't even get to have that neat little .3 or .4 added to their big fat zero promo score in their results. Mind you, the outcome of the match would be the same, it would be a squash or shenanigans match of some sort. I mean... we could do that... but... why? I don't see how a zero in AVS is going to any more shameful than the loss, squash and zero in APS. I don't see what that accomplishes.

The only thing that rule would really change in my eyes is how we handle no show/no show matches (which, for the sake of brevity, shall be now referred to as SHAME matches). Instead of having votes pick a winner of those matches, we would have something that the head writers would just come up with some sort of angle. Or maybe we'd just play eenie-meanie-minie-moe. In any case... I don't see how that's better than having the voters pick it.

I have stayed out of this so far because I've been involved in these debates before and they never achieve anything but I just can't help myself.....

I will acknowledge right off the bat that I took advantage of the extension this time. That said I PM'd Bryson a week before deadline closed saying that I was away over xmas/new year and was unlikely to make a promo on time. I also said to Edible in a PM that if I miss out because of no extension I was fully ok with that. I didn't directly ask for an extension, only if there was going to be an extension so I knew whether to continue working on my promo or not.

That said here are my thoughts.

1. I totally agree with Frost's suggestion and X's thoughts on voting for no shows. I'll tell you now I was dark as when I had my C-4 match vs Smitten (i'd like to clearly state this is not anti Ben at all, he even sent me a PM that week saying that he was sorry he didn't think he'd promo and couldn't give me a better match - although it turns out he did in the end). I had posted a promo I spent hours on and he had put in nothing and I was down something like 8-2 in the votes and TBM had not posted a promo yet. That was closer than you can guess to me quitting on the spot. There is nothing worse in all of e-fedding than that feeling. Like you are completely fucked before you start despite putting in the hard work. And there were similar comments on some of those votes too. It take ALL of the fun out of it. End of story.

We all know that the voting popularity contest is why Tyrant quit too.

I understand people can vote how they like but voting for nothing against a promo someone spent hours of their RL time, which we keep saying is important, well that's just plain insulting.

2. If you are worried about not having time to vote for late promos if you implement the no show = no vote rule there is a very simple solution. Promo ends on 1 day eg Monday and voting doesn't open until say Tuesday. there is no V&P period, just a P period & a V period. If you have nothing in by end of P period you can't be voted for. It also stops the "placeholder promo because no one can vote until end of promo period anyway so what's the point?

3. If there a 2 no shows in a singles match then so be it. The match either gets canned from the card completely (my preference - as imo our staff are stretched thin anyways and I personally don't want to waste my valuable RL time on a match that no one bothered to showed for.) or make it a dark match or just a one move squash based on storyline or a random coin toss. Too bad if that hurts someone's character. If you no show you have no right to complain about your result.

In the case of the tourney if it ends up a short tournament so be it. Or have a bloody clusterfuck ladder match with two prizes atop ladders. put all and sundry into those matches and the winners go into the tourney. There is ALWAYS an IC way to get around it.

4. If you are really worried about matches where both no show:
a) that says a lot about the state of the fed
b) allow people to promo in the voting period in a seperate thread to avoid a squash scenario but don't let them get votes. If both participants STILL can't get even a one paragraph promo up then they don't deserve to have their match written by staff.

^^ you could actually do this for any match. Say promo thread is a seperate thread to voting. It gets locked at deadline and then a new thread is opened for voting. Anyone who wants to promo late in the voting thread to avoid squash can, but they are not eligible for votes.


Lastly I'd like to say if people found themselves canned for lateness, or their match deleted because no one showed they would lift their game pretty quick. I think it would take under two shows to get it up to speed.

I've been a manager for a long time in my professional life now. I can tell you in any management situation there needs to be a balance between the carrot and the stick. Right now there is no stick at all and a lot of fat rabbits. Sometimes when you run things you just can't be everyone's "mate" all the time.

You know, somewhere in between what I posted, and what Skyler posted, I think the point was lost.

I just wish I remembered what it was.

I was stoned, at the time. (Kind of have to, doctors suck and the plant really eases my colitis crap) And I don't think I elaborated, or fully realized, the idea I had.

Anyway, we've gotta' do something to put a spark in promoing. I think a good seventy percent of the fun I have here lies in the competition. We've gotta' embrace that more so than we have been. At the heart of it all that's what this is anyway. It's the basic principle of e-fedding. I think the fun/competitive balance needs to be reset.

I was once in Abel's shoes (Point #1) watching some of the votes and what not occur on previous shows and I actually reached a "What's the point?" part on here. After watching some old WCW/WWF/ECW matches on youtube I kind of realized I love wrestling. I don't care if I win or lose (while it would be great to have at least one epic match/story line that would be the talk of the fed before the next epic match/story line that someone else has... And really isn't that all of our goals?) or where I stand in the fed, if I am popular or just a jobber. That is why when I first joined, knowing I was new, I posted so little as a promo; while it hurt my character I just didn't see the point in going in depth with it. After talking to Bryson off and on and watching the youtube videos I really actually realized I could have fun here... Which is why this show for Corruption i've posted a lot more into it. Plus I can develop a gimmick/character I had wrote down in the back of my mind that I was too afraid to use in real life in the ring. As was stated... We're all here because of the same bond we share for wrestling, whether it be reminiscing of the attitude era, the glory days of ECW before it was tamed and destroyed by Vince, worshiping John Cena and CM Punk, or looking at all the old vets trying to keep it real on TNA... We're here because we love wrestling and well I have kind of really lost my point here and continuously rambling on but you guys should get the hint of what I am trying to say.

I'm actually completely behind what Abel said. I personally have never been on the wrong end of a vote rape in favor of a no-show, but I've seen it happen far more often than I'm comfortable with. Everything else he put as well as I could, so I'll just tell you to read that post again and assign my name to it too.

X wrote:

Skyler Striker wrote:

^This.

While I've long given up on why people vote, I have to agree with Frost here

Frost?

And just so we're clear. I'm not bitching. I like FMW. I was here when it FIRST began.

But man, that comment about YNG deserving a vote even when they did absolutely nothing until an extension came reeks of favortism. Even if you believed that, Edible, I don't think it should've been said especially as a Head Writer as all it did was make me question how things are done around here...now.

Me and DGS posted our promos before the extension. It was Bobino who didn't. Just sayin'.

Abel, I honestly think that your solution is probably the best and most fair suggested here. A separate period just for voting would likely shore up a lot of these issues, and would ensure that everyone was voting looking at the same promos. In addition, the more I think about it the more I like it, since that period could overlap with the period in which the raters are supposed to be getting in their scores, so I don't think that would slow anything down or cause issues. It would probably mean enforcing deadlines a bit more harshly, but if it was a rule that the deadline was always Saturday at 11:59 PM EST... I think I'd be okay with that. Again, a big part of the reason I extended it this last time around was that the deadline was Friday night and there are some people that really need that last Saturday to get their stuff in. Again, though, I can say I want to do that... but that's not just my call.

I am very sensitive to the fact that some of you have had a bad experience with the whole vote-rape thing. I hope that solution, or whatever solution gets implemented, can go a long way towards helping with that. Because as I said, at the end of the day the most important thing is that you're all having fun. I certainly don't like that Tyrant left because of voting, or that any of you get that upset about something like that.

BUT

I feel like that's not going to solve that problem entirely. In Ty's case, there was one vote that was posted before both he and Drew posted their promos, which were both well before the deadline. While I think a lot of people think that Ty's promo for U3 was better than Drew's... that's obviously not how the voting went (Drew got 16 votes to Ty's 9). The reason I bring this up is that this situation is not going to be fixed by any of these suggested rules (even cutting voting influence by half would have given Drew the victory, 5.15 - 5.05). The point I'm trying to make is this:

Unless you want to scrap voter influence entirely... that's always going to be a problem. The bottom line is what Skyler alluded to - you can't take votes personally here if you want to have fun. That's easy for me to say, because I'm an old hand and I've already learned that the hard way years ago. There is no way to stop the popularity contest issue... because that's always what voting is going to feel like when nobody is explaining their votes (or, in some cases, even if they do explain their votes). The only way to "fix" that would be to render voting useless... and again I don't think that's a great idea just because you're putting even MORE power and discretion in the hands of the raters and head writers.

I'm not saying that to be mean. I'm not saying that to tell you "get over it" or something like that. I mean that merely as a caution. I mean, I quit for a good year because I felt like my best wasn't good enough, so trust me I know all about the taking it personally thing. What I'm saying is that if you obsess over that end of things... it's going to ruin some of your fun here, no doubt. No matter what system we have here... that's always going to be an issue.

You know I completely accept that vote rape can and will occur at some point. Tyrant was a bad example probably for this circumstance. I was more making the point this is an ongoing issue.

I have lost other matches with higher APS on voting but at least in those the other guy had a promo up and the voting went against me. I could live with that. The Smitten match was insulting because I was WAY down on votes vs nothing.

I like the separate voting and promo periods suggestion. It came to me as I was ranting and the more I thought about it the better it seemed.

*The promo thread gets locked at deadline (agree with your Sat night idea too by the way)
*New thread gets opened for voting
*Late promos can be posted in the voting thread but are ineligible to receive votes.

Can I move a motion, or do we have to wait for the Annual General Meeting?

Abel Steele wrote:

*The promo thread gets locked at deadline (agree with your Sat night idea too by the way)
*New thread gets opened for voting
*Late promos can be posted in the voting thread but are ineligible to receive votes.

Can I move a motion, or do we have to wait for the Annual General Meeting?

Um... I'm not sure how that works. As far as I'm aware these sorts of rule changes aren't done democratically.

But, I'd like to see what you all think of Abel's suggestion. I only have one further comment, which is on the last part. My initial reaction was simply something along the lines of "who would post a promo when it can't get votes?"... but I think it's important to note what was being said above about squashes. Ultimately, your character is always going to look better if you have a promo up. That being said, one of the reasons I liked your suggestion is that promo rating could be ongoing when votes are being cast, and that wouldn't be as true with promos still rolling in. I think I could take or leave that part... is what I'm saying.

Also, as much as I like reading my own words here, I think it's not fair for me to simply put anything forth without some comment from Bryson and/or Drew, as I'm only one such head writer. I'm sure Bryson has some things he'd like to say here.

Abel Steele wrote:

Can I move a motion, or do we have to wait for the Annual General Meeting?

Sorry, that was me being a smart ass. I expect that any change will be discussed by all in the OOC forums but decisions will be made in the HO.

And I can see what you mean about rating. That's a tricky one. I'd suggest maybe you could say anyone posting after deadline is doing so simply to avoid the squash and is unlikely to drop a bomb promo in there. If that is the case maybe a standard score of 1.0 gets applied to anything posted late to avoid the squash????

That would also mean if there are two no shows at deadline and one posts in there after deadline they get a score of 1.0, that would at least stop the HW from having to arbitrarily decide a winner.

Not sure that is the best solution. Anyone got a better idea?

Maybe it's time we tried just extending the promo period?

I don't think it could hurt anything as that is when the forum is most active anyway. That, and if we cut the voting and promo period back to just voting, it'd look all neat and tidy and stuff.

As for staff getting a head start, the option is always there for them to rate as promos come in. Should an influx come in at the end, there's still probably a day before voting starts and two before it ends.

This way, coupled with the ideas above, I see as a good way to get out an organized two shows a month. To me, extending the promo/voting periods only extends the amount of time the fed is active, which according to this plan-ish thing, would be a little more than two full weeks a month.

After thinking about it, all this is doing is really cutting the staff time down, but not really, just overlapping it with voting as the end of that period could be the dealine for ratings.

Just rambling now really.

Zippin' it up.

If I can make a suggestion, which I can't remember if I have or not?

At LPW, we've changed our Voting and Promo period slightly to give people a more balanced chance to view all promos.

Basically, all we do is add an extra day of Voting only to the end of the Voting and Promo period. There's still the voting on promos for the last 2 days for the Promo period, but an exclusive day on the end is added.

In terms of staff, it changes nothing to their deadlines, because people still need to get Promo Ratings in, and that's a whole day where no promos can be posted or edited, but can still be voted upon.

Perhaps this is something that can be tried, see if it makes a difference to the voting situations. In terms of the promos getting up, it might make people more punctual, but in actual fact, it places less pressure to post before voting starts, but still gives people to vote against them and cost them votes if they don't. Kind of like an in built penalty system in a way.

After talking it over with Bryson, here's what we're doing for next show.

-Promo only period will be 5 days ish, likely until a Friday
-There will be one day of voting and promo, being Saturday. It will be promo only until 6 PM EST, then a brief window of voting and promo period starts between 6 pm and 11:59 PM EST
-Voting only for 2 more days while staff gets their shit in.
-Extensions will be very, very unlikely
-People will not be barred from voting for no-shows... however if you vote for a no-show... know that you're wasting your vote, and there's no chance of your guy showing after you vote (and as I said to Skyler, there's virtually no chance of a guy losing to a no-show, no matter the voting situation). SHAME matches will continue to be booked as they are (given almost no length, usually full of shenanigans), and will continue to be decided by votes
-We will continue to book no shows as squashes. And if you no-show in a tag match, you get pinned. Basically, if you don't want to be booked like shit... show up

This is a sort of "easing into things" plan. We're going to see how this goes... and make adjustments as necessary. I understand that some of you are going to want more than this... but this is what can be agreed upon for now. This isn't a dead issue, and we'll continue to monitor things and make adjustments.

I almost won a tag match on my own where my partner no-showed once.

No real reason to mention that, I just like the story, and making like, 3 people, remember THE WAR PIG.