Remade Poll

[dawho5]

There's been a lot of argument over this and I understand that it's a hard thing to deal with. This whole thing has changed by a whole lot over the last month and it's not going to be easy to deal with regardless of how you look at it. There are a lot of things that need to be decided, both in terms of participation and how everything is distributed once the dust clears. So I made polls for us to do it democratically.

My feeling on the first is that people who have gotten mergers should abstain from voting as it seems like we have gotten the treasure trove and it ought to be up to those who have not if they get the same.

After these things are settled, I think it would be good to talk about how all of the territory from IWF and Stampede will be parceled out. I will be the first to say I want none of it. Quebec, the Maritimes and Ottawa are enough for me forever and that's the way it stays. I think this is the most civil and the best way of deciding some tough questions that there are strong feelings on. Majority rules and we go with that regardless. There has to be a clear direction and I think this is the only way.

 

As suggested in the other topic we need to also define inactivity.

[goc]

I'm not a big fan of the inactivity question due it not being defined so I voted no despite supporting Flyin' Brian being removed. But he was TOTALLY inactive.

 

I don't consider people answering PMs, doing trade deals and taking part in drafts to be inactive. If they're behind on posting shows, they're behind on posting shows but not inactive.

[LowBlowPodcast]

Why is there an option to pass, isn't that counter-productive to what we are trying to achieve through this poll?

[goc]

My feeling on the first is that people who have gotten mergers should abstain from voting as it seems like we have gotten the treasure trove and it ought to be up to those who have not if they get the same.

[LowBlowPodcast]

I see. I was just hoping that individuals wouldn't just pass on the vote as it is an option.

[kevinmcfl]

I believe the choices are somewhat limited.

 

I am for complete inactivity being grounds for you to be forced to drop out but if you let the board know you are still in the game and just behind, I believe you should be allowed time to catch up.

 

As for drop out promotions, I believe the promotion should go on a list of available territories for potential new writers to choice from. The wrestlers from those inactive promotions should go to free agency. In order for these new free agents to be picked up, a promotion would have to drop 2-3 current wrestlers on their roster. It would allow free agency to grow and make available promotion to pick a starting roster of say 25 wrestlers.

[Super Stan]

Sometimes shit happens and life gets in the way of our fun, forcing us to take a break but if you know something is coming, just need a break or don't feel like writing for a bit ... can't you just let the powers that be know? That isn't too hard. If they drop off the face of the Earth, don't drop by the board, don't leave comments or don't participate in any way ... drop them.

 

Of course, a message from whoever is in charge to see if they are still in is okay but it should not be up to the board members to beg writers to write. We are all here because we want to be.

 

As far as what to do with territories ... you want to leave something open so that you might entice new writers. You also don't want all the best available talent drafted up in dispersal drafts until there is nothing good left for potential new writers to choose from. One option might be to take the top 5 guys of a roster and leave them in the territory as untouchable. An expansion of the free agent list might be good, too as well as toning down the roster sizes a bit. Looking over the rosters, there are some bloated ones.

 

Just my two cents.

[goc]

I agree with most of what Super Stan says. Not participating in any way should be grounds for removal, but if you're at least engaged in the project even if it's just drafts and PMs then you should be in as long as you want to be.

 

We also have to leave some kind of opening for new writers especially since we are seemingly all in agreement that losing active promotions is bad even if we disagree about everything else. Unfortunately I don't see that stopping and I don't think an expansion draft is really all that viable as a way to get in new writers.

[dawho5]

Discussion about what constitutes inactivity is something that we should deal with in the thread. I tend to agree that leaving something for new writers is necessary. I just don't want to take the option away from people to absorb another territory when I have already done that.

 

As for taking the top 5 workers off a territory and putting them somewhere, this is an interesting idea. But who are the top 5 workers? It could be argued that Leo Burke and Backlund would be on that list for IWF. Something like that is subjective both to personal tastes and geography. I'd like to see roster flexibility for people coming in, but I also think there are those who feel like fresh talent out of drop-outs is a shot in the arm. There needs to be some way of balancing this out.

[Super Stan]

You have a good point as to what would constitute the "Top 5" of a promotion being subjective and as I have found out firsthand in my short time here what each of you place on your pieces as their value ranges widely though I think that in this position, it would be the 5 guys who would be picked purely on name recognition and future value because those 5 pieces might be the pieces that will be used as trade bait to shape their promotion to fit their writing needs based on whatever their criteria might be - for some it might be based purely on the geographical considerations, others might just like to hoard as many "Stars" as possible, others might take a totally different approach.

 

I do know that unless there are some "sparkly objects" to attract new writers, you might be hard pressed to bring in new people or at least the ability to be attractive certainly lessens.

 

Now, the question becomes ... how do you do that? Asking 5 persons that question, you'll probably get 5 different answers. Here is my take on it ...

 

1. Reduce the roster sizes - a hard limit of 32 to 30 guys plus 2 manager types increases the Free Agent pool.

2. Increase the Free Agent pool.

3. Offer Parity Drafts once, twice, three times a year.

4. Do not consolidate territories - allow them to go "dark" if people drop out. Those will be the promotions you will be hoping to fill with new writers. You can ALWAYS offer them up to current writers in case they would like to take over a vacated area and drop their own.

 

In Dawho's case, what's done is done - you consolidated an area, now move forward.

 

As far as a shot in the arm for your roster - if you carry nearly 40 guys on your roster and need a shot in the arm - something is wrong, especially if a trade or the amount of borrowing being done here already isn't enough.

 

Just my two cents.

[Boon]

You have a good point as to what would constitute the "Top 5" of a promotion being subjective and as I have found out firsthand in my short time here what each of you place on your pieces as their value ranges widely though I think that in this position, it would be the 5 guys who would be picked purely on name recognition and future value because those 5 pieces might be the pieces that will be used as trade bait to shape their promotion to fit their writing needs based on whatever their criteria might be - for some it might be based purely on the geographical considerations, others might just like to hoard as many "Stars" as possible, others might take a totally different approach.

 

I do know that unless there are some "sparkly objects" to attract new writers, you might be hard pressed to bring in new people or at least the ability to be attractive certainly lessens.

 

Now, the question becomes ... how do you do that? Asking 5 persons that question, you'll probably get 5 different answers. Here is my take on it ...

 

1. Reduce the roster sizes - a hard limit of 32 to 30 guys plus 2 manager types increases the Free Agent pool.

2. Increase the Free Agent pool.

3. Offer Parity Drafts once, twice, three times a year.

4. Do not consolidate territories - allow them to go "dark" if people drop out. Those will be the promotions you will be hoping to fill with new writers. You can ALWAYS offer them up to current writers in case they would like to take over a vacated area and drop their own.

 

In Dawho's case, what's done is done - you consolidated an area, now move forward.

 

As far as a shot in the arm for your roster - if you carry nearly 40 guys on your roster and need a shot in the arm - something is wrong, especially if a trade or the amount of borrowing being done here already isn't enough.

 

Just my two cents.

Great minds..

[dawho5]

I know, I ended up doing that as more of an insurance policy that when I do want to rotate guys out I know for sure I can. Running tag teams it's not quite as easy to bring in the two guys you want for a run as it is getting a singles guy. So I have a few teams out working here and there that can come in and spell somebody when the need arises. They won't all be working in Quebec at any one time. But I also understand that we need to have names available for newer writers to come in and will do what I can to balance out those concerns. Whatever happens I can promise you that I will be fair about things.

 

On the issue of who is the "top 5" I think both you and I, Stan, have discovered that name value isn't always the thing. Fit for a person's style, regional concerns, preference/dislike for certain workers all come into decisions. So putting together a top 5 from any one promotion is going to be really tough to do. I would like to propose the idea that an entire roster would go into this pool and people could request a trade with the free agent pool in the case that they really want this worker or that to come in. That trade would have to be ratified by a certain number of people to go through and it would be up to the majority of us to make sure that value was being traded for value. I understand that we all have different ideas of value, but that seems like it would balance things out if we required, say, 7 people to ratify the trade. Between all of those 7 we would certainly have enough of a consensus that somebody was being put back in who would carry the same kind of weight as the person taken out.

[LowBlowPodcast]

For your dummy promotions that "stay alive" and hold people, perhaps the top 5 or 6, those could be freelanced until someone picks up the promotion.

[Boon]

For your dummy promotions that "stay alive" and hold people, perhaps the top 5 or 6, those could be freelanced until someone picks up the promotion.

I think it should just be the champions, because it's who decides who are the top 5? Top 5 in Southeastern isn't worth shit in WWF.

 

I don't think we should do free lancers either, people will plan stuff in and the new person will come in and there be all sorts of I need them for this date etc. Probably best to just isolated them...

[dawho5]

Like I said, I think it would be best to have those rosters there. But if you could propose a trade with that roster that enough people agreed with I think it ought to be fine.

[kevinmcfl]

Limiting roster size is the a step in the right direction.

 

Have open promotions vote on top 5 to remain in Dead Promotions.

 

Redraft idea where you can protect 12-15 wrestlers sounds good and would keep the interest. We all get excited about a draft. If you can protect say 12 wrestlers, your main angles that you are working on will not get messed up and an infusion of new wrestlers will create new angles. If we protect too many wrestlers, we will be just swapping jobbers and lower card tag teams.

[dawho5]

Not big on the redraft idea. That draft took forever and a day. And truth be told, most of my undercard guys don't hold value for anybody besides me, so it's not like I couldn't protect a shit ton of big names.

[Boon]

Limiting roster size is the a step in the right direction.

 

Have open promotions vote on top 5 to remain in Dead Promotions.

 

Redraft idea where you can protect 12-15 wrestlers sounds good and would keep the interest. We all get excited about a draft. If you can protect say 12 wrestlers, your main angles that you are working on will not get messed up and an infusion of new wrestlers will create new angles. If we protect too many wrestlers, we will be just swapping jobbers and lower card tag teams.

See I'm against the whole protect draft, just don't think I'd like knowing that because The Nightmars for example, aren't in my top 12 they won't be down the line and are an essential part to my roster and plans. Also outside of the top 12, most of the guys in promotions are staples of that area...

[Beast]

I oppose an expansion draft.

[dawho5]

I'm all for a 32 or 34 cap on roster size with two managers. This seems beneficial to the project as a whole. Will try to add that to the original poll.

 

I think the idea of a redraft is going to fall flat with anyone who went through the original draft. Or has a roster they like for their area.

[LowBlowPodcast]

I'm all for a 32 or 34 cap on roster size with two managers. This seems beneficial to the project as a whole. Will try to add that to the original poll.

 

I think the idea of a redraft is going to fall flat with anyone who went through the original draft. Or has a roster they like for their area.

 

I am not overly big on the cap... I have stated from the beginning that vertical expansion is one thing I'd like to accomplish but having more limitations on my product being able to grow would be difficult. Perhaps if the cap was bigger, then I'd be fine, more as a place holder, but not something that is going to limit me from being able to build my product. And yes, I know I cans till have trades and such, but home grown guys are always important. If the cap were more like 40-45, I feel that those are barriers I could work around. Just an opinion.

[dawho5]

Okay, the option is there. Any other suggestions on how to structure the poll? Add more definition on the inactivity question with more options?

 

FYI you'll have to delete your vote and revote to answer the third question.

[Boon]

 

 

I'm all for a 32 or 34 cap on roster size with two managers. This seems beneficial to the project as a whole. Will try to add that to the original poll.

 

I think the idea of a redraft is going to fall flat with anyone who went through the original draft. Or has a roster they like for their area.

I am not overly big on the cap... I have stated from the beginning that vertical expansion is one thing I'd like to accomplish but having more limitations on my product being able to grow would be difficult. Perhaps if the cap was bigger, then I'd be fine, more as a place holder, but not something that is going to limit me from being able to build my product. And yes, I know I cans till have trades and such, but home grown guys are always important. If the cap were more like 40-45, I feel that those are barriers I could work around. Just an opinion.

I think for the greater good, you may have to release the idea of having a massive roster. By limiting the rosters, more people will be able to join the game and ultimately make things better. I have 32 wrestlers and 1 manager. I think the idea of having 35 all in all is probably the best fit...

[Boon]

And that's not to suck the fun out of it for you Low Blow, but some restrictions need to be in place...

[LowBlowPodcast]

I will state it again, I don't want a massive roster, but even the other day I was looking at doing a double booking with the current crop and I had to jump out for Freelance work. This is my concern to work around, not the groups.

 

I have no problem sitting into the mindset that we all have to be the same size, it is not overly kosher with me, but writing and story line will out due any of those concerns. Whatever the max cap that one person sees fit to put in a poll is, it has my vote for all intensive purposes.