Remade Poll

[El Boricua]

I'm not voting until we get a set definition of what inactivity entails. If not, my vote will be No with the right to change it to a Yes once there is a set definition.

 

As for roster size, would it be possible to consider different cap sizes depending on the territory in question, or is everyone on board with it heing the same for all?

[LowBlowPodcast]

I'm not voting until we get a set definition of what inactivity entails. If not, my vote will be No with the right to change it to a Yes once there is a set definition.

 

As for roster size, would it be possible to consider different cap sizes depending on the territory in question, or is everyone on board with it heing the same for all?

 

I am still unsure why you are on the block to be taken out. You have proven to be an vital part of the system. You continue to post, so in my opinion you aren't on the block. If anything, PR could be ran almost like Japan with touring which could work well for you, but that's your call in order for you to get caught up or keeping your promotion alive, whichever is your purgative.

 

In my opinion, inactivity is like Goc said, Brian hadn't logged on in a month. This whole pm thing is confusing, because that means the person is still working but Wahoo hasn't been overly big in the discussions, nor posting shows in quite some time, although he has stated he's a busy guy.

 

The roster size thing is what it is. I have got a great group right now that I have built but am always looking for a way to upgrade. It is like having that staple of 10-15 guys with other interchanging pieces that compliment the roster to go with the 10 or so regular job guys.

[dawho5]

Let me work on defining that poll question better.

 

I edited the question to include three options instead of two. There is a good chance you will have to revote due to positioning.

[dawho5]

I'm going to ask again.

 

Is there any other options that need to be added to the poll questions? I have 20 per, so if there's a concern that's not being addressed let me know and I'll do my best to get it in there.

[Jesse Ewiak]

Here's my general feelings.

 

I'm fine with the absorbtion as it's been happening with the provision that if for example, somebody comes around who is new, active, and wants to book say, Georgia or say, California, or Stampede down the road, those promotions can reopen with a decent roster. Maybe give them a quasi-crappy roster for a month to see if they're active, then they can do an expanson draft off the other rosters and actually create a decent roster.

 

On activity, I think a month with no contact is enough to say goodbye.

 

I'm agnostic on roster limits, but 36 w/ a couple manager sounds right. That's enough for a tag team division, a singles division, and some jobbers.

[goc]

It's a lot easier to leave the talent out there than to get it back. Trying to get everyone to agree on parameters for an expansion draft is just going to lead to another big contentious fight. I'd see more people quitting over an expansion draft that takes away pieces of talent that are in the middle of big plans than it actually helping bring in new writers.

 

I have 39 wrestlers on my roster. Only 11 of them aren't involved in some type of plan/story/angle. 2 of them are going to get dropped into free agency by the end of the month when I get done with them. The rest of them are either total jobbers or really low on the card. There's no way an expansion draft wouldn't totally screw up my plans. Carl Fergie is only getting used as a referee so I'm not sure that should count.

[kevinmcfl]

While I understand if we limit our roster size, we would mostly be throwing jobbers into free agency. This is why I do not promote dead promotion rosters staying with that dead promotion. The more people available to us in a dispersal draft will have a trickle down effect on free agency. Soon or later, by combining a roster cap and more dispersal drafts, free agency will get better.

 

Super Stan said to look at NWAR. I was a writer there for a few months before it closed and I came in very late. Their free agency list literally had over 200 wrestlers and I was able to have a great start up roster for Polynesian Pro Wrestling. The larger free agency is, the more likely new writers will want to join. By leaving the rosters with their dead promotions also takes some of the fun out of it for us. I mean there are not many people rushing to join and leaving great wrestlers dormant takes the fun out of 1983. If Memphis was dead and nobody saw Lawler or Idol or Hacksaw Reed again it would take something away from the fun of all the readers.

[goc]

Super Stan said to look at NWAR. I was a writer there for a few months before it closed and I came in very late. Their free agency list literally had over 200 wrestlers and I was able to have a great start up roster for Polynesian Pro Wrestling. The larger free agency is, the more likely new writers will want to join.

I don't see how things in this game are ever even going to possibly get close to that. How did that even happen there? We're not including guys who only wrestled in Mexico, Japan or England in our game so that right there cuts down on a lot of guys I suspect were in the NWAR game.

 

And for guys to become eligible in this game they have to be wrestling on a roster in 1983 that we can actually find results for not just look at wikipedia and go "oh well it says he started wrestling in 1982, let's throw him in" because who knows how accurate that is?

[kevinmcfl]

Good point Goc. I just don't want to see so many wrestlers who made the 1980's great go dark and I also want to see a game that interests need readers.

[goc]

I actually don't think there ARE any readers that aren't in this project. At least none that have ever commented.

[Super Stan]

The ideal is to have full territories with great writers that participate on a regular basis but that isn't reality. The reality is that people sign up with great plans and ideas but for one reason or another don't go through with them. This is a participatory game/writing exercise that requires just that ... if at a certain point or time, individuals are unable to meet the leagues rules/expectations they should forfeit their rosters.

 

You'll go through ebbs and flows of writers coming and going which will be both fun and frustrating.

[goc]

The idea of getting new writers in is nice and I want new writers to be able to come in, but I just don't see how that can happen unless we do something to protect a roster when someone quits. The free agent list is not going to entice people to join, even after a roster limit gets imposed that would cause people to pare down their roster by 4-5 wrestlers. Then they'll just have 30-40 jobbers to choose from instead of 10.

 

Everyone already in the game has pretty much come out against do another big draft so I don't see people liking the actuality of an enhancement draft if one were to really take place. Sure people can say now "well we'll just have to share pieces of our pie if we want new writers" but I suspect people saying that don't really think an enhancement draft is going to happen. Or that somehow they'll skate through and not lose anyone important.

 

I mean even if you get to save your top 10 guys there's still going to be talent that you lose, and immediately without being able to wrap up an ongoing storyline or write them out. It's much easier to leave guys out there that no one is writing for and thus won't ruin any existing plans if they go to a new writer.

[Super Stan]

 

I have a question ... expansion into what?

 

I guess the easiest way I can explain what "expansion" means is looking at the tiered system of the Territories. You had the big ones with JCP, WWF, and AWA. They were just a level up from some of the smaller territories that ran. Look at something like a Memphis, ICW, WWA, All Star, Portland, and Central States. These promotions, while they had their finer points were smaller territories that ran in their areas and did it well. I do like the idea of keeping everything under a umbrella, but to keep everyone at the same level doesn't seem right. I am not proposing a WWF take over and death of territories, but like the system worked out in real life, there were some territories bigger than others. Some territories had bigger stars than others. Some territories ran more shows that others. Some territories were just bigger than others. That is just my push is to allow that to happen organically, rather than putting barriers on that. No need for a national or global style promotion in this world we've created, simply some promotions being bigger than others.

 

I know there is resistance to this, it is simply an opinion. The biggest point to be made out of all this is that some opinions aren't welcomed, which kind of stinks. So it is what it is.

 

Everyone should have an opinion but at the same time there have to be rules in place because it is a league made up of more than one person and there has to be a semblance of fairness. Giving you a bigger roster because you want to "grow organically" doesn't work in a "game setting" because everyone will want the even playing field. I may not have the stars you have but I shouldn't be penalized with a smaller roster and have it explained to me that you can be bigger promotion because you got a big one.

 

There also has to be something said for people to stock their rosters with balanced rosters so you don't get into situations of superstar rosters. That, too, will become a problem.

[rainmakerrtv]

Sigh, of course this comes up when I am finally in line to absorb another promotion ... that being said, I still voted against it. The needs of the many etc.

[goc]

I think that's everyone who is going to vote. As far as I can tell the only people who didn't vote are Wahoo and peachchaos

[kevinmcfl]

So when do these new rules become part of the game?

[goc]

I don't have the answer to that but I would lobby that if we put in a roster cap then there should be some kind of a grace period to get under it, perhaps until November 1st?

[Boon]

If promotions are going dormant, will we be able to vote on a trade? For example, I'm interested in Jim Niedhart, I'll happily trade Jake Roberts for him, but Stampede seems done?

 

Could o get a vote to make that trade happen?

[LowBlowPodcast]

If promotions are going dormant, will we be able to vote on a trade? For example, I'm interested in Jim Niedhart, I'll happily trade Jake Roberts for him, but Stampede seems done?

I'd be interested in the same type deal with one member of the iwf.

[Boon]

I don't have the answer to that but I would lobby that if we put in a roster cap then there should be some kind of a grace period to get under it, perhaps until November 1st?

Agreed

[El Boricua]

 

I don't have the answer to that but I would lobby that if we put in a roster cap then there should be some kind of a grace period to get under it, perhaps until November 1st?

Agreed

 

Seconded. I also don't mind if we increase the number of allowable managers to three. I only have two and don't plan on adding any more, but I think three would be fine as the manager amount.

[rainmakerrtv]

I also agree with the manager cap being three.

[kevinmcfl]

Yes manager cap at 3.

 

Proposed trades of equal level is also good idea with ICW and Stampede. Vote required before trade is accepted

[El Boricua]

What about short-term wrestler loans or exchanges that have already been agreed upon and started with territories that may go/are going dormant?

[dawho5]

I think we ought to be able to trade with the dummy promotions. The idea of a vote is good for this. How many people should be required out of the 12 that cast votes here to ratify the trade? 7? 8?

 

I think already agreed-upon deals should be honored.