It\u2019s March. It\u2019s snowy outside for some inexplicable reason. What does this mean? Why are these facts relevant? Well they aren\u2019t. I just needed an introduction and damn it, I\u2019m giving you one. But what is this….well…..<\/p>\n
It\u2019s the glorious return of Cynical View of E-fedding!<\/p>\n
I\u2019ll give you a moment to get drunk in celebration, enjoy a hangover, sleep-in, and come back forty-eight hours later to read this. Go ahead. I\u2019ll wait.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
We\u2019ll pretend that void up there represents forty-hours and the preceding activities and get into the bulk of this thing. More things that make me need to call in a drywall company to replace the holes in my wall. These aren\u2019t things that piss me off but more questions that make me go \u201cWHY! WHY THE HELL ARE YOU DOING THAT?! WHY!!!!!!!!!!\u201d<\/p>\n
With that said, allow me to continue.<\/p>\n
One manager\/valet has been done. But FIFTEEN! That\u2019s going to be the NEW benchmark!<\/strong><\/p>\n What is with the infatuation for having countless managers or valets? Furthermore, why do you need fourteen people to all have specific\u00a0pic\u00a0bases? This may seem like I\u2019m starting on a petty notion, but honestly, I find that this is becoming an annoying trend. Almost as if it is some trivial game of\u00a0oneupsmanship, several people are starting to have multiple valets or managers and for no good reason. Everyone wants an entourage. That\u2019s great. But is there a reason for these people to be at ringside with you? Do you really need so many people there? Or is this just a pointless reason to look like you\u2019re changing up your character rather than doing something meaningful.<\/p>\n To be fair, often this is simply because it serves some simple purpose. What better\u00a0way to look like a womanizer than having five valets follow\u00a0you to the ring. What better way to make up for a small frame than having a bodyguard. In some cases, introducing a manager or valet or a bodyguard is useful. It adds an alternate dimension. I\u2019m not here to criticize those. In fact, in some cases I\u2019m perfectly fine for it. I was fine with Infamous bringing in Pete\u00a0Ebdon\u00a0as a good case was made for his inclusion into the group. I was fine with Gunner Wayne coming into Chad Evans and his followers as it made sense how the idea was posed to me. In fact, Katie Steward and her entourage I was more than happy to jump on board and make them active parts of her matches as a \u201cQueen\u201d or \u201cGoddess\u201d would have an entourage, especially someone with the personality of Katie Steward.<\/p>\n But without naming names, I\u2019m seeing the managers\/valets list on the roster balloon. Often many of these individuals aren\u2019t even in the entrances of the people they are affiliated with and often they serve no purpose except to stand there. Did they train the character? Do you interact with them? Or are they there simply because you can have one? This point you\u2019ll notice I\u2019m come to repeatedly. But ultimately, half the roster does not need a manager or valet. Half the roster does not need someone in their corner. Variety is the spice of life. But ultimately, unless you have a good reason for them to be there, why have\u00a0them? Even if you are dating them or making them a romantic interest, why have\u00a0them\u00a0at ringside? Just to place them there and have\u00a0them\u00a0there?<\/p>\n These are questions few people really ask. There needs to be a purpose for a valet or manager. They are the mouthpiece.\u00a0The bodyguard.\u00a0The person who does their bookings.\u00a0They are their mentor or trainer.\u00a0Valid reasons.\u00a0However, the next question is….does it add anything to the character? Or is it done just because? Look at the roster today and look at how many people have some sort of manager or valet. How many of them are needed? With that said, I do try to make many of them have a legitimate role in their characters development on the shows and many of them have grown into being a good compliment to the main attraction with the character. But I can\u2019t do this with all and in many cases, I just write the valets or managers out.<\/p>\n Where my main concern comes with people taking up\u00a0pic\u00a0bases to represent people in their\u00a0roleplays\u00a0or with these pointless additions to their characters.\u00a0All this does is\u00a0remove\u00a0them from being possibilities for new members of SCW or for legitimate additions to group. Granted, there are a lot of\u00a0pic\u00a0bases, but many that are used are on the popular side. All they do is add to headaches or uncertainty as many individuals don\u2019t want to rock the boat, especially over something as small as a\u00a0pic\u00a0base. However, with that said, how many people have invested time into their character and their\u00a0pic\u00a0base is how they always envision them. There was even a discussion on this on the boards at one point, discussing how with some characters, you view them as their\u00a0pic\u00a0base. Now imagine a new member coming and having that same visualization. Ultimately this is a small part of the greater issue, but another thing to think about.<\/p>\n You know I want a group of people to randomly hang out with. Some people call them friends, but I need the wrestling equivalent. You know…to feel important!<\/strong><\/p>\n Stables are a wonderful thing. They can be something that can be the focal point of a feud and create a lot of really interesting matchups and dynamics. However, as many have noticed and as usually\u00a0happens\u00a0cyclically in SCW, stables are in an overabundance. At this moment, there are four true stables and at least one loose alliance. But as always happens with a stable, people lose sight of their purpose. This is not to talk about the purpose of a stable. There should always be that. Sometimes that purpose changes over time and the alliance becomes something more. That however is not my focus.<\/p>\n My focus is on this belief that more is more. Confused?<\/p>\n To phrase it another way….Why the hell do you need half the roster in your little group? This is not directed to one specific individual but instead something that I\u2019ve actually had multiple discussions with a number of people in the last four months. But so many people want more. They want some huge group. They want EVERYONE to be their ally.<\/p>\n Why? Because.<\/p>\n Often this is largely for an entirely OOC reason. They want another good\u00a0roleplayer\u00a0for dominance.\u00a0Nevermind\u00a0that that\u00a0roleplayer\u00a0has no characters that compliment the other characters in the group.\u00a0Nevermind\u00a0that the group itself would have to twist its purpose of existence to allow that person in.\u00a0Nevermind\u00a0that all it does is constantly lead to everyone else wanting to recruit. I don\u2019t need to name some major wrestling promotion that had this same issue and then chronicle their downfall to make a much smaller point.<\/p>\n I always ask why whenever I\u2019m given a segment, idea or anything of the sort. But this is one place where for some reason people struggle to give me a good reason for an in-character reason. I get that people make friends in the fed. I get that people get along. I also understand that people want to work with each other. But sadly, none of those are good reasons why I have to make some convoluted storyline to get another member of your group.<\/p>\n Too many times people get caught up in numbers. Well, they have five members, so we need five members. And no, it can\u2019t be a loose alliance. We need a secret handshake, meeting place and wear the same coloured underwear. Rather\u00a0that\u00a0trying to figure out how their character may react or even trying to see that as a challenge, immediately people want to counteract things. Add that people want EVERYTHING. I\u2019ve turned down at least five requests to introduce someone into a stable for the simple reason that in storylines and with the characters, not only did it not make sense, but I felt it would actually HURT the character. I don\u2019t care if the character adds a strong\u00a0roleplayer\u00a0to your group. That\u2019s great and all, but ultimately, I pose the question: \u201cWhy don\u2019t you just work on improving your\u00a0roleplays?\u201d<\/p>\n Too many times adding a new member looks good on paper. But think about what it does to the dynamic of the group. Does it alienate someone? Does it cause major character transformation? Does it even make sense? You can\u2019t have everyone in your group. And one thing a lot of people don\u2019t realize is that when it comes to opportunities, having all the gold in your group looks great on paper. However, it also severely limits what you can do in terms of opportunities. And then people get frustrated.<\/p>\n Ultimately when it comes to stables a couple of things need to be clear. What is the purpose of the stable? Why is this collection of people working together? What are their relationships? But ultimately, how much is too much? Numbers may look good on paper, but also the larger the group, the more watered down things become. I can\u2019t have everyone involved in every segment and be in something meaningful every time, especially when everyone has the same interests. I can\u2019t give everyone the same opportunities just simply due to mathematics and the depth of the roster. I also can\u2019t always have you win every segment too. Simple booking logic dictates that. So what do you gain?\u00a0A watered-down version of your initial group.\u00a0Is that worth it just to have your friends on the same team? Is it worth having a generic group that has no real purpose?<\/p>\n One more thing: Alliances are not a bad thing. Everyone has this desire to have sturdy, clear, named teams and groups. Loose alliances aren\u2019t a bad thing. Some heels will have respect for other heels. They\u2019ll help if you really need it, but aren\u2019t going to come out every time you get attacked.\u00a0Same thing with faces.\u00a0Why isn\u2019t that an option looked at? Yes, being part of a group is something that we all remember from high school as being cool, but you\u2019re not in high school; you\u2019re\u00a0roleplaying\u00a0for a character and sometimes being part of a group is not a good idea. Sometimes it hurts the character or handcuffs them. Sometimes it forces them down a path the handler doesn\u2019t feel comfortable. And, on my side, it sometimes limits me with what I can do with the characters in terms of storylines as I have to constantly remember your alliance to a specific group.<\/p>\n Furthermore, if you really want to work with people, a feud is usually easier to do. I\u2019ve done it in the past and usually if I have enough warning, I will try to work around it and give it to you at some point. It may not be immediately, but at some point.<\/p>\n Just because you can write a segment, doesn\u2019t mean you should.<\/strong><\/p>\n This is something that I think I need to reiterate since we do have a number of new faces, but also some old. Many people realize that I am VERY controlling over what I publish on Breakdown and I do oversee Ammo for the most part. I ultimately, for better or worse, feel that I am responsible for whatever happens on the shows. That includes segments that other individuals submit.<\/p>\n Now, my understanding is that in many other feds, the\u00a0roleplayers\u00a0are tasked to come up with segment ideas and even create their own storylines. Again, I don\u2019t frown on either of these. However, I have just gotten used to, over my going onto eight years running SCW, just coming up with the storylines, segment ideas and what not. Anyone that has worked with me closely on show-writing will know I actually do a\u00a0runsheet\u00a0for every show, laying out the entire show, start to finish, so the show flows well. As such, this can sometimes limit my flexibility for accepting segments. Often though, if you submit me something early enough, I can try to work it in. Otherwise, you\u2019re taking a chance.<\/p>\n But one tip I\u2019m going to give to anyone looking to write or submit a segment. As has been the trend in this entire column, I always ask why. In this case, why is the segment important? I will always turn down segments that do nothing except are self-serving (put themselves over at the expense of others or just because). I will also turn down segments that are submitted with no real reason. To be honest, I don\u2019t care about most random conversations. I don\u2019t care about the person arriving to the arena unless they are in a major segment.<\/p>\n Segments that I encourage are ones that create a loose alliance, ones that might even increase stable unity,\u00a0interview\u00a0segments that promote the match later in the night (or the upcoming pay per view match). Also, note, we are on network television. Heavy swearing, nudity, and violence can\u2019t happen. Ultimately, all of these things are even less of an issue because if you\u2019ve got a good segment idea, but I happen not to like a few minor things or I feel I can reuse it to forward something else on the show, I\u2019m happy to edit it for you and keep the general\u00a0jist\u00a0of what you\u2019ve done. In many cases, I\u2019ll use the dialogue you provide me and just maybe put it in a different context or lead into it a bit differently just so I can do a few things (If you\u2019re meeting someone in the hallway, I may change it and have it come in after one person bumps into someone). And also, if you\u2019re ever wondering about a segment idea, send me a PM on the boards with the basic\u00a0jist\u00a0of the segment. I usually have a basic idea of what I\u2019m doing with your character on Breakdown or in storylines and can even help you frame the segment so it works perfectly with what I have planned which saves me time and effort having to write the segment anyways when I\u2019m writing the rest of the show.<\/p>\n I know my style of show-writing and storyline-crafting really makes some people uncomfortable. I am very independent and often do much of it all myself simply because over the years, that\u2019s how I\u2019ve done it, but also, I enjoy the challenge of trying to come up with exciting storylines each week to entertain everyone in this fed. But that doesn\u2019t mean I\u2019m against people submitting idea or segments. Often if I don\u2019t use it, it\u2019s simply because I couldn\u2019t fit it in with the plan for the show and nothing more. But by all means, approach me with ideas. Even if I disagree with you or shoot it down or just refuse to put it on the show, it doesn\u2019t mean I can\u2019t use parts of it at some point or another. I usually remember ideas and will try to re-envision them at a later date. As many people who have been in SCW for a while will tell you, if you come to me with an idea, I\u2019ll, at the very least, discuss it with you. But much as many of you are protective of your characters or proud of your\u00a0roleplays, I\u2019m protective of SCW as I\u2019ve written some part of or had my involvement with virtually every show SCW has had and my job is to come up with storylines and angles for everyone in the fed and to give everyone something to work with. It\u2019s a hell of a challenge and one a lot of people don\u2019t realize how much goes into it. And at the end, I need to be proud of the show I produce. I can\u2019t make everyone happy every day of the week, but I can give people a good read each week and one that people will want to read over and over again and that\u2019s my goal at the end.<\/p>\n At the end of this all, if you take one thing from this column, it\u2019s \u201cWHY?!\u201d Ask it if you have an idea. It saves me a lot of time trying to debate it with you or explaining my reasoning for what I\u2019m not a fan of an idea. Too many times people think short-term, but not long-term. At the end, also this isn\u2019t to just make you avoid doing a stable, submit a segment or have a manager\/valet. This is just to make you think a moment before you considering doing those things. Is it the right move? Do I have a good reason to do it? Please, for my sake, ask those questions. The beer store may not thank you, but I will!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" It\u2019s March. It\u2019s snowy outside for some inexplicable reason. What does this mean? Why are these facts relevant? Well they aren\u2019t. I just needed an introduction and damn it, I\u2019m giving you one. But what is this….well….. It\u2019s the glorious return of Cynical View of E-fedding! I\u2019ll give you a moment to get drunk in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[2,3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.supremecw.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.supremecw.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.supremecw.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.supremecw.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.supremecw.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=202"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.supremecw.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.supremecw.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.supremecw.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.supremecw.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}