Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Ezekiel Carter-Williams V · (12-28-2013)

I was just wondering if it was a way to do some type of contender ranking to show someone how close they are to be a contender for a title. Just a thought.

Theo Pryce · **12-28-2013, 02:32 PM**

I was just thinking the exact same thing last night.

Ezekiel Carter-Williams V · (12-28-2013)

You were thinking of Shane sticking potatoes in Crimson Dong's butt too? Weird.

Theo Pryce · (12-28-2013)

It is the vision of my wet dreams.

**12-28-2013, 03:22 PM**

Madness should do something like this since they already have a system in place that tracks wins and moves people up and down a ladder.

When I ran Warfare, I would try to handle contenders like this:

week 1 - xtreme title contenders match, us title contenders match, xtreme title defense, us champ had night off

week 2 - x-treme title match w/ #1 contender, us title match w/ #1 contender

week 3 - x-treme champ had night off, us champion had night off, usually tried to determine a new contender for both titles on the same night

week 4 - title matches

It came out so the X-Treme Champion defended 3 times per month, and the US Champion defended twice.

~~Peter Fn Gilmour~~ · **12-28-2013, 03:58 PM**

Bad idea

Theo Pryce · (12-28-2013)

(12-28-2013, 03:58 PM)Peter Fn Gilmour Said: Bad idea

Care to elaborate on that well thought out statement?

Hank Lane · **12-28-2013, 09:14 PM**

I think it is a great ideal for a couple of reasons.
1) It will give everyone an idea on where they stand.
2) The roleplays would improve even more when people are fighting for something.

Sebastian Duke · **12-28-2013, 09:30 PM**

Right now, everybody is fighting for something. You know that Nuclear Winter Series thing stickied on the OOC board? When it concludes, it will culminate with a Rumble. That winner earns a shot at the King.

Also, I no longer keep track of wins and losses on Madness. The job I have allows for a much more limited amount of fed time so I converted that Madness site into a title history page.

A rankings system would be somewhat hard to accomplish in a fed environment. For instance, say a top quality writer has 4 matches in one month, all against other top quality writers and only wins two of them. Does that mean he or she should be ranked lower than a guy or girl that had the same amount of matches, won them all, but faced writers of a lesser quality? If you look at it that way, you can see why I'd disagree with that kind of ranking system.

~~Peter Fn Gilmour~~ · (12-29-2013)

(12-28-2013, 03:59 PM)Theo Pryce Said:
(12-28-2013, 03:58 PM)Peter Fn Gilmour Said: Bad idea

Care to elaborate on that well thought out statement?

im all for having a contenders list but what maddy put up i did not like that much.. just saying..

id rather have the list and have the champs fight the guys from say #5 up in succession. was thinking of what TNA used to do but forgot..

**12-28-2013, 11:47 PM**

I was just listing what worked for me when I ran Warfare. I never had any complaints for 8 months so I figured I was doing something right with that setup. GMs are free to run their shows however they wish.

I do agree with Duke that the ranking thing can be a pain in the ass to keep up with. I tried it for about a month and lost track.

**12-29-2013, 01:59 AM**

(12-28-2013, 10:12 PM)Peter Fn Gilmour Said:
(12-28-2013, 03:59 PM)Theo Pryce Said:
(12-28-2013, 03:58 PM)Peter Fn Gilmour Said: Bad idea

Care to elaborate on that well thought out statement?

im all for having a contenders list but what maddy put up i did not like that much.. just saying..

id rather have the list and have the champs fight the guys from say #5 up in succession. was thinking of what TNA used to do but forgot..

It's funny you mention that as there used to be an official TNA fed in like 04-05 and the rules there were similar. But what they did was give people marks, as I recall out of 5 with .25 increments, and then they'd have a weekly kind of 'league' showing who was weekly the best, and on average the best.

This way people are ranked not on win/loss, but on their writing. Im sure I expounded on this in more detail last year when people turned on Tax' s win/loss ranking system on the old board (for reasons similar to what Duke wrote). But, basically, this system would be impossible here. Even if a GM tasked themselves with ranking and collating rankings, there are so many instances of multiple judges, with their own criteria and preferences that it just wouldn't work getting consistent 'official' rankings the old tna way. And you can't really have 'independent' weekly ranking judges, imagine the hassle if the 'official judges' ruled differently to the results? Too much potential drama.

Steve "KingSlayer" Davids · **12-29-2013, 04:13 AM**

Sorry to be "that guy" but this is a bad idea. Since joining XWF, people have always been encouraged to put themselves out there, be active etc. Not everything can simply be put down to just wins and losses. Plus as Duke and Madison said, it would be a pain in the ass to keep up with.

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode Idea of some sort
Author	Message