Poll

[Chuck Woolery 0]

I'd appreciate honest answers here -- and if you think it's less than 90% of the time, I'd like to know why and what you feel can be done to prevent the problem.

 

Thank you.

[Ace309 0]

I'm interested in honest answers here as well, if only in numbers. To my knowledge we can't see who voted how, and even if we could I'm not at all interested in knowing who thinks there's a significant bias if they don't want to put it in the air.

 

I am, however, very open to people who want to share their criticisms and worries, so please feel free to post here without fear of retribution.

[Guest The Satanic Angel]

I am satisfied with the job the markers are doing. I know it goes unsaid, but I know I speak for many of us when I say that we appreciate what you do for us (yes, really!).

[Cuban Linx 0]

I've never has any problems with the quality of marking in any of the time i've been here. Every now and then there might be a decision i would disagree with, but there's nothing i can recall that was gratuitously bad or anything.

 

The match markers get a thumbs up from me.

[Dace59 0]

I think the only thing that isn't completely fair is to say..."not all markers are created equal..." as it where.

 

Just because none of the markers can ever really know enough about all styles of wrestling to fairly balance matches of all types. It's not a huge gap that's crippling, but if you break out something amazing and avant garde or low key but under pinning and it flies high over their heads, it's just like "....aw fuck!"

 

But then there's the thing about writing for your audience and being able to put all your ideas across well and such.

[the.weej 0]

Ever since Stubby was removed, I think that's something that's been accounted for by whoever was booking, provided they payed a lick of attention. It's usually kept in mind what marker would be better suited to a certain matchtype or writing style, and what markers should not be marking a person's matches under any circumstances (ie: I made sure to never mark anything of Kibagami's, excluding his world title matches, which I was entitled to.)

 

There's always going to be some questionable calls, given that marking is an inexact science (point systems are highly fallible) and decisions essentially boil down to a judgement call. Excluding Blazenwing's idiotic whining, I can't remember the last person to claim tragedy has befallen them and rue the marker that made it so; and there were quite a few calls for marker's heads back in yonder days.

 

-Z

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

:: reads Smarkdown card ::

 

I'll let you know Tuesday morning...

[Dace59 0]

It's definatly ture Z and it never really did happen apart from a few random blimps. It' as good as any human done system could be really.

[Kaertos 0]

I'm in interested in who voted for less than 90% of the time, and I wonder why he/she feels that way.

[Dace59 0]

And how far under 90% they think it is.

[muzz 0]

I can't really say since I rarely submit a match for marking.

[Toxxic 0]

I can't in good conscience say 100% of the time as i have noted occasions when I have totally disagreed with the marker's decisions (Clark beating Kibagami comes to mind, and not just because he's Kibagami - the match was much better). And I'll admit I don't always read the losing matches thread and compare it to the winning matches. But when i do, I can generally see what's gone on, or at least be torn between the two enough to not be able to argue any particular point.

[HollywoodSpikeJenkins 0]

Excluding Blazenwing's idiotic whining, I can't remember the last person to claim tragedy has befallen them and rue the marker that made it so; and there were quite a few calls for marker's heads back in yonder days.

D@mnation in a Box.

[Ace309 0]

Va'aiga. Crow. Zed.

 

::skulks away subversively::

[King Cucaracha 0]

Well, to quote a t-shirt, "Pobody's Nerfect".

 

Uhm, yeah. I can't remember a call I disagreed with particularly. Only time I really had a problem was Clusterfuck after writing my best match ever...but that was the right call.

[Golgo 13 0]

I personally never experienced any problems and haven't come across a decision I can remember that I disagreed with.

[Chuck Woolery 0]

I'm in interested in who voted for less than 90% of the time, and I wonder why he/she feels that way.

I'm not even interested in who it is, honestly. I'm just interested in why they feel that way -- and, like Dace said, how far under 90% they think it is.

 

Honestly? I feel that anywhere below 90% is avoidable and inexcusable, and it concerns me greatly that somebody might feel that our marking level is below that mark. So, I appreciate all the comments so far, keep 'em coming.

[The Ill One 0]

My vote was thrown in for the 90%-100%. I've been here a long time now, as have others, and over the course of the federation's duration this hasn't been a real bad issue. There's been times here and there where you gotta' wonder if the bias of the marker and writers will have too much of an influence but that's rarely the case.

 

A lot of it is how the marker's personal preference when it all comes down to it- whatever one seems "best" is the winner. Which means since it's an opinion there'll always be disagreements based on taste. (Yes I am playing role as Captain Obvious right now). I can't think of more than five matches, hell, five circumstances where I wanted to question the booking or marking. Whether it's an outrageous conspiracy theory (Todd marking Spike if I recall correctly) or just somebody bitching (Blazenwing) the marker's job is rarely questioned. Because there hasn't been a need to and when there has been- there's a near lynching (Stubby's removal comes to mind).

 

Now this thread is better suited for this next piece, about the C.C. in general.

 

The biggest concern that comes up on an occasional basis is marker's not keeping up with storylines, etc. Now Stubby was the best example but majority of us have been thrown into a random tag match and you just wonder how the fuck they decided to book it. It happens. From the marker's stand-point, there's a lot of shit to read and that's time consuming. I'm not pointing any fingers but I'm sure some others have felt this way before. It all comes down to markers being in the know and just being fair. I'd say majority of the time it always is fair and the markers have a clue of what's going on (same for bookers).

 

The C.C. have put in their time for the federation just like we as writers have- so we should be every bit appreciative of the work they've done and will keep on doing.

[Guest carnage]

I think they are fair. I can't complain about ever having been shafted personally. I know when i've read matches i've lost I can honestly say the winning match was better than what I had done. I can't speak for eveeryone, but thats my 2 cents.

[Red Baron 0]

I haven't written a match in nearly two years, but the marking has been accurate.

 

I can only think of one occurance that actually think the wrong match was selected.