I thought about this a little bit and I wanted to get your thoughts on this question.

Is EAW a competition? Or is it a hobby?

To elaborate, Ive beeen pondering about if EAW is truly about being the best promoer with storylines being a secondary thing, or is EAW a hobby where stories and character development come first and the competitive aspect comes second. Also if you think it IS one thing but SHOULD BE another, please state it as well as why.

It's a competitive hobby, at least for me. Both sides of the coin matter. Do I like winning? Yes, but I also like being in cool storylines because it gives me more motivation to actually continue winning as opposed to being placed in match after match with no direction. Both are good one their own but at the same time they're great. I'd probably say I prefer a good storyline over a win unless it involved one of the EAW titles, just because when you win a title you're bound to be put in storylines regardless.

It's up to you.

I have more fun taking part in storylines and developing stuff than I do winning titles, if people prefer winning, that's fine, different strokes for different folks.

For me it is a double-edged sword. I do this because it's a hobby, helps with my writing, and I've met cool people as well. But I do love the story to comes with it, and the matches I am put in usually bring a competitive vibe depending on the person I'm promoting against. I can't put it in one category considering that I am competitive in this hobby I am doing.

Dark Demon wrote:

It's up to you.

I have more fun taking part in storylines and developing stuff than I do winning titles, if people prefer winning, that's fine, different strokes for different folks.

This. Also what Aaron said. 

Personally I prioritize storylines over winning, but if somebody wants to prioritize winning over storyline, that's their choice. Do your own thing maaaaaaaaaan.

I look at it like this. Some people aspire to be a great basketball player, so they do it in high school and college and hope they make the NBA, or if they don't they settle for their local YMCA league. Then there are those who have different aspirations, but still love basketball and love to play it, so they are fine with playing at the Y in their local league. Neither man is wrong in their approach.

I take it seriously like WWE or any other wrestling promotion. Makes me feel good inside when anyone wants to put stock in your character

To me it's a little bit of both.

It's a hobby, that's why I concern about my storyline so much.

It's a competition, that's why I try my best to promo for my upcoming matches.

TWO SIDES OF DEVILS ADVOCATE:

To those who say its more of a hobby than a competition to them, if that's the case, what if you were booked like Bray Wyatt where you're put into interesting storylines but lose in every single one of them for like two straight years and go without a singles title (even if it helps other peoples careers) Isn't there a point where the competitive aspect creeps on you and begin to feel slighted?


ALSO, for those who lean more towards the competitive side: what makes it a competition when the idea of "promoing to win matches" is subjective and that the "better promoer" is nothing more than the opinion of the writer? How then can it legitimately be a competition when arguably your success and failures are predicated on the opinion of a writer, who is not a professional and generally is just another person in your community? Unless the competition is a "make yourself appeal to the writer more than your opponent" game?

It's not a hobby it's a competition. Storylines and writing doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is winning matches and making other people online feel bad about themselves for losing to you in an efed.

Mr. DEDEDE wrote:

To those who say its more of a hobby than a competition to them, if that's the case, what if you were booked like Bray Wyatt where you're put into interesting storylines but lose in every single one of them for like two straight years and go without a singles title (even if it helps other peoples careers) Isn't there a point where the competitive aspect creeps on you and begin to feel slighted?

I'm perhaps leaning towards hobby so I'll answer this.....

okay, let's see I'm in Bray Wyatt's position who never get a title shot..... but then again, I beat the likes of Kane, Chris Jericho, John Cena or even The Undertaker. That's quite an achievement for me.

and let's see if I'm on Dean Ambrose's side who have a losing streak on PPV...... but then again, People still love me because of my angles who always make people amazed and at least I'm not losing it in such a bullshit way so people can still have faith in me, not just "aah, Dean Ambrose is going to lose again next PPV"

I am a competitive human being. 

I am a creative human being.


Honestly it leans towards more of the hobby for me. The competition here is subjective and fairly arbitrary. I would be just as happy being remembered as a good writer or creative person as much as someone who's won titles and such.

Mr. DEDEDE wrote:

TWO SIDES OF DEVILS ADVOCATE:

To those who say its more of a hobby than a competition to them, if that's the case, what if you were booked like Bray Wyatt where you're put into interesting storylines but lose in every single one of them for like two straight years and go without a singles title (even if it helps other peoples careers) Isn't there a point where the competitive aspect creeps on you and begin to feel slighted?

Nope.

Dark Demon wrote:

Mr. DEDEDE wrote:

TWO SIDES OF DEVILS ADVOCATE:

To those who say its more of a hobby than a competition to them, if that's the case, what if you were booked like Bray Wyatt where you're put into interesting storylines but lose in every single one of them for like two straight years and go without a singles title (even if it helps other peoples careers) Isn't there a point where the competitive aspect creeps on you and begin to feel slighted?

Nope.

*Yes.

Life.

It would not bother me as long as the story was well-thought out and planned. There is a way to give people a losing streak without burying them. Cedric Alwxander had a magnificent storyline in ROH where he continually lost big matches, but it was booked in a way that he never looked like a shit competitor, just couldn't catch a break.

Or maybe TLA is right.

I have to say that I definitely see it as a mixture of both. I love promoing and I also like winning, however I wouldn't mind losing matches here and there because that's not what my character is about. As long as I'm in a good feud, my character is being used to it's full potential and I'm being recognized as a good addition to the Vixens division then I'm dandy.

Aurora Rose wrote:

It would not bother me as long as the story was well-thought out and planned. There is a way to give people a losing streak without burying them. Cedric Alwxander had a magnificent storyline in ROH where he continually lost big matches, but it was booked in a way that he never looked like a shit competitor, just couldn't catch a break.

Or maybe TLA is right.

Not trying to argue one side against the other BUT if that Cedric storyline happened in EAW, how long before people start calling that person a jobber? Hell, how long do they start to call themselves a jobber? And how long before then do people begin to feel angry even if they feel angry FOR that person, because they're a talented competitive promoer but are still not being booked favorably?

A storyline like that requires attention to detail from the consumers. How much attention to detail is there from the EAW populous? I guarantee you there's at least a handful of people who think the Board of Directors are actually fired right now.

You can see where a person who's booked like that begins to feel like they're "wasting their time" for not winning the competition. It's easy for me or you to say that we prefer stories (I myself have said since 2008 that I'm here solely for the story) but our characters have had great fortune in our respective times here. What about someone who's as good as us but fails way more?

I do not, and have never, needed an in-script storyline to motivate myself to remain competitive and active. I can always innovate my promos and toil with my own little self-contained storylines. Should the scripts reflect that? Sure, but putting me in some huge elaborate storyline is typically just icing on the cake. I'm a firm believer that big matches don't need "personal" storylines or character arcs. Most of the time that we compete, and I do stress compete as that is one of the single most important words in the world in my opinion, our characters can dislike and disagree with the person they're facing while not necessarily having some layered storyline behind it. No matter how many storylines your character is in, without the proper development and the general ability to win, I strongly believe it's a foregone conclusion that you're destined to get disinterested. Nothing is more paramount to me in EAW/e-feds than competition, winning, and continuously honing my writing skill. I couldn't give a fuck less about what storyline I'm written into as long as it's nothing utterly ridiculous. I honestly feel the people who say they "need" a storyline as a source of inspiration or anything of that nature are admitting they're limited as writers, which brings me to my next point...

PROMOS ARE NOT ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE

I'm not sure who created this moronic notion, but this couldn't be any further from the case. Are different people going to be interested in different types of promos? Absolutely. Is creative writing subjective and arbitrary? To an extent, yes, but unless you're a complete fool or unfortunately have a mental handicap, the greater majority of us are capable of distinguishing a well-written promo from a poorly written promo. We all enjoy gimmicks differently, but that doesn't mean you can't read a promo and tell whether it's good or bad by the time you finished it. The consensus in EAW is that you can't put an estimate on how creative someone's promos and character are, but virtually everyone can discern how someone's ideas are fleshing out, how well they're doing adapting their gimmick and addressing their opponent. This isn't rocket science. You can't tell me you look at a guy like Jaywalker and can't instantly recognize he's a superior promoer to a ton of these other guys. Saying anything else comes across as willful ignorance to substantiate someone's point.

To expand on this point, we have the EAW Awards for a reason. That's a group of guys, usually a handful, that dictate and decide the elitists who are recognized for their performances in all facets of e-fedding here annually. If we are to assume that everything is subjective, should one not take pride in having an award? Should that not be considered an accomplishment? No, because those are the people most qualified and well-equipped to decide how well someone did in a given year.

All in all, I'm completely fine with people who insist that they e-fed strictly for storylines. I don't entirely believe them, no, but whatever floats your boat. I'm sure the people who disagree with me would have similarly contrasting perspectives on this subject to the opinions I've shared, so it's whatever. To each their own.

It's both to me.

@DDD
To the Bray Wyatt thing, yeah I wouldn't be pleased about that.

To the subjectivity thing. It's not like you have the same writer all your career, plus its not like that writer has ultimate unquestioned control when that person is writer. Take for example if Norman happened to have had a  writer who thought he sucked and jobbed him out every week, you think the chairman-you-,the other writers or even the eaw members wouldn't start pressuring that writer or move Norman to another brand if Normans talents were being utterly wasted? Plus there are other ways to showcase the community saying which is a better promoers, people make threads all the time, there are MVEs and there are EAW awards. Yes there is subjectivity to it, but so is there for normal writers of books, people have to like your books or they won't be bought or become popular.

Y2Impact wrote:

I do not, and have never, needed an in-script storyline to motivate myself to remain competitive and active. I can always innovate my promos and toil with my own little self-contained storylines. Should the scripts reflect that? Sure, but putting me in some huge elaborate storyline is typically just icing on the cake. I'm a firm believer that big matches don't need "personal" storylines or character arcs. Most of the time that we compete, and I do stress compete as that is one of the single most important words in the world in my opinion, our characters can dislike and disagree with the person they're facing while not necessarily having some layered storyline behind it. No matter how many storylines your character is in, without the proper development and the general ability to win, I strongly believe it's a foregone conclusion that you're destined to get disinterested. Nothing is more paramount to me in EAW/e-feds than competition, winning, and continuously honing my writing skill. I couldn't give a fuck less about what storyline I'm written into as long as it's nothing utterly ridiculous. I honestly feel the people who say they "need" a storyline as a source of inspiration or anything of that nature are admitting they're limited as writers, which brings me to my next point...

PROMOS ARE NOT ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE

I'm not sure who created this moronic notion, but this couldn't be any further from the case. Are different people going to be interested in different types of promos? Absolutely. Is creative writing subjective and arbitrary? To an extent, yes, but unless you're a complete fool or unfortunately have a mental handicap, the greater majority of us are capable of distinguishing a well-written promo from a poorly written promo. We all enjoy gimmicks differently, but that doesn't mean you can't read a promo and tell whether it's good or bad by the time you finished it. The consensus of EAW can't put an estimate on how creative someone's promos and character are, but virtually everyone can discern how someone's ideas are fleshing out, how well they're doing adapting their gimmick and addressing their opponent. This isn't rocket science. You can't tell me you look at a guy like Jaywalker and can't instantly recognize he's a superior promoer to a ton of these other guys. Saying anything else comes across as willful ignorance to substantiate someone's point.

To expand on this point, we have the EAW Awards for a reason. That's a group of guys, usually a handful, that dictate and decide the elitists who are recognized for their performances in all facets of e-fedding here annually. If we are to assume that everything is subjective, should one not take pride in having an award? Should that not be considered an accomplishment? No, because those are the people most qualified and well-equipped to decide how well someone did in a given year.

All in all, I'm completely fine with people who insist that they e-fed strictly for storylines. I don't entirely believe them, no, but whatever floats your boat. I'm sure the people who disagree with me would have similarly contrasting perspectives on this subject to the opinions I've shared, so it's whatever. To each their own.

I can absolutely relate to your competitive drive, 100 percent. I wouldn't be as good as I am today if I didn't have competitive drive like that.

HOWEVER...

Just because a writer, for instance, has Jaywalker and Jacob Senn on his brand doesn't mean he's going to choose Jaywalker as the face of his brand even if Jay is the more experienced promoer. That person, in their opinion, might choose Senn as the face of his brand and the defense would be simple: Senn is also a great promoer.

So with this, how do we gauge if someone is outpromoed? How do we gauge if someone is the best promoer of a certain division? How are we supposed to assume that the person who gains the most success is also the "BEST"? That right there is subjective. You can use polar opposites like Jaywalker and Tornado as an example, but when it becomes more gray and we start comparing Jaywalker and Starr Stan then I think it's clearly subjective. 

To me its a matter of the decision makers. None of us are professional award winning writer, or analysts, or critics. Even the award winning critics are regarded simply for their ability to articulate their own personal opinion on someone else's work. Honestly, "why take awards seriously" is a good question but it leads to a better question of "Why take the competition aspect seriously" other than for self improvement and entertainment? At the end of the day though, what makes you the best or the deserving winner other than another mans opinion? Look at the vixens title match, you could argue Tarah deserved to win because she was the best promoer but you could also dig into the well and assume Genesis was being biased. I'm not stating either, what I am stating however is that bias exists in the election of winners of each match, title winners and end of the year award winners. 

Again, just playing devils advocate.

J Dynasty wrote:

It's both to me.

@DDD
To the Bray Wyatt thing, yeah I wouldn't be pleased about that.

To the subjectivity thing. It's not like you have the same writer all your career, plus its not like that writer has ultimate unquestioned control when that person is writer. Take for example if Norman happened to have had a  writer who thought he sucked and jobbed him out every week, you think the chairman-you-,the other writers or even the eaw members wouldn't start pressuring that writer or move Norman to another brand if Normans talents were being utterly wasted? Plus there are other ways to showcase the community saying which is a better promoers, people make threads all the time, there are MVEs and there are EAW awards. Yes there is subjectivity to it, but so is there for normal writers of books, people have to like your books or they won't be bought or become popular.

Great point.

HOWEVER this leads me to believe that popular vote is the best way, in that case. This is also a big reason why I want to make the end of the year awards a fed-wide voting based thing. Popular opinion/vote is far from perfect, and it does lack the personal attention to detail that maybe a small group of people deciding things might have; however the standards of "standing out" somewhat compensate for it, and the potential for personal bias playing a factor in deciding end of the year awards would be greatly reduced. The general public opinion, which is still subjective, would serve as a much more concrete answer. Or more reliable. Is that correct?

For me it's 50/50.  I enjoy creating stories and characters, but I'm also very competitive by nature. Basically I try to do what's best for the fed, but I also try to win as much as possible.