|
Post by Fred Richards on Feb 1, 2016 3:43:24 GMT -8
I'm relaxed DKM. I'm just curious if the next time Fred Richards, JADEN, Tony Brooklyn or anyone else takes a shot at Bruce if they'll be warned as well. Fair is fair after all. In future I'll just be vague and say "The NWA needs to promote these guys better" instead of "Bruce needs to promote these guys better". Everyone will be happy then. Thanks for the pep talk, appreciate it. Consider them warned. To enjoy credibility, a "forum" should encourage a free and open exchange of ideas, opinions, perspectives, etc. "Warning" people because you might disagree with what they proffer creates an aura that you either cannot or chose not to embrace those principles. Vincent Kennedy McMahon and/or Dixie Carter are analyzed, second-guessed, lauded and skewered ad infinitum. Both are miles higher on the totem pole than the individual-at-controversy. In fact, it is somewhat asinine to think a "brand" can be discussed without commenting (one way or another) on its' "commander-in-chief". Look only to varying commentaries on America's President to validate that statement re the "brand" of USA. If those posting were to characterize said "commander in chief" via profanities, degradation, religious/gender/racial/preference/alleged substance abuse biases, then a "warning" would have a basis-in-fact. Mere mention, praiseworthy or otherwise, absent those negatives might lead one to ponder why the term "warning" is so much as mentioned. If you disagree with what someone says, the most effective response can be no response. Alternatively, reply/debate with substance in an effort to prove/disprove an assertion; not parental admonitions. After all, this is an industry that thrives on faces and heels. Transparently cloaked attempts at protectionist censorship, without bona fide cause, can irreparably damage the forum good people have worked hard to build and maintain.
|
|
|
Post by Jay Cal on Feb 1, 2016 7:49:40 GMT -8
I think the point that is being missed is this...
The affection or lack there of for the esteemed President has little barring on ones standing with the board. However what comes of a board when the conversation becomes stale and redundant? One of the perils the previous board was how it very quickly descended into negativity. I respect everyone's opinion on this message board and I appreciate everyone who is now or has in the past joined our conversations about the state of the NWA, both positive and negative.
I would also venture to guess that Bruce Tharpe does not wake up every morning and think... "How can I tarnish the legacy of the NWA even further this day." Where is the money in that?
I was once more or less told by a member of the NWA's inner circle that my board was toxic to the NWA. Imagine that?
|
|
|
Post by Fred Richards on Feb 1, 2016 9:11:31 GMT -8
I was once more or less told by a member of the NWA's inner circle that my board was toxic to the NWA. Imagine that? This forum toxic??? Balderdash! Poppycock! Rubbish! In times past, some posting in this forum knocked me. But that's the way of it sometimes, Jay. The first time I ran for public office in New Jersey my prize was a bulls-eye tattooed onto my bottom. Seemed every mother's child was taking aim at it, too! As I've said many times, my affection for this "brand" was born years before you and most of those posting were born. But in saying that, I freely acknowledge that the root of that affection is gone, never to return. Such is the passage of time... As my good friend and overall trusted compatriot Mister Brooklyn wisely opines, some have are fit to lead and some aren't. The overall State of our Union can define a President. The overall State of a "Brand" can, too. I rest my case. You, Deven and Jaden donate substantial time to make this Board a success. I appreciate that. The comments of many provide the same setting, if you will (cheap Dusty promo), a face-versus-heel slobberknocker (Hi, Jim) does. Disagreement, debate, sentiment, etctera and so forth. All of your contributors make this Board a good read!
|
|
|
Post by NWA Fanatic on Feb 1, 2016 10:27:52 GMT -8
I was once more or less told by a member of the NWA's inner circle that my board was toxic to the NWA. Imagine that? This forum toxic??? Balderdash! Poppycock! Rubbish! In times past, some posting in this forum knocked me. But that's the way of it sometimes, Jay. The first time I ran for public office in New Jersey my prize was a bulls-eye tattooed onto my bottom. Seemed every mother's child was taking aim at it, too! As I've said many times, my affection for this "brand" was born years before you and most of those posting were born. But in saying that, I freely acknowledge that the root of that affection is gone, never to return. Such is the passage of time... As my good friend and overall trusted compatriot Mister Brooklyn wisely opines, some have are fit to lead and some aren't. The overall State of our Union can define a President. The overall State of a "Brand" can, too. I rest my case. You, Deven and Jaden donate substantial time to make this Board a success. I appreciate that. The comments of many provide the same setting, if you will (cheap Dusty promo), a face-versus-heel slobberknocker (Hi, Jim) does. Disagreement, debate, sentiment, etctera and so forth. All of your contributors make this Board a good read! The thing is, it seems that every thread has some sort of Tharpe bashing by PJ, we don't need that, we need to discuss the things and talent of NWA with out always bashing its esteemed President. It's old, it's redundant, it's not adding anything new to the forum or thread discussion. It's too bad cause there has been great threads created, but always derailed by a "Tharpe doesn't know what he's doing blah blah blah". Time to focus on something new! Tired of threads getting derailed from original subject.
|
|
|
Post by MKCS on Feb 1, 2016 13:41:49 GMT -8
Much like Bruce Tharpe doesn't wake up and think "How can I tarnish the NWA today?" I don't wake up, log on here and think "How can I bash Bruce Tharpe today?"
People think I have this hatred for the guy but I don't. Apart from the hour or so I spend here a day he doesn't really cross my mind unless he's mentioned on the WF message board.
It's just when you see the 13th rushed title change in the span of 3 years you have to ask why the person in charge isn't building to these things and making them worthwhile like every other company. I call Dixie Carter out on the same thing all the time on another board for her love of doing gimmick matches and title changes on TV whilst using the Pay Per View to build to the TV show. Not once have I ever been accused of hating Dixie or being too negative.
A few people here just have incredible loyalty to Bruce because they grew up on the NWA and they feel that they're less of a fan if they bring up the negatives.
|
|
|
Post by philvarlese on Feb 1, 2016 18:09:12 GMT -8
I've administrated boards since 1997. There are a few things that should be considered here, lest you lose most of your contributors, and the board then dies. First, some of the people who have bashed Tharpe (me included) have experience with him that ended whenever their business relationship ended. They may be privy to a few things that he may be doing today, but their scope is limited to the time they did business with him. In my case I believe that ended in 2013. So, my perspective (and any other former partner, licensee, etc) is only going to be able to comment in that light. What you're suggesting is censorship, and is probably more counterproductive than the Tharpe bashing party.
Second, the same people that you're looking to limit also contribute "Tharpe Free" to other threads that have nothing to do with him. Do you really think it fair to suspend someone for one post when they make so many others? Most of you will recall I was a big proponent of keeping Polejump on the old forum, mostly because of the perspective that he brought, and his contributions to the discussions. I don't know him at all, so it's not like I was trying to protect my "friend". As you know, their was far less discussion without him.
Third, like all other subject, forum postings relegated to specific problem or topic tend to burn themselves out over time. The fact that the admins play into the discussion I think actually encourages more of the bashing by doing so, as people on both sides tend to be more passionate, and dig in when confronted in that way. It's human nature, and I've found that letting people vent will always (eventually) burn itself out.
Finally (and this is my opinion), while he doesn't wake up in the morning and ask himself how he's going to tarnish the great name of the National Wrestling Alliance, he's done nothing to help it return to prominence. Truthfully, if it wasn't for Tony Givens at this point, the brand would have little to no prestige in the US at this point.
When he finally DOES do something positive (assuming he has it in him) I'll be the first to not only admit it, but congratulate him.
|
|
|
Post by animus on Feb 1, 2016 18:38:17 GMT -8
My thoughts as a moderator of a college sports forum: minority voices to the contrary helps drive the conversation! Now that doesn't mean that every thread should be hijacked into bashing Tharpe thread. There has to be a fine balance between the two. You remove that vocal minority and the board becomes a circle jerk, if you allow the minority to take over every thread, then people stop posting. However, as moderators/admin, it's best to keep moderation from the public eye and in private message form. I say keep PJ around, but don't threaten him for all to see, because it creates more friction than needed when a simple PM could ease some tensions and creates expectations for PJ and as well as what PJ expects from y'all.
|
|
|
Post by Jay Cal on Feb 2, 2016 7:14:51 GMT -8
I'm not sure where the disconnect is coming from. Polejump isn't being banned. He was being warned. Like I previously stated, his opinion is valued just as anyone else on this board. But not every single post needs to turn into the Bruce Tharpe is an Ass post.
|
|
|
Post by MKCS on Feb 5, 2016 14:40:35 GMT -8
I appreciate you guys coming to my aid. To his credit Jay has always welcomed my opinion and allowed a negative view on what is practically a fan site.
Phil brings up a good point though. A lot of people here pretend it's EVERY single thread when in reality it just seems a lot more frequent because this message board is a lot smaller than the bigger boards out there. I can comment on a good match or a good business decision and even congratulate Bruce. I don't hate the dude I don't even know him.
|
|
|
Post by tonybrooklyn on Feb 5, 2016 18:21:29 GMT -8
I don't hate the dude I don't even know him. Will Rogers once said "I never met a man I didn't like". Well....obviously....Will never met El Presidente!
|
|
|
Post by JADEN on Feb 6, 2016 20:32:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by shawn on Feb 7, 2016 12:48:38 GMT -8
Wow you guys are hilarious. Haven't been on here in awhile but reading this topic made me chuckle. I needed that laugh guys.
|
|
|
Post by Jay Cal on Feb 8, 2016 7:33:06 GMT -8
Glad you stopped by, comeback soon.
|
|
|
Post by MrWood on Feb 8, 2016 9:43:43 GMT -8
I think this video puts over the title win nicely!
|
|
|
Post by tonybrooklyn on Feb 8, 2016 15:01:06 GMT -8
Every time The Empire is involved in a title change or big angle, THEY do a great job of memorializing it and putting it over. Don't be confused folks...this is not the work of THE Alliance....this is the work of those in the Empire. They are an asset to any company they work for. It's part of the reason I featured them as I did at my promotion. If they were waiting on El Presidente to put something like this together....in my opinion....there would be nothing....ever.
|
|