Case #0000001 Sports Nutz Wrestling vs. freak

[sh17]

Case #0000001 in Sports Nutz Wrestling E-Wrestler's Court
Sports Nutz Wrestling vs. freak
Plaintiff: Sports Nutz Wrestling(Sam representing via permission from Hollywood
Defendant: Freak
Case date: February 15, 2010

Today I bring the case before the E-Wrestler's Court of SNW vs. freak, handler of characters Jack Clinton and Chris P. SNW is bringing two charges up, so I will detail them individually.

First is a violation of the rules involving both breaking kayfabe and respectful contact with staff about show results. In his roleplay for a match on Saturday Night Onslaught involving both of his characters in a squash match against the Alternative Lifestylers, he used the term "turning heel" which is a term used by bookers, writers, and management and is not something on air personalities in any company real, electronic, or otherwise use. Hollywood took the proper steps of notifying freak of the violation, PMing him with notification that he had broken them, that he was deleting the RP in accordance with the rules, and that both characters would job on the upcoming show. Freak then claimed that the rule was vague, and that he did not know he was in violation of the rule.

Second, freak also violated both a stated and common sense rule of showing respect to management when it comes to discussing results of shows and alike. Handlers are more than welcome to PM staff at any time to inquire about results of a show, how the voting went, and any pointers or advice they can receive in order to improve their roleplay skills. Freak did not follow these, and went so far as to imply that the voters who decide the matches are biased against him, and are allowing that to cloud their judgment of the matches he participated in.


To address the first charge, the line in question from his roleplay that broke the kayfabe rule was this: "They did it to me in GWX, when they forgot about me after I made a heel turn I didn't want to make." The term "heel turn" is something that is clearly implying behind the scenes actions, breaking character in a post that was clearly supposed to be in character. Rule 16 says "There is not to be any kayfabe breaking in RPs. Any RPs that break kayfabe will be deleted and you'll be jobbed out in your match, even if you post another RP." Hollywood followed proper procedure here, even though freak did not believe it was breaking kayfabe. He believed that the rule did not apply to old federations, when in fact that has nothing to do with the rule break. The issue is not with the fact it was an old fed, it was the actual use of the term "heel turn." Where or when it happened did not matter, that use broke kayfabe, and therefor violated rule 16. Or, as Hollywood put it when freak inquired initially "I was talking about if you RP as Clinton here, then RP as Clinton over at Efed B, then I won't mind if Clinton is healthy in SNW while "injured" at Efed B. It does not mean that you can talk about "turning heel" or "doing jobs" at some fed that's extinct. That's the kind of breaking kayfabe that I'm not going to tolerate here."

The second violation is the manner in which freak handled interacting with Hollywood. He made the claim that " someone in the booking committee has something against me" and that his own assessment of the match "tells me that I've pissed somebody off and they're taking it out on me." These quotes are coming directly from PM's freak has sent Hollywood, and can be verified as such. Also, in referring to Chris P's match against Alex Daniels this past week, freak also said "not only lose but be made to look stupid in the finish is what bothered me." I have asked Hollywood, and he said that having Daniels holding the ropes to cheat a win was not intended to humiliate or make his character look stupid, but to illustrate that the RPing was close and felt it was the right way to go. Off that topic, he also references back to 2009, and says "It all started back when you were pushing me for the Texas championship. I know you said this wasn't your intent but you basically said that an RP I cut at another show was the reason why I lost one of the matches. I let it go after you convinced me otherwise. Then, in the last match I had, I got sandbagged by Shaggy/Sam because he posted an RP that I never had a chance to respond to because I was working until well past deadline and that made it uneven." In my own defense, I have no way of knowing when freak works, and have never sandbagged anyone in this fed or any other fed I currently participate in or used to participate in. To end this summary, freak also goes on to say in the last of a PM exchange between Hollywood and himself that "I obviously can't convince you that what you're doing is insane but whatever."

Now, I have no personal bias against freak good or bad. I voted for or against him because of quality of RP, and that alone. While I disagree with him on various issues outside of the fed, that does not factor into my voting and I swear this as the truth on anything you care to present to me. However, this rampant paranoia and what seems to be refusing of explanations and rules SNW has put forth is a bit disturbing and disconcerting. The admins of this board and the fed do our best to make sure any issues are addressed in a civil matter according to the rules each and every member agreed too when they signed up for this message board. The behavior freak has exhibited here is what the admins believe to be not in concurrence with those standards and rules, so we felt it best to bring it before the E-Wrestler's Court. We have presented the evidence and case as we see it, and upon request we have more evidence of the claims we have stated. The prosecution rests, and we await both the retort of the defendant and the judges ruling.

[Reaper]

For the love of GOD!... Did you breathe at all during that rant of charges? Its good to see that we have something happening in here. Damned courtroom needs a good dusting. Either way, thank you for the opening statement.

While other people can chime in, I'm more interested in Freak's response and/or counter charge. And remember... and this goes for everybody because unlike a lot of people I don't screw around... KEEP IT CIVIL AND PLAY NICE! Violation of this will automatically end this case and the offending side will lose and face my judgement. Anyhoo, Freak if you'd be so kind as to fill us in with your side of the case please.

[freak]

Okay. First of all, the defense objects to the prosecution's assertion that my feelings are paranoia. In order for them to be paranoia there can be no justification for said feelings. I have justifications and I shall present them right now.

The rule, quite frankly, is vague. Because I checked over the rules list multiple times before I made the post to make sure that I wasn't in violation, only making the post after I was convinced that I would be okay. I also have said, and will reiterate here, that the rule is too draconian. I even went as far as to suggest what a punishment SHOULD be, which would've been a pulling off of the card and a suspension for a week. To me, having characters job out to jobbers is totally counterproductive unless they don't RP. And I was also told that the booking committee doesn't want people to leave because that attitude would be counterproductive- however, I believe that having a rule like that in its current form encourages the counterproductive attitude and would be a reason for people to not sign up for the fed and to not stay in the fed.

Second of all, my recent string of results and interactions here make it very hard for me to believe that my effort is being appreciated. I was told by the prosecution that I was being put into my current situation because I was one of the more loyal and consistent role players in the fed. But when I lose matches that it's plain to see I shouldn't have it's hard for me to believe that.

Addressing the accusation I made of sandbagging, I would just like to state that I know for sure that the Shaggy one wouldn't have intended to sandbag me and if he somehow did it would have been accidental. But that said, that's what I believe happened and I'm not going to take that back. Even if I hadn't been working, IIRC the post was made fairly close to deadline as it was, and considering the styles we apparently have I wouldn't have had enough time to post a good enough response to the RP to put me over the top to get the win. Which, IMO, is the definition of sandbagging. My concerns on this were also not addressed in a civil manner when I raised them, dismissed with what I termed to be a rather snooty "you should've done better."

The second strike for me came with last week's results because I am just baffled as to how anyone could've judged the match as close. Perhaps if I had left it with just the one RP that I cut, you could've made that argument and I wouldn't have been as mad about the result of the match. But I actually made the effort to cut a second RP that was just as strong at the first at the bare minimum and, quite frankly, was better at the maximum. To use a bad sports analogy here, I basically took the handoff from the first RP and ran it 90 yards for a touchdown and should've gotten a win. It wasn't anywhere near as close as people wanted to claim it was, and to not get the win after the effort that I put up tells me that something screwy is going on.

The incivility, if there was one, came from the prosecution. I was not satisfied with the explanation I got and when I said why I wasn't buying it, that's when the prosecution threw civility out the window. The explanation that I got stated that my second RP was relaying the same information as the first one (which it wasn't) and that our RPing was close (which, as I said before, it wasn't).

What else makes me think the way I do? Besides this past week's results and the actions from the past I have been threatened to be de-pushed on this forum twice by the very same person who is bringing the complaint because I didn't agree with their opinions on something. See Robert Novak's Trifecta nomination, where I was threatened to be pulled out of the triple threat Texas Championship match, and Chris Jericho's problems with staying out of trouble regardless of whether he's in the right or not.

You put all that together and considering what I've been told about being rewarded because of my consistency and loyalty, how exactly do you want me to think? That everything's all sunshine and rainbows?

If there was any incivility on my part it came due to what I regarded as a total lack of concern for my positions from the front office.

[freak]

Now, as far as being made to look stupid goes, I direct you to the finish of the match. Now, I understand that on occasion there may or may not be moves inserted into matches depending on the situation. However, Chris P. does not have a sunset flip in his repertoire. He does not do high risk moves from the ropes- in fact, since Chris is more of the bruiser type I made it very clear not to put those kind of moves in the repertoire. I also think it's common courtesy to ask the wrestler before you put those kinds of moves in the match when they're not in the moveset (and this actually has been done for me before- which is why I was so mad about that). To do a move like that when your character has historically avoided moves like that, I feel, doesn't do them justice and makes them look like buffoons.

Basically, I'm upset for a few reasons. One, I feel like I got screwed out of an obvious win. I've stated a few times that it really doesn't matter to me if I win or lose unless there was no reason to give me the loss. And even though ykmn is a good RPer, I topped his effort and then some. I'm sorry.

Two, as I stated, this loss and the words and actions I relayed tell me that there's really something screwy going on, and I haven't had much reason to believe otherwise.

Three, I don't appreciate my characters being made to look stupid, which is exactly what happened here. I was not asked permission for my character to use a sunset flip (which is not in his move list), and while I understand you don't necessarily need to do that when you've used this character with different names (but still the same character) for over a decade in efedding I think it would show respect just to ask. Maybe on this last point I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but I didn't give Chris that move for a reason.

[Hollywood]

I will do my best to keep this civil. First off, I will address the charges brought upon me about the threats of de-pushing.

What else makes me think the way I do? Besides this past week's results and the actions from the past I have been threatened to be de-pushed on this forum twice by the very same person who is bringing the complaint because I didn't agree with their opinions on something. See Robert Novak's Trifecta nomination, where I was threatened to be pulled out of the triple threat Texas Championship match, and Chris Jericho's problems with staying out of trouble regardless of whether he's in the right or not.

First, upon looking back at the Jericho thread(and I did double check just to make sure whether or not I had threatened to de-push Freak), I never once said that I was going to de-push Freak. The only thing that could possibly be construed that way is the following quote:

"I'm just going to have to lock this thread. This is going nowhere fast. And Freak, I'd suggest from here on out to lay off the biased Jericho bashing."

Nowhere in there am I threatening to de-push Freak. What I was trying to tell Freak was to try to keep the Jericho bashing to a minimum in order to keep anything from escalating, which knowing wrestling forums, that's very easy to do.

As for the Robert Novak discussion in the Trifecta thread... again, I read over it to see if what you said held merit. What I read was that you had been asked to not hijack the thread by a moderator who has just as much right to admonish someone for wrongdoing as I do. You kept hijacking the thread, heretofore, I had to get heavy handed and threaten to pull you out of Summer Bash in order to get you to straighten up and fly right.

Second of all, my recent string of results and interactions here make it very hard for me to believe that my effort is being appreciated. I was told by the prosecution that I was being put into my current situation because I was one of the more loyal and consistent role players in the fed. But when I lose matches that it's plain to see I shouldn't have it's hard for me to believe that.

Believe it or not, I can relate to this situation Freak, but there's a right and wrong way to go about this. I'm going through a similar situation at another efed that shall remain nameless. I'm using a tag team there(should be fairly obvious who, but we won't name names), and I'm up against two different handlers(both handling a singles wrestler who are teamed up as a mongrel tag team). I post my RP, then after my RP is posted, the match is changed because one of the persons won't be able to make the match. No problem, as they just insert someone else. Well, the substitute says that my team "didn't know who they were facing," when in truth I did, it's just the match was changed after I posted. Then my other opponent had said both of my guys were being bullies to kids at McDonald's, when only one of them was. I had my team, in character mind you so that it's not a shoot, answer those promos, detailing the inaccuracies that were stated. My opponents had nothing to say to when I trumped them, yet they somehow have walked away with a win(and a third loss in a row for my guys). Now I'm not going to puff out my chest and say "Hey, bitch! My RP was better, how come I lost?!" However, I will respectfully state my case and see what happens from there.

To me, having characters job out to jobbers is totally counterproductive unless they don't RP. And I was also told that the booking committee doesn't want people to leave because that attitude would be counterproductive- however, I believe that having a rule like that in its current form encourages the counterproductive attitude and would be a reason for people to not sign up for the fed and to not stay in the fed.

So I'm being counterproductive by preventing would be troublemakers from signing up? Then counterproductive is what I shall be.

Now, as far as being made to look stupid goes, I direct you to the finish of the match. Now, I understand that on occasion there may or may not be moves inserted into matches depending on the situation. However, Chris P. does not have a sunset flip in his repertoire. He does not do high risk moves from the ropes- in fact, since Chris is more of the bruiser type I made it very clear not to put those kind of moves in the repertoire. I also think it's common courtesy to ask the wrestler before you put those kinds of moves in the match when they're not in the moveset (and this actually has been done for me before- which is why I was so mad about that). To do a move like that when your character has historically avoided moves like that, I feel, doesn't do them justice and makes them look like buffoons.

Basically, I'm upset for a few reasons. One, I feel like I got screwed out of an obvious win. I've stated a few times that it really doesn't matter to me if I win or lose unless there was no reason to give me the loss. And even though ykmn is a good RPer, I topped his effort and then some. I'm sorry.

Two, as I stated, this loss and the words and actions I relayed tell me that there's really something screwy going on, and I haven't had much reason to believe otherwise.

Three, I don't appreciate my characters being made to look stupid, which is exactly what happened here. I was not asked permission for my character to use a sunset flip (which is not in his move list), and while I understand you don't necessarily need to do that when you've used this character with different names (but still the same character) for over a decade in efedding I think it would show respect just to ask. Maybe on this last point I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but I didn't give Chris that move for a reason.

OK, I'm sorry but Chris P not doing any high risk offense was NEVER noted in his bio. And how am I to know that Chris P has historically stayed away from high risk offense when I've never seen ANY of his past matches from past feds? If anything, I made Chris P look strong and Kid Thunder look weak because the story is that Chris P was well on his way to beating Kid Thunder until KT cheated.

And that rests my case.

[Reaper]

Ok I've heard all I need here.

As for Charge 1, since Freak is saying that he believes the rule is vague I'll go ahead and blunt about it. Talking about writing teams and going Heel or Face are things that generally aren't used. If you want to talk about "management" use that term. If you would have said something like, "The higher ups (or the storyline owner of the fed, in our instance the Gordon Heath or Codi Shane) made me do a lot of things that I didn't like/didn't want to do," that would have been acceptable. But saying I was forgotten about because you made a heel turn, well really where (outside of a dying WCW) would you see that? If thats still not clear enough for you, then perhaps you could ask specific questions about whats not understood... so as far as a ruling goes, since you may not have gotten the rule then I'm going to strike the original promo from the record, and since its only Tuesday, allow you to go ahead and get something else up. And just for the sake of it, shoot for something that would make sense if you were watching it on TV as a casual fan.

Charge 2 is a little different. Now Matt and Freak know eachother well enough to KNOW when they're pushing buttons whether it be on purpose or on accident. While one can see that Freak came off a little more aggressively than he needed at first, but then on the flipside where Matt was being calm about things, he eventually tapered off into a more in your face type of response. So I'll call that one even. Shake your hands, hug or kiss or whatever and get down to doing business.

Now, I'll you like this, I rarely judge promos anymore, because thats basically all I did for the first few years of doing e-feds. I watch how things are rated, and theres nobody just saying "lets screw with this guy cuz we can." Then again, some of the judges could do a little more than just saying "I agree/disagree" which may need to get talked about as well.

So anyway...

1. Do another promo now that we're clear on the rule.. something more along the lines of what you'd actually see done on TV where insider references are left out.

2. Matt and Freak both pushed eachothers buttons from what I saw and both of you know eachother well enough that this shouldn't have happened. Get eachother a beer and get along already

Any problems with my ruling, well theres numerous ways to get ahold of me, shoot me a pm or use a messenger. NEXT CASE!

[Hollywood]

Seems to work for me. So as Reaper said, it's only Tuesday, and we'll pretend that first RP never happened(though I don't want anyone taking advantage of this! lol)

And Reaper, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're basically calling for the slate to be wiped clean from past incidences involving Freak and starting over, correct? I'm in favor of that as well if Freak can do so as well and try to find some middle ground here.

[Reaper]

We're clean, slate wiped... case closed...thread locked.