We're just trying to get a feel for some things here, so feel free to be as verbose or as succinct as you'd like! But try to keep the answers serious, and try to keep the thread on topic, because this could be very useful for all of us.


1. What do you think creative looks for in determining a good, winning feud?

2. What do you think creative should look for in determining a good, winning feud?

3. What do you personally enjoy reading in feuding? What makes a feud entertaining to you?

4. Is there anything that crosses over numbers 2 and 3? In other words, are you entertained by certain things you think creative should look for, do you think creative should look for these certain things that entertain you, etc?

This is peoples' chance to voice any thoughts, comments or concerns so please do so. Otherwise, don't complain later

This is peoples' chance to voice any thoughts, comments or concerns on this particular topic! If you have anything else, send me a PM about it and we can talk about it, and figure out how to fix it. (Not trying to be a dictator; just trying to keep things in order because I want to resolve everything properly instead of making a mess!)

1. What do you think creative looks for in determining a good, winning feud?

I think each creative team member has their own criteria. In general, I think they initially go with the feuding most appealing to their own individual tastes. If some doubt lingers, I believe they move on to the next set of factors that aren't opinion-based (involvement of your opponents' ideas, selling opponents, interacting with your opponents, length/post-count, grammar, etc.) I think too many people are picked to win because someone likes their style of writing more on a personal level than based on the criterium we feuders are given.

2. What do you think creative should look for in determining a good, winning feud?

The actual things we're told are used to determine a winning feud. For example, if someone doesn't like comical feuds, a feuder shouldn't be penalized simply because he/she involves comedy as long as he/she outperformed in terms of involvement/selling/interaction/grammar/post-count/etc. Decisions should be primarily objective, not subjective.

3. What do you personally enjoy reading in feuding? What makes a feud entertaining to you?

I like comedy and drama, but I especially like accessibility. Some characters are easy-going, but others are so specific, I've found myself having to do research just to understand terminology or backstory. I like reading a feud where two people are clearly working together while also maintaining a competitive spirit during the process. I also like feuds with history. I find something like Hardy vs. Obsidian a lot more interesting than Hardy vs. Random Feuder, because it seems like the stakes are higher, plus it makes for a more-involved feud since the opponents are already familiar with each other.

4. Is there anything that crosses over numbers 2 and 3? In other words, are you entertained by certain things you think creative should look for, do you think creative should look for these certain things that entertain you, etc?

I think accessibility should be part of the creative team's decision-making process. Characters should be easy to work with. It's a collaborative game we're playing, not a matter of having to force your reality on others. If people want to write one-sided novels disguised as "feuds", they should write a book instead of being here. Feuding isn't supposed to be homework; it's supposed to be fun. Having a detailed history is great, but it shouldn't dictate every move your opponent makes.

1. What do you think creative looks for in determining a good, winning feud? I don't think there's any new ground to be broken here in terms of a list, but some things that come to mind for me include character depth mixed with opponent interaction. That covers a multitude of more specific things like how true you are to your opponent's character within reason, how focused you are on the feud at hand and not on your own story, how much give and take there is in your writing, and so on. Plus creative seems to like some meat on their champions, so 'a wrestler that kicks ass' gimmick isn't gonna do it without some depth.

2. What do you think creative should look for in determining a good, winning feud? I'm pretty satisfied with the above list, actually. Aside from that, I think that the 'style clash' discussion is an important one. For a more extreme example, there was a point (I love how I've been busting out all these stories lately) when Evans was matched with a writer who liked to use Optimus Prime and other cartoon characters in his feuding. Evans begrudgingly played the other feuder's game for at least part of the feud. When the week ended, I think creative had no choice but to understand that that wasn't typical for Evans even though he gave it his best shot. If a guy isn't used to writing with more cartoonish or sci-fi styles, he shouldn't be expected to suddenly and perfectly adapt. Adaptation IS part of it, don't get me wrong, but it isn't the only thing.

3. What do you personally enjoy reading in feuding? What makes a feud entertaining to you? Darker, more conflicted characters. Characters who never flinch at what the other guy is doing are boring to me. That, and a really well-written comedy. I always made it a point to read Franklin Pierce and Mr. Submission because they were masters of what they did.

4. Is there anything that crosses over numbers 2 and 3? In other words, are you entertained by certain things you think creative should look for, do you think creative should look for these certain things that entertain you, etc? The only real crossover that I see from 3 is the flinching. From where I'm sitting, characters in this fed are supposed to grow through opponent interaction and not solely by their own story. I believe that's what cost me the win in my last feud, because I didn't do it as much.

1. What do you think creative looks for in determining a good, winning feud?

Well, I've talked to some creative members about this stuff before anyway and have been a creative member so my views are a bit different here. There are some obvious things that creative looks for that are relatively universal, such as: quality of writing, selling of stories and characters, etc. The thing with it though is that those things are subjective. My views, when I was on creative, of what made a post good (aside from the basics like grammatical mistakes) were obviously different from those of the next creative member. His were different from another creative member and so on. All told, I think the basic thing that a creative member looks for is to be entertained and to see that the feuder did their best effort to be part of the story at hand, be it long-term stories or short-term for that particular feud

2. What do you think creative should look for in determining a good, winning feud?
I think creative does a decent job of it, providing they maintain as much objectivity of things as possible. There needs to be a balance between things, which there is, but it's not always prevalent. Such as, is someone driving a story (good) and including their opponent (also good) or are they forcing their opponent into a story that is only pushing their own agenda (not good) and taking their opponent into uncomfortable waters (good or bad, depending on how uncomfortable the waters are). So, as long as creative maintains objectivity on everything, be it good or bad, then I think they're doing exactly what they should be. To add to that, the objectivity should not negate subjectivity. I'm not saying they should go out of their comfort zone and ignore their instincts. I merely meant that they use the same standards of their own personal preferences for each and every person and each and every feud. They should also make Supreme win more because he's sexy.

3. What do you personally enjoy reading in feuding? What makes a feud entertaining to you?
I enjoy all aspects of feuding, providing the feuding is done with entertainment in mind and not self-fellatio. If someone writes nothing but beatdowns and them winning or doing the same old recycled stuff over and over again, I get bored with it. If they push the envelope (providing it's done in am utual fashion with their opponents) and write genuine stories, I'll read it. I love the comedy stuff and have really gotten a bug for it since using Obsidian again in this show, but darker stuff is intriguing also. Some stories are hard for someone to get into, but no story is impossible to get into, even one as long and complex as the Hell story. One needs to communicate with them if they want in and Darkness, Dante or anyone else involved would be happy to facilitate. I like long storylines because it makes things actually mean something. It makes a big match, after several shows of feuding with someone, be it directly or indirectly, that much bigger. Stone Cold vs Vince McMahon would have been the dumbest rivalry of all time if they hadn't built it up for months and months and even years.

4. Is there anything that crosses over numbers 2 and 3? In other words, are you entertained by certain things you think creative should look for, do you think creative should look for these certain things that entertain you, etc?
As long as creative continues to work with the feuders, there's not much more they can do there really. Feuders should be able to work themselves into things if they want to, but they also have to be realistic and remember that it's not always possible to give what you want. I could demand a program with Dante, but that wouldn't necessarily guarantee me a title shot. The feuder and creative need to do their best to facilitate a happy medium. Storylines should be pushed and feuders should be allowed to be included in them if they wish, which, to my knowledge, is happening when asked. The creative contact idea is great for that because it enables a more intimate dialogue between the feuder and their respective member. As long as the communication is ongoing and it is receptive on both ends, I'm happy with things.