|
Post by SeVeN: #TheBadGuy. on Dec 10, 2013 21:39:29 GMT -5
A lot of the time its because of the way some people present their opinions. I myself defend HHH, all time favorite next to the Hulkster. However I have never been attacked by others users for my opinion and I have never attacked others for theirs. Sometimes good conversation is ruined by HHH burials, backstage rumors and beliefs of an evil creative team designed to hold people down, which people take way to seriously. Here lately though if your not on the Punk, D-Bry bandwagon expect a 30 page war over why one is right and the other is wrong. Which is uncalled for.
Actually long ago when Miz was champ I was literally torn apart on here for liking the guy. I had to change my Sig and Tag name solely because it was causing Riots in every thread I posted in. That's some shit.
We come here for good conversation, not for bullying and to be told were wrong because we like something someone else doesnt. I know I personally get enough of that in my real life.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Dec 10, 2013 21:40:42 GMT -5
^ Please tell me that Twitter exchange really happened. (Edit: directed at Sean) Yes, sir. One of my finer dickhead moments.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Dec 10, 2013 21:46:54 GMT -5
It's because the "IWC" as we like to call it is a vocal minority that thinks that their voice is louder than it actually is.
For example, if there are 10 million WWE fans in America, 1 million of those will be "internet fans," while the other 9 million are casuals.
The other 9 million is where you find justifications for certain things and why certain guys don't draw well despite being loved by the other 1 million.
Something like that.
|
|
|
Post by Piccolo on Dec 10, 2013 21:52:24 GMT -5
It's a really irrational thing, so when someone does it, I assume it must fill a deep emotional need that they have. But I'm no psychologist, so I couldn't speculate on what that need is.
|
|
|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on Dec 10, 2013 21:52:36 GMT -5
Someone has to show you nerds whose boss!
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Dec 10, 2013 21:57:12 GMT -5
It's because the "IWC" as we like to call it is a vocal minority that thinks that their voice is louder than it actually is. For example, if there are 10 million WWE fans in America, 1 million of those will be "internet fans," while the other 9 million are casuals. The other 9 million is where you find justifications for certain things and why certain guys don't draw well despite being loved by the other 1 million. Something like that. The ten percent Internet fan ratio is a Bischoff invention/coined phrase. If there are 10 million WWE fans, the truth is, only 3% of them are actually paying for the product. And that 3% is by and large the hardcore fanbase. They are the core customer, not the minority. It's just that WWE wants to hook the one's they don't have and caters things to draw them in because they figure they have the hardcores already and they're not going anywhere. But to say that they don't matter is absurd financially. If they all stopped watching, WWE wouldn't be able to sustain their business.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 10, 2013 22:11:39 GMT -5
It's because the "IWC" as we like to call it is a vocal minority that thinks that their voice is louder than it actually is. For example, if there are 10 million WWE fans in America, 1 million of those will be "internet fans," while the other 9 million are casuals. The other 9 million is where you find justifications for certain things and why certain guys don't draw well despite being loved by the other 1 million. Something like that. The ten percent Internet fan ratio is a Bischoff invention/coined phrase. If there are 10 million WWE fans, the truth is, only 3% of them are actually paying for the product. And that 3% is by and large the hardcore fanbase. They are the core customer, not the minority. It's just that WWE wants to hook the one's they don't have and caters things to draw them in because they figure they have the hardcores already and they're not going anywhere. But to say that they don't matter is absurd financially. If they all stopped watching, WWE wouldn't be able to sustain their business. the networks they're on pay the most to WWE and they base that on how many people tune in, because it leads to commercial buys.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Dec 10, 2013 22:21:47 GMT -5
The ten percent Internet fan ratio is a Bischoff invention/coined phrase. If there are 10 million WWE fans, the truth is, only 3% of them are actually paying for the product. And that 3% is by and large the hardcore fanbase. They are the core customer, not the minority. It's just that WWE wants to hook the one's they don't have and caters things to draw them in because they figure they have the hardcores already and they're not going anywhere. But to say that they don't matter is absurd financially. If they all stopped watching, WWE wouldn't be able to sustain their business. the networks they're on pay the most to WWE and they base that on how many people tune in, because it leads to commercial buys. The networks WILL pay the next time the rights fees are negotiated. You'd be shocked how unevenly structured WWE's current deal is in favor of USA Network right now, though. And that said, it doesn't negate the point about the paying audience. I never said the hardcores should be catered to. I simply said there was more of them paying out of pocket, for the product, then the rest of of the non-paying viewing audience. I also said why WWE tries to court the people they don't have. So I literally have no idea what your point is.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Dec 10, 2013 22:30:09 GMT -5
It's because the "IWC" as we like to call it is a vocal minority that thinks that their voice is louder than it actually is. For example, if there are 10 million WWE fans in America, 1 million of those will be "internet fans," while the other 9 million are casuals. The other 9 million is where you find justifications for certain things and why certain guys don't draw well despite being loved by the other 1 million. Something like that. The ten percent Internet fan ratio is a Bischoff invention/coined phrase. If there are 10 million WWE fans, the truth is, only 3% of them are actually paying for the product. And that 3% is by and large the hardcore fanbase. They are the core customer, not the minority. It's just that WWE wants to hook the one's they don't have and caters things to draw them in because they figure they have the hardcores already and they're not going anywhere. But to say that they don't matter is absurd financially. If they all stopped watching, WWE wouldn't be able to sustain their business. But see I'm not saying it's 10%, what I'm saying here is that the percentage isn't as high as some people think. I remember once someone on here saying he didn't understand how WWE thinks Triple H is a better draw than CM Punk when Triple H was hated by everyone and it just made me facepalm. You mention hardcore WWE watchers but that's a concept that people seem to confuse. The majority of hardcore WWE watchers aren't hardcore wrestling fans, they're hardcore WWE fans. They watch WWE every week because they like WWE. Those people are the majority but stay silent. If WWE doesn't please these people, then they lose too many viewers. These are the people that like John Cena, and Triple H, and The Big Show, etc. That's why opinions get confusing when it comes to wrestling.
|
|
Heartbreaker
King Koopa
Is actually Bindi Irwin
RIP Punk's media scrum, Page 54, Muffins, Biting People Bad™ (2022 - 2022)
Posts: 11,846
|
Post by Heartbreaker on Dec 10, 2013 22:30:19 GMT -5
Is this thread directed to those trolls who trash the smarks and act like everything WWE/TNA do is the right thing, even defending the messed up things TNA does?
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Dec 10, 2013 22:40:47 GMT -5
The ten percent Internet fan ratio is a Bischoff invention/coined phrase. If there are 10 million WWE fans, the truth is, only 3% of them are actually paying for the product. And that 3% is by and large the hardcore fanbase. They are the core customer, not the minority. It's just that WWE wants to hook the one's they don't have and caters things to draw them in because they figure they have the hardcores already and they're not going anywhere. But to say that they don't matter is absurd financially. If they all stopped watching, WWE wouldn't be able to sustain their business. But see I'm not saying it's 10%, what I'm saying here is that the percentage isn't as high as some people think. I remember once someone on here saying he didn't understand how WWE thinks Triple H is a better draw than CM Punk when Triple H was hated by everyone and it just made me facepalm. You mention hardcore WWE watchers but that's a concept that people seem to confuse. The majority of hardcore WWE watchers aren't hardcore wrestling fans, they're hardcore WWE fans. They watch WWE every week because they like WWE. Those people are the majority but stay silent. If WWE doesn't please these people, then they lose too many viewers. These are the people that like John Cena, and Triple H, and The Big Show, etc. That's why opinions get confusing when it comes to wrestling. Ok, I got you. And I agree. That said, I think the problem with wrestling opinions today is the sheer entitlement and ego behind some of said opinions. People WANT things to be exactly how they like, and that's cool, but you cannot argue facts or numbers. I can point to HHH being insecure, and there's a hundred examples that paint that an obvious clear picture, but in the same token, I cannot deny he is a draw (albeit in an attraction basis.). He drew huge with Lesnar at Summer Slam 2012. And some might think that was because of Brock primarily, and that may be true somewhat, but every wrestler needs the right dance partner to work with, or no one would care. And people care about HHH. It's impossible to deny.
|
|
|
Post by Piccolo on Dec 10, 2013 22:42:33 GMT -5
The ten percent Internet fan ratio is a Bischoff invention/coined phrase. If there are 10 million WWE fans, the truth is, only 3% of them are actually paying for the product. And that 3% is by and large the hardcore fanbase. They are the core customer, not the minority. It's just that WWE wants to hook the one's they don't have and caters things to draw them in because they figure they have the hardcores already and they're not going anywhere. But to say that they don't matter is absurd financially. If they all stopped watching, WWE wouldn't be able to sustain their business. But see I'm not saying it's 10%, what I'm saying here is that the percentage isn't as high as some people think. Could you quantify that for me? What percentage are "some people" thinking it is? What percentage of the "IWC" are those "some people"? What is the actual percentage? Averaging out the percentage that the entire IWC believes it to be (ie, the average of the percentage some people believe plus the percentage "IWC - some people" believes it to be, adjusted for the respective proportions) vs the actual percentage as determined by rigorous scientific inquiry, can the IWC reasonably be said to be, as a collective hivemind, incorrect with a confidence of at least 95%? Because if not, it sounds like we're just throwing around our own wishes, just like everyone else. We could do extensive surveys and research to determine the real answers, but until we do, how can we really speak for the broader audience and what they want? It's baffling.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Dec 10, 2013 22:46:23 GMT -5
But see I'm not saying it's 10%, what I'm saying here is that the percentage isn't as high as some people think. Could you quantify that for me? What percentage are "some people" thinking it is? What percentage of the "IWC" are those "some people"? What is the actual percentage? Averaging out the percentage that the entire IWC believes it to be (ie, the average of the percentage some people believe plus the percentage "IWC - some people" believes it to be, adjusted for the respective proportions) vs the actual percentage as determined by rigorous scientific inquiry, can the IWC reasonably be said to be, as a collective hivemind, incorrect with a confidence of at least 95%? Because if not, it sounds like we're just throwing around our own wishes rather than any legitimate facts. And if we're doing that, how can we, with a straight face, critique other people who are also biasing their own opinions over fact? We can't. It would be hypocritical and laughable. I mean, people do it. But I'd advise against it. Your argument comes down to "prove it" despite the fact that you provided no facts either. It's clear that people love Triple H but the internet hates him, that's why he always got amazing pops and was both a ratings and a pay-per-view draw, but if you only read the internet you'd believe otherwise. The "IWC" since we don't have a better name for it is not as big of WWE's audience as some like to think.
|
|
|
Post by Piccolo on Dec 10, 2013 22:51:25 GMT -5
Your argument comes down to "prove it" despite the fact that you provided no facts either. It's clear that people love Triple H but the internet hates him, that's why he always got amazing pops and was both a ratings and a pay-per-view draw, but if you only read the internet you'd believe otherwise. The "IWC" since we don't have a better name for it is not as big of WWE's audience as some like to think. Exactly. I don't have any stats, and neither do you. What I'm not doing, though, is pretending as though I know what's real compared to what other people "like to think." I know that it'd be insane for me to do that, because I have nothing to back it up. But because you have nothing more than I do, why do you feel comfortable asserting that your opinion is objective truth?
|
|
Lila
El Dandy
Slip N Slide World Champion 1997
Posts: 8,905
|
Post by Lila on Dec 10, 2013 22:54:08 GMT -5
I didn't realize that there were people on here who were like this.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Dec 10, 2013 22:54:11 GMT -5
Could you quantify that for me? What percentage are "some people" thinking it is? What percentage of the "IWC" are those "some people"? What is the actual percentage? Averaging out the percentage that the entire IWC believes it to be (ie, the average of the percentage some people believe plus the percentage "IWC - some people" believes it to be, adjusted for the respective proportions) vs the actual percentage as determined by rigorous scientific inquiry, can the IWC reasonably be said to be, as a collective hivemind, incorrect with a confidence of at least 95%? Because if not, it sounds like we're just throwing around our own wishes rather than any legitimate facts. And if we're doing that, how can we, with a straight face, critique other people who are also biasing their own opinions over fact? We can't. It would be hypocritical and laughable. I mean, people do it. But I'd advise against it. Your argument comes down to "prove it" despite the fact that you provided no facts either. It's clear that people love Triple H but the internet hates him, that's why he always got amazing pops and was both a ratings and a pay-per-view draw, but if you only read the internet you'd believe otherwise. The "IWC" since we don't have a better name for it is not as big of WWE's audience as some like to think. I think the subculture needs a new name. Everyone is on the Net these days, not just the fringe fans like during my early days on RSPW a million years ago.
|
|
Lila
El Dandy
Slip N Slide World Champion 1997
Posts: 8,905
|
Post by Lila on Dec 10, 2013 22:58:23 GMT -5
Also, didn't someone post about the cycle of posters on forum and how around certain times of the year does the board get certain new or older posters making their presents know? Troll seasons always happen around this time of year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2013 22:59:22 GMT -5
I swear there are more vocal anti IWC smark favorite wrestler fans then stereotypical IWC smarks on the net. Or it seems like that way over here.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Dec 10, 2013 23:00:21 GMT -5
But.....AJ REALLY IS the smartest, coolest, hottest diva ever and would totally love hanging out with me if we met.
|
|
Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Dec 10, 2013 23:05:04 GMT -5
Also, didn't someone post about the cycle of posters on forum and how around certain times of the year does the board get certain new or older posters making their presents know? Troll seasons always happen around this time of year. I think the cycle is in the summer when there's a bit of dead period in wrestling. There's a bunch of guys who de menstrate poor forum etiquette with their moody retorts. It leaves a lot of us quite irritable, but after a few days once the moderators begin to flush them out, it usually gets better.
|
|