L.A.W. - League of Anime Wrestling

There's been some oddness with the canonical nature of a lot of matches and events of late, and I just wanted to clarify things. These have never been discussed before, most certainly because we were all going off the same presumptions that were in general just implied, and carried over from AFW.



First thing I wanted to clarify was the nature of using unfinished matches in a story line element. I've always gone off of the presumption that whilst it's fine to do so in an ambiguous way (not referencing the winner, only mentioning the match itself), it would only be done both when the match is in its final stages and you have permission from the other party to do so.

Has this changed? Is LAW now going off the basis that a started thread automatically equals a completed one? Because surely this conflicts with the completed matches and such needed to contend for titles, PPV's etc.



Secondly was the use of matches not completed on LAW itself. Discord RPs (whilst I myself would very rarely post them to LAW) have always been treated as canon per standard when posted, because they are done in the same nature as LAW threads themselves - between the two owners of the characters.

Going forward, are we now able to treat matches where we control characters we don't own as canon? Am I okay with giving permission for someone to use Karen, and then using the match she won as a story element/excuse to buff her record?

First thing I wanted to clarify was the nature of using unfinished matches in a story line element.

Speaking for myself, I'm not sure there needs to be a universal policy here. Some people might plan out extended stories, run several parts in parallel, and make internal references inside that story before threads are anywhere near done; others might prefer to go in strict, linear order and to avoid creating any kind of continuity reference out of order. Both approaches, and many between, seem fine to me. They each have strengths and weaknesses.

The key to me is communicating with your partners. If I'm in a thread with Fieuline, and Fieu doesn't want me to make any references to that thread until we finish, then I should respect her wishes. And I'd ask before using that thread in a larger story. But if everyone involved is fine with the fluid references, then it's all gravy imo.

Because surely this conflicts with the completed matches and such needed to contend for titles, PPV's etc.

Only completed matches count towards qualifications for official events like ppvs. However, it's pretty common for exceptions to be made for non-qualifying wrestlers for lots of reasons, including "I have a monster thread that's almost done." Flexibility and doing what makes sense for a specific situation is what I'd lean towards.

Secondly was the use of matches not completed on LAW itself. Discord RPs (whilst I myself would very rarely post them to LAW) have always been treated as canon per standard when posted, because they are done in the same nature as LAW threads themselves - between the two owners of the characters.

Can't speak to this since I never do IM rp, so I'll let someone else weigh in.

I do not believe there has ever been an official policy as to what matches "count" or should be considered canon on LAW, and I don't believe there really needs to be one either. We're all adults here. I think it's very reasonable to treat things like this on a case-by-case basis. There are some users who are comfortable with treating unfinished matches as having happened in the past in the backstory of another thread. There are others who might not be. And that's okay. It would be nice, of course, to get permission from all the users involved before mentioning the events of a certain thread, but I don't think there needs to be any defined rules about this. What matters is that people are okay with it and it works for them.

There's a difference, I think, between a completed match and a completed thread. Most matches (in-universe) can be assumed to resolve in less than an hour, like the length of a typical wrestling match. But due to the format of a play-by-post roleplay, the thread (out-of-universe) describing that in-universe match will often take much longer. I don't see any harm in assuming that threads being started before other threads would indicate that the match described in those threads took place and completed prior to the events of a later thread. Characters cannot be in more than one place at once, after all, and if people want to have multiple ongoing matches with the same character at one time, they are welcome to.

If the completion of the thread will have consequences on what can and can't be done on the site - as in the case of a user or character needing to have multiple completed threads to qualify for a title or a PPV - then these should be viewed from an out-of-universe standpoint. The purpose of this rule is to ensure that the users are active and engaged, ie. it's an out-of-universe (Doylist) requirement. Similar requirements might be expected to exist from an in-universe (Watsonian) perspective within LAW as a promotion, but for the purposes of LAW as a site, the rules are grounded in Doylist logic, so they should be arbitrated from a Doylist perspective. That is not to say that a character couldn't appear in threads posted after the first, and these might even be assumed to take place after the first in-universe (implying that the first thread was, from a Watsonian point of view, completed), but if the first thread was not completed, that thread wouldn't count toward the requirement.

As far as Discord RPs go, most people I've seen have treated RPs that take place over IMs as non-canon as they aren't easily accessible to readers. RPs that start over DMs and are later posted to the forums are a different story, and I would consider them to be canon. But the only times I've seen this being done have been to expedite threads by doing multiples in parallel, such as for a feud or tournament, so that they could all be completed in a timely fashion without spoiling the results of earlier matches in later ones, and this is a function that has more or less been superceded by private threads. I don't see this being at all comparable to having another user take control of another user's character for the purposes of padding out their record, and that would likely be considered an abuse of the system, unless there were extenuating circumstances that justified it.

Ultimately, the purpose of LAW is to have fun. Wins and losses ultimately don't matter as much as telling stories does. And I don't see the need to get so bent out of shape about it. What works for the users works for the users, and if any problems come up, we can handle those. There's no reason to overcomplicate the matter.

First thing I wanted to clarify was the nature of using unfinished matches in a story line element

There was an interesting discussion about this first point on the Discord the other day. I think the people present mostly agreed on a few things, and we revealed a split on the community on another:

1. As far as most people are aware, there is no sitewide policy or universally agreed upon norm on using unfinished matches in plots.
2. Everybody thought it was best practice to ask before making a reference to unfinished threads, and that it was best to do so in a vague, non-spoilery way.
3. The disagreement was on how rude it was to do so without asking, and by extension, whether there should be a rule/norm and what it should be.

I'm not presenting this to say I endorse any particular part of the convo, this is just a three-bullet summary of what I remember.

On the third point, I'm with Malk. Reasonable people can disagree on how those threads should be handled. It's totally valid to feel put out if a thread partner references your unfinished thread without your permission, and it's totally valid to feel pretty ambivalent about it. Like Malk says, I think different users have different beliefs on it, and if a pair of users share a belief, I think that's 100% fine. They can operate under whatever shared assumptions they want. If we established a universal policy, that's how it would go anyway: The people who don't care about the rule will just informally agree to not do it.

For what it's worth, I do agree with Scorn that references should wait until later in the thread (maybe not as late as Scorn would prefer, but def not near the beginning) and should have permission in some way or another. I just think that permission can be implicit between certain partners + that permission doesn't need to be built-in as a rule.

Is LAW now going off the basis that a started thread automatically equals a completed one? Because surely this conflicts with the completed matches and such needed to contend for titles, PPV's etc.

I agree with Malk that there's no conflict here as of now. References to unfinished threads don't mean anything for whether that thread is counted for event eligibility. They still aren't, as far as I'm aware. If people started trying to sneak in blatantly unfinished/unwritten threads for eligibility, I think Winner, Malk, and Task are fair enough to sort that out. The rule is somewhat soft in my experience, anyway.

Going forward, are we now able to treat matches where we control characters we don't own as canon? Am I okay with giving permission for someone to use Karen, and then using the match she won as a story element/excuse to buff her record?

I completely agree with Scorn that this is a problem and should be discussed sooner rather than later. I think it's fine to write stories where one user writes others' characters, and I think it's fine to post them to LAW. I also think it's fine to use them as a story element, just because it doesn't really affect anyone else's story. If Scorn does what he said in the quote above, and then says "Hey, Karen has a great record, she walloped X Y and Z (in matches I didn't write but still!)," potential partners are completely free to ignore that. If I don't want to make it a story element, then I'm probably not a good fit for that kind of thread. If Fieuline is okay with it, then they can use it to hype up Karen.

However, I think we should as a community draw a line in the sand as to what it can and can't be counted as. Does it count for PPV/title eligibility? I don't think it should. Can we use it to add to a character's official record? I lean no here too, though I recognize it's somewhat similar to the "story element" argument. I just think it's an avenue for powerplaying that we should close off.

CaptainL wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 17, 2023 8:58 pm

And I don't see the need to get so bent out of shape about it.

Not every discussion that questions actions taken on the board are aggressive, nor "getting bent out of shape."

I'm measuring the different opinions and thoughts on a topic.

Devilish53 wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 17, 2023 9:10 pm

CaptainL wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 17, 2023 8:58 pm

And I don't see the need to get so bent out of shape about it.

Not every discussion that questions actions taken on the board are aggressive, nor "getting bent out of shape."

I'm measuring the different opinions and thoughts on a topic.

That point was not intended to be aimed at you, nor at anyone in particular. It was just a general statement. I apologize if it might have come across differently. I do think that getting people's opinions is valid, and I don't think anyone needs to be defensive of anything. That's all I'm saying.

I referenced a bunch of ongoing threads on LAW Twitter the other day, but that was solely so it wouldn't seem like Skylar had done absolutely nothing in the past couple years, even though my own activity in those threads was rather stagnant. In my opinion, it should never go further than that. You can't start ten threads in a day and then have your character brag about being 10-0, and you definitely cannot start ten matches and try to use that to say your character meets the requirements for any sort of event with a completed match threshold.

you definitely cannot start ten matches and try to use that to say your character meets the requirements for any sort of event with a completed match threshold.

This is a non-issue since afaik incomplete matches have never been counted towards official qualifications, and there are no plans to change that or to even consider changing that.

I completely agree with Scorn that this is a problem and should be discussed sooner rather than later. I think it's fine to write stories where one user writes others' characters, and I think it's fine to post them to LAW. I also think it's fine to use them as a story element, just because it doesn't really affect anyone else's story. If Scorn does what he said in the quote above, and then says "Hey, Karen has a great record, she walloped X Y and Z (in matches I didn't write but still!)," potential partners are completely free to ignore that. If I don't want to make it a story element, then I'm probably not a good fit for that kind of thread. If Fieuline is okay with it, then they can use it to hype up Karen.

However, I think we should as a community draw a line in the sand as to what it can and can't be counted as. Does it count for PPV/title eligibility? I don't think it should. Can we use it to add to a character's official record? I lean no here too, though I recognize it's somewhat similar to the "story element" argument. I just think it's an avenue for powerplaying that we should close off.

I agree with Poet completely here. Of the issues being discussed, this is probably the only one that strikes me as needing harder norms or rules about what counts for what.

I normally don't count matches as complete until they're done or almost done, and I don't refer to them as complete until then. A number of things could happen to end up halting the match entirely or ensuring it could never end. But I do think that if it's agreed upon by both parties, it's fine to treat it as canon. That being said, if a thread is only on say page one or two it seems very strange, or it hasn't had any activity for a very long time, it seems strange to me to act like that is a match is canon. I know I've seen a couple folks counting matches that aren't done and probably won't ever be done to their record, which isn't necessarily a big deal but strange when you bring it up in canon. Even in use on Twitter where story-relevant stuff does happen a lot, it feels strange to me to reference these incomplete matches.

I don't think it's been an issue of trying to sneak in eligibility for anything. That doesn't sound like an issue.

Concerning stories not written by you, I think it shouldn't be used since this site is meant to be a collaborative thing, so referencing matches that are written by one person should seem like a no-go. I know there's been some battle royals posted that were all clearly written by one person and everything seems to imply they're canon, but are they really? I really don't know, but that feels like a thing that could use more clarity.

Alright, that second point pertains to me. I have this fictional company, World Frontier Pro Wrestling, that has an active partnership with League of Anime Wrestling and me and Winner have worked it out to where that is canon, but further canonical events depends on user preference. Users that let me use their characters pick what is canon for them if anything and I just don't work with the people that aren't interested. Some people just like that it is counted as canon that their character wrestles in WFPW, but nothing gets referenced in LAW about it. It's also agreed upon that wins and losses in WFPW will not be counted towards LAW records, only WFPW records. Furthermore, nothing that happens in WFPW will be counted towards PPV/title shot eligibility in LAW. Through the partnership, titles from LAW can be defended on WFPW shows and vice versa, but those matches usually end up with the champion retaining and even then, they would be very rare. Some users are cool with their characters being in WFPW and having any accomplishments referenced in LAW if they so choose. It won't mean they get opportunities over here because they have an undefeated record in WFPW, because they will still have to go by the standards set by LAW. Any cross-promotional storylines between the two companies will be a collaborative effort. I hope this explanation clears up confusion.