Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Starstruck Championship Wrestling. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Note: Log in to remove ads.

Username:   Password:

Important Links


SCW Grading/Judging Guide

Posted by SCW Admin (Admins) at Mar 31 2018, 01:55:54 AM. 0 comments

The following criteria will be used henceforth for all promo judging.

5 = Excellent, 4 = Good, 3 = Average, 2 = Fair, 1 = Poor

Half points, such as 4.5 or 2.5 are allowed. However, a grade in any category of less than 3.5 will require at least a 50 word summary on how to improve in that section.

Note: Each grader is free to interpret these categories and grade them in any way, so long as all guidelines are followed. If you legitimately think someone earned a 2 in a category, that is fine, but be prepared to give them feedback on how to improve there.


In this category, you will be graded on how well you drew the reader in. Did you continue plot? Did you successfully develop a story? Was it lateral or scattered? Did you provided enough information to make your reader want more? Overall, this is about how well you built the story you are telling.

Of what you've written and said, how accurate was it? When Tom said James lost a match to him on June 3rd, was it actually June 3rd, or was it May 8th? When you said your opponent lost 5 matches in a row, did they really lose five in a row, or did they stick a win in there somewhere?

This is likely to be the most subjective of all categories, because it really only requires to the grader to judge how well they liked what was written. Was it entertaining, throughout, or did it become bland?

Did you give the reader something they hadn't been expecting? Something new? How fresh was the content? Was it an efed cliche that has been seen 100 times, or was it an eye opener, that made the reader sit up, and read it again?

For this category, you will be graded on how you presented your piece. If you posted pictures with your promo, were they distracting, or did they help set the scenery? Were there a lot of glaring grammar issues? If coloring is used, did they mix well?

Bonus Points
Because bonus points are cool. This section is added post average. At the time of this writing, the only thing available for bonus points is how well someone used a company that sponsors them in SCW. Sponsored by Dentyne, and someone offers you some Juicy Fruit? Tell that fool you only chew Dentyne! Okay, perhaps not that cheesy, but just, did you effectively introduce a product by a company that sponsors you? This is worth 1 point at this time.

Grading Form

5 = Excellent, 4 = Good, 3 = Average, 2 = Fair, 1 = Poor

Half points, such as 4.5 or 2.5 are allowed. However, a grade in any category of less than 3.5 will require at least a 50 word summary on how to improve in that section.

Promo Link or title:

1. Depth:
2. Accuracy:
3. Entertainment:
4. Creativity:
5. Presentation:
6. Bonus: Yes or no?

Summary: Note, this section is optional, unless a score of less than 3.5 is given in any category. Each score of less than 3.5 must be given at least 50 words of how to improve.

[b]Event: [/b]
[b]Promo Link or title: [/b]

[b]1. Depth:[/b]
[b]2. Accuracy:[/b]
[b]3. Entertainment:[/b]
[b]4. Creativity:[/b]
[b]5. Presentation:[/b]
[b]6. Bonus: Yes or no?[/b]

[b]Summary:[/b] [i]Note, this section is optional, unless a score of less than 3.5 is given in any category. Each score of less than 3.5 must be given at least 50 words of how to improve.

SCW April Update

Posted by SCW Admin (Admins) at Mar 30 2018, 10:39:29 PM. 0 comments

SCW April Update

Hello. Terel here. But, you already knew that (Alberto Del Rio voice). So, I wanted to make a little announcement about some changes coming to SCW. Some have already been enacted, and some are on the way.


Last year, when I reopened SCW, if I recall, I was trying to have the show up a couple days after the deadline. This quickly showed itself to be a bad method for a one man show. I had help when available, but overall, I simply couldn't write the whole show, on my own, in a day or two.

Eventually, we changed to what we're doing now, where an entire cycle is 3 weeks. So far, this has worked a bit better for us. This fits the current fed culture, and doesn't present unneeded stress on writers. We're supposed to be kinda laid back. We try not to take ourselves super seriously. When the time comes, if the fed culture has changed, this scheduling method will be reexamined. For the time being, it remains.

For promos, I think what we're doing is working there, as well. The reintroduction of the dual deadline has slowed down deadline bombing. Sometimes, I don't enforce the first deadline, for a number of reasons, but overall, this seems to be working well, and doesn't require modification.

As for results, we've stumbled a bit during the last few cards, and I'm looking to rectify that. To that end, I have a document I've put together. It's been available for at least several months, for anyone who wants to help with match writing. I'll be posting it on the board soon. If I could get one or two matches off my plate each card, I think we will be able to improve our quality.


So, voting. In all of SCW's 6 year history, we've voted. And the way we've voted, is "I'm voting for Person A, because I liked Person A's writing more."

This will be ending. In an effort to move away from a style of picking winnings that is prone to becoming a popularity contest, we will move into a system where we judge RP's. They will be judged on a specific set of criteria, and this information will be posted, for all to see and understand.

This being done for a couple of reasons. First, I don't want SCW to become a popularity contest. If you are winning because people like you, and not because of the content you produce, it doesn't help you grow. Which leads to my second reason; growth. On some level, we all have an area where we can improve. And I believe judging, instead of voting, will help with that.

To give a brief overview of what I envision for the judging process, let's say there are 5 criteria, and each is worth a maximum of 5 points. Let's say you get five points in all categories from someone, for a total of 25. The next person grades you 23, and third person grades you 20. You have a total of 68 points. Now, because three people graded you, that total will be divided by the number of judges. So, 68/3=22.6. 22.6 is what you will be scored against your opponent with.

The reason that the total is divided by the number of graders is so that it's a fair number. If three people grade you, but only one person grades your opponent, your opponent almost doesn't stand a chance. At the same time, taking the score above, and putting it against someone who had one grader, who gave them a total of 23-25, is fair, because that 23-25 is the average of one set of scores, also. If both of you get three graders, and you get 25, 23, 20 again, while they get all 25's, it still comes out to 22.6 vs 25.

I think this system will, in the long run, help us all improve our writing, versus just beating our opponent that week. Also, the same person will almost never be judging more than one character/team in a match. And, because the idea is helping each other grow as writers, any category where a score of less than 3.5 is given will require at least 50 words on how to improve. What's the point of downgrading someone, if you don't tell them how to improve?

I'd like to add that even if your opponent no shows, you will still be judged, because this system intended to provide feedback in addition to deciding winners.

This new system will be going into effect as of Spring Meltdown.


This is a game, and games are more fun when playing with others. For this reason, I both allow and encourage people on the roster to reach out to each other to make their own storylines. All I ask is to be informed of who is working with who, keep me abreast of certain details, so that I don't interfere/wreck your angles and stories.

In this way, more control over a storyline is put in the hands of the handlers who know the characters best. Want a feud, but don't want to have match after match with each other? Talk to each other, then talk to me. Want to have a program where the two of you are constantly at each others necks? Go for it.


Our main url is scwefed.com. It's a functioning website, and it appears to load well on both mobile and PC. There are quite a few things that still need to be done, but they aren't preventing us from using the site. With you guys' help, I hope to finish the bio areas very soon. If you have and suggestions on improvements for the Main Site, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Character Bios

Some of us have bios posted that don't follow the posted example. This needs to change. Please look over your character bios, and update them accordingly, so that they match the official SCW application.

SCW Admin

Re: Drew Stevenson

Posted by SCW Admin (Admins) at Jul 26 2017, 06:36:50 PM. 0 comments

Re: Drew Stevenson

So, if youíre on twitter, for fedding purposes, youíve likely heard of this. About a week ago, it came to light that the handler for Stevenson may be the same handler for Charles Gacy. This is of significance because Gacy posted a promo where sections of the CD involved graphic depictions of child abuse, of a sexual nature.


Iíve seen two excerpts of such writing, and what I gather from it is that the Gacy character was the victim, not the abuser, and these were flash back scenes. Further, if my recollection is correct, this was in a fed called Carny Pro, but I could be wrong. It is also my recollection that this fed has since been closed down.

Back in February/March, when I relaunched this fed, SCW, I asked Drew Stevenson to come on board, and he agreed. He took place in a couple of matches, remained undefeated before challenging for the inaugural SCW World Heavyweight Championship, which would be won by Paige Lewis. During the promo period, there was an ongoing twitter fight, that again, if I recall correctly, involved DARC Pro fed head, Miles Blake. In the midst of the drama, Stevenson decided to give up writing, and advised me of such.

So, as of May 1st, Drew Stevenson was no longer a member of the SCW roster. A few weeks ago, while planning a card, I invited him back, as I saw heíd taken up the hobby again, for a one off match. He was also given the option to rejoin SCW, should he desire to do so. He agreed to the match, I booked it, and then went on my miserable vacation.

This past weekend, all of this with the Gacy character began.

Let me first say that I do not like witch hunts. Yes, this was a witch hunt. At my last count, a dozen or better feds have banned Stevenson, while the offending RP was only written in one fed. Basically, the collective group of feds on twitter that he was associated with all joined in on this.

Drew Stevensonís future in MY fed was not going to be decided by twitter. He did not write the offending work in my fed, so why should I punish him? But, in the interest of gauging my community, I posted a question online, on my wall and in a group. I also asked a few people here at work. Literally, with no exaggeration, everyone I asked said they wouldnít kick him. Except one person. Most of these people were also shown screenshots of this content, and stood by their statement of no kick.

And I asked a variety of people. A high school friend with young children of her own, a friend who is a survivor of child abuse, another writing buddy with several children of all ages in the home, and even a friend with VERY young grandchildren; like, under 6 years old. ALL of these people said no kick.

I went to my community because I want them to be in a comfortable community, on my board. And based on their responses, I unofficially decided that I was not going to ban Drew Stevenson from my fed.

This incident has caused a great deal of stress in the community, which I understand. Hell, it caused me to leave a group or two, because I did not like their handling of it. Iím not going to tell someone how to run their fed, so I said my goodbyes. I wonít name the fed, because itís a great fed, and a great community, and I donít want to bring negative attention to them. At the same time, I will also not have people telling me how to run my fed.

So, my official statement is this. Drew Stevenson had returned to SCW for a One Match Contract. That obligation has been fulfilled. As of now, Drew Stevenson is once again NOT a member of the SCW roster. Should he wish to return to SCW, there will be a very serious conversation between him and myself about what kind of content will NOT be tolerated on MY board.

But I will not be banning him for what he did elsewhere.

That is all.