300k people? That's 1/3 of the people that watch Impact each week. Suddenly your insignificant audience is a major proportion of the show. Don't use numbers unless you've worked out the math behind them, kiddo.
As far as the word 'indefensible' goes, I misspoke. I forgot that there are some people on this board who are capable of defending anything that TNA does. There's a guy here who once said they didn't have a sexual harassment problem so long as the wrestlers weren't violently raping the announcers in the locker room, so perhaps 'indefensible' was the wrong word. 'Indefensible by anyone who isn't full of shit' might have been the better turn of phrase.
As far as "indefensible by anyone who isn't full of shit" goes, we could start with TNA promoting Adam Jones' appearance as one by a 'former world champion'. Or, we could move to how TNA ran with a main event gimmick for over a year which repeatedly tested poorly with its audience. We could talk about how "major news" is a rehash of what would have been an undercard match in 1990's ECW. But that's the fans fault. When someone says "major news", the fans should think Prince Iuakea is coming back to wrestle Van Hammer, and should get excited when they get anything more.
I've said this to you a long time ago, but you've forgotten the lesson. Words actually have a meaning. When you use a word, there is an intention to influence thoughts and opinions with those words. The more people you speak to, the more carefully you have to choose your words, because- and borrow a Communications 101 book from a friend, it'll be on the first page- the responsibility for how your words are interpreted is entirely that of the person speaking. (When dealing with a rational actor, dealing with the batshit insane implies special rules.) If TNA creates the conditions where there audience believes there is a "major" announcement, it really is their fault when they don't meet those expectations. Is Pacman Jones technically a former world champion? Sure. Was everyone who wasn't entirely full of shit disappointed by that reveal? Yup.
You're welcome to disagree. You've been wrong before, you'll be wrong again, and I don't see why this discussion would be any different. It's yet another iteration out of you about how TNA's problems aren't their fault, but are because their fans aren't liking them in the right way.
Where to start? I will meander through a few tertiary points and maybe tie it back to this waste of time if the mood strikes me.
I have long taken amusement in people resorting to the what do you know, you are a fan "argument" around here. To a scientific mind this argument, at best, is an indication of laziness . The individual attacks someones ability to present an argument that isn't inherently flawed yet they frequently don't bother to prove what has been said wrong. The insinuation is the argument is poor yet they can't actually prove it wrong so it would stand to reason that the argument is better than they are giving it credit for.
These are the types of things philosophers and scientists think about. However, this isn't the type of thought process most people engage in. It is human nature, to an extent, to view the world through your own eyes only. Over time some people branch beyond that and become interested in the big picture while many do not. I always have taken an interest in those areas of my thought process, or worldview, that I later find out are atypical. I am known as a contrarian of sorts around here and compared to average there is probably truth is that observation. Yet, much like just being a fan, just being a contrarian doesn't mean that what I have said is any less valid if a counter argument cannot be provided. At least in a debate-o-sphere governed by reason.
Which is a nice segue into a discussion about the different types of discussions you have with a scientific mind vs a political pundit type mind. One is an open mind in search of the right answer, willing to be proven wrong in the name of intellectual advancement, while the other is educating everyone around them about why they are right and has no intention of anything to the contrary happening. This is why contrarians make them so agitated, they already "know" how it is and are incapable of understanding why anyone would not see it the way they do. When you question them you are not just questioning the current topic, you are pulling at a thread that threatens to unravel their entire worldview. On the flip side scientific minds can't stand these individuals because they are dismissive of reason and do not recognize it as what governs "the way it is." We often hear a quip about moving the goalposts during a discussion but my assertion is all that really means is that the other side has just got a glimpse of the goalposts that the other side has been kicking at all along.
So, what does this have to do with wrestlezone? There are not many scientists on wrestlezone. Even some of the scientific minds on wrestlezone intentionally turn that part of their brain off when they are here because it can be exhausting. Generally speaking, entertainment is meant to target an individual emotionally opposed to intellectually. There are exceptions but I doubt many, if any, would argue wrestling bucks that trend. As such it is not particularly surprising that what we have here is basically a PTI style discourse. Random topic of the day, random reaction of the day that I will now fervently defend as superior to all others without giving it much depth of thought. When that is the norm people tend to lean on their already existing biases/thoughts as the source for their next snippet. This is why we see such fixations/reactions to something that has happened before. Most people like things they are familiar with, it provides comfort, while the unknown tends to induce the opposite. The only problem with this is that it distorts the emphasis/importance of these repeated events.
It becomes even worse when you consider that in order to give the majority the type of news they are comfortable with any reporting also is inevitably tied into this distorted narrative. So I think what I am getting at here is that in this example I am the scientist, who by nature is used to proving things wrong by counter example but also suggests proving anything to be "how it is" a significantly more difficult problem than a pundit like Rayne would as he feels this is something that must be done.
You can tell this from his insistence on selective "reasoning" where he intentionally ignores or purposefully distorts parts of what I wrote while giving no thoughts to the implications of anything other than his chosen explanation. I already knew he was going to write about TNA audience size but I also knew he would think about how many people saw the tweet in that time frame, the possibility for multiple accounts, the possibility that if you average 1.1 mil a week you may well have 1.5 unique viewers in a given month etc. Why because he doesn't have clear answers for these questions so he must ignore them in his zest for
an the answer, regardless of true accuracy.
What is absolutely great is how some of the things I debunked he still regurgitated anyway. Why? Because I specifically called him out so he had to answer yet he couldn't come up with anything. Of course he can't change his mind so let's just throw something random in and start insulting people, yeah that is the way to do it! I already knew this was entirely the Dixie thing with Pacman, which was also internet only and clearly a work, and this "major" tweet (an oxymoron if I have ever seen one) but when you isolate it like that it sounds much less meaningful than Rayne has decided. So the "smart" way to do it is throw out another IWC unpopular thing because surely that counts as well even if it isn't really on topic. Dixie Pac, major 18 minute tweet and that
recent event which he states started
over a year ago.
But is he through? No. Of course you also need to completely miss the point on something and then prove something wrong that was never said because that is how you can really make yourself right. Choose something wrong, delude yourself into thinking that is what they are talking about and then tee off on that. I was never talking about people enjoying wrestling wrong. I was, however, referencing people being mislead into interpreting a message incorrectly, either by their preconceived notions or by the way these type of things are covered. For example, this thread was created half a day after the news had already been revealed by the same source it came from only minutes later. How can anyone argue there isn't some sort of hype cycle and distortion involved here? Furthermore, if you go to the primary source you can tell the major tweet was in kayfabe. But no one even does that or cares?
Long story short, if you want to have an true exchange of ideas then get informed before you do so, if you want to shout your random whims at one another then continue amongst yourselves. And Rayne, your next planned non-sequitur into if it matters if it is kayfabe or a work or whatever is indeed a non-sequitur.
PS The philosophical side of me wants to beat a dead horse on the absurdness of claiming each time this type of hype-letdown scenario takes place that no one will care if they keep this up. Clearly people still buy in every time in spite of it happening 20 times recently, so your whole premise is flawed and at best a theory.
Every time you talk about how you won't, or you shouldn't, you demonstrate a little bit more that you can't, or couldn't.