My apologies for the Rushmore hijinks, last time. No tricks this time, just wondering…
I've noticed that Hulkamania 3 and 4 got full-blown star ratings from start to finish, and I've also noticed that some of your Mid-Atlantic rants have no point system, whatsoever.
What are the deciding factors, these days, on which rants merit snowflakes vs points vs. commentary alone? I thought I used to know, but now I'm not so sure.
There's no real science to it. If it seems like a show isn't going to have opinions on the matches stronger than “it was OK” or “it wasn't OK” then I go with the point system. If it seems like people are gonna bug me to express my enjoyment of a match within the specifically defined confines of a star rating from 0 for 5 than I'll just do that. And sometimes, like with Mid-Atlantic and the 1990 WCW rants, it's mostly a bunch of squashes and then one feature match, so I'll just rate whatever warrants and ignore the rest.