1998 Squiddy Results!
K. Krueger
After an assortment of delays and complications, the squiddy results
are in! Go to:
http://www.innocence.com/~squiddy/squid-results.cgi
This shows the top ten in each category. For the complete full results,
go to:
http://www.innocence.com/~squiddy/squid-results.cgi?full=yes
There are probably a few errors still lurking in the results, particularly
down in the one-vote area, and a few things that are invalid. Let me know
about these, and I'll fix them up.
I can't say that the squiddies ran smoothly this year, alas. Some of it
was technical problems in rolling out a new system that's actually more
complicated than it looks. I also moved this month, and then the machine
was unavailable for some time due to the aftermath of a hacker attack.
Nevertheless, now that the bulk of the work is done, it really will be
much easier in the future. I also plan on making things so that multiple
people can process ballots, making things less dependant on one person
having a stable life to deal with the workload.
The actual voting was also somewhat complicated. In addition to the
screw up that lost some ballots early on, we had some attempts at ballot
stuffing. Individuals doing it were easily caught and their votes thrown
out, but much more difficult was the fact that we got mentioned on the
Sluggy Freelance website (an excellent online comic, I might add.) Many
people came to us through that, enough that the results would have been
greatly swayed by non-rac readers. I made a decision, consistent with
prior policies, to disallow 'party-line' ballots, with only votes for
one comic/comic strip. Many of the Sluggy fans are comic fans too, and
had legitimate ballots - Sluggy did very well in the results, but did not
win every single category, like they would have if I'd allowed the
party-line ballots.
--
Kirby Krueger O- kir...@best.com
<*> "Most .sigs this small can't open their own jump gate."
JohannaLD
vote. (Liberal smilies should be sprinkled below.)
>Writer Categories
Shouldn't this say "creator categories" or something?
Or did Erik Larsen run the votes?
>Best Writer:
>154: Kurt Busiek
>141: Warren Ellis
>105: Pete Abrams
Who?
>66: Grant Morrison
>64: Garth Ennis
>50: Wendy and Richard Pini
I see the rac.elfquest fans got out the vote.
>48: Alan Moore
>46: Peter David
>34: Kevin Smith
>26: James Robinson
No Mark Waid? Wow, I guess we really do hate Flash now.
>Best Penciller:
>105: George Perez
>54: Wendy Pini
>40: Phil Jiminez
>36: Alan Davis
>26: Darick Robertson
RAC likes the classic comic stylists.
>24: Sergio Aragonés
>24: Frank Miller
>24: Joe Maduriera
>23: Travis Charest
>20: Jae Lee
Obviously, timeliness wasn't part of the criteria.
>Best Inker:
>60: Pete Abrams
Who? Is this that guy that had the website link Kirby
was talking about?
>50: Jimmy Palmiotti
>45: Al Vey
>44: Bill Sienkiwiecz
>36: Wade von Grawbadger
>33: Mark Farmer
>29: Stan Sakai
Best inker for what?
>29: Jim Lee
>27: Karl Kesel
>24: Gerhard
>Best Painter:
>318: Alex Ross
Duh.
>56: Wendy Pini
>37: Mark Texiera
>36: Charles Vess
>31: Glen Fabry
>28: Frank Miller
He paints?
>25: Tony Harris
>18: Jerry Ordway
>15: David Mack
>13: Matt Wagner
>Best Letterer:
>151: Richard Starkins & Comicraft
And the computers win again!
>93: Todd Klein
>80: Dave Sim
>42: Chris Eliopoulos
>37: Tom Orezchowski
>35: John Byrne
Sometimes, I think you should throw votes out based on
a demonstrated lack of technical knowledge in the voters.
>25: John Costanza
>22: John Workman
>14: Tara Tallan
>12: Mike Allred
>Best Colorist:
>100: Liquid!
>87: Digital Chameleon
The traditional crafts go the way of the assembly line.
Sigh.
>67: Lynn Varley
>32: Tom McCraw
>32: Laura Allred
>22: Tom Luth
>18: Patricia Mulvhill
>13: Matt Hollingsworth
>13: David Kemp/Inhumans
>13: Greg Wright
>Best Creative Team:
>293: Garth Ennis / Steve Dillon - "Preacher"
>200: Warren Ellis (w), Derick Robertson (p), >Rod Ramos (i) on
"Transmetropolitan"
>189: Kurt Busiek / George Perez (Avengers)
>181: Busiek/Anderson/Nyberg Astro City
>125: Wendy and Richard Pini
>122: Sergio Aragones/Mark Evanier
>79: DC Johnson and JH Williams (Chase)
>78: Dave Sim/Gerhard
>55: Jeph leob and Tim Sale
>54: Neil Gaiman & Charles Vess
>Best Cover Artist:
>200: Alex Ross
Duh. Comics historians are going to have fun trying to
study awards of the 90s.
>52: Wendy Pini
>41: Glen Fabry
>36: Tony Harris
>33: Dave McKean
>27: Brian Bolland
>24: Alan Davis
>23: George Perez
>23: Adam Hughes
>21: Tim Bradstreet
>Best Editor:
>126: Archie Goodwin
Never underestimate the sympathy vote.
>51: Richard Pini
>49: Tom Breevoort
>47: Tom Brevoort
Um, Kirby?
>37: Karen Berger
>33: Dan Raspler
>30: No Award
>30: Denny O'Neil
>27: Stuart Moore
>19: Queseda & Palomotti
>Best Political Cartoonist:
>156: Gary Trudeau
You ever get the idea that this is the only editorial
cartoonist some people know of?
>63: Tom Tomorrow
Yes!
>49: Scott Adams
Political?
>40: Sergio Aragonnes
>37: Alex Ross, U.S.
>26: Jeff MacNelly
>15: Steve Bell (UK)
>14: Tom Oliphant
>14: Tom Toles
>12: Hembeck
>Book and Story Categories
>Best Story:
>76: JLA - The Nail
Wow! That's a surprise.
>54: Transmetropolitan - Year of the Bastard
>43: The Vampire Arc from Sluggy Freelance
>35: Wolfrider/Elfquest
>30: Superman For All Seasons
>23: Books of Magic - Thousand Worlds of Tim
>23: DC One Million
>21: "War in the Sun" - Preacher
>19: 300
Somehow, judging a historical event as a story seems odd
to me.
>14: Daredevil # 1-6
>Best Series:
>88: Sluggy Freelance
Ballot-stuffing. What IS this?
>84: Transmetropolitan
>59: Preacher
>55: Avengers
>46: JLA
>40: Elfquest
>26: Strangers in Paradise
>26: DEADPOOL
>25: Astro City
>24: Books of Magic
>Best New Series:
>70: Inhumans
>61: Black Panther
>53: Young Justice
>51: Chase
>42: Daredevil
>34: Battle Chasers
>31: Avengers volume 3
>21: Birds of Prey
>16: The Minx
Shouldn't this be in the next section? (Joke!)
>15: Kabuki (Image)
A new series?
>Best Limited Series:
>87: JLA - The Nail
Wowzers!
>73: 300
>51: Inhumans
I've always thought voting on a limited series before it's
done is a little iffy. But that's mainly because so many
don't live up to their promise.
>43: Gaiman & Vess' Stardust
>42: Avengers Forever
>42: Superman for All Seasons
>31: Books of Faerie
>28: Jay & Silent Bob
>26: JLA/Titans
>21: "Magical Drama Queen Roxy" by Adam
>Warren (w/p) and JD (i)
>Best Single Comic:
>58: Incredible Hulk #467
Peter David's last issue, right? Can anyone provide
summaries for these others?
>52: CLERKS. (THE COMIC BOOK)
>45: Transmetropolitan #8 - "Another Cold Morning"
>32: Elfquest
>19: Buck Godot #8
>16: Books of Magic #57
>15: Black Panther #1
>15: "Hellblazer" #134 by Warren Ellis (w) and John Higgins (p/i)
>15: Astro City #13
>13: Spectre #62
>Best Reprint Book:
>74: Crisis on Infinite Earths
Take that, you price-gougers!
>40: Batman:The Long Halloween
>31: Transmetropolitan - Back on the street
>30: Quantum and Woody (Holy @$#% We're Cancelled!)
>27: Star Wars Manga
>25: Cages
>21: Mage The Hero Discovered Vol 1
>18: Shards
>17: Astro City Family Album
>16: Zot! Volume 3
>Best Graphic Novel:
>115: Superman Peace On earth
>71: "You Are Here" by Kyle Baker
>39: Buffy The Vampire Slayer:The Dust Waltz
>35: The New Adventures of Abraham Lincoln
With this and Mr. Baker's work, I have to think they're
coasting on reputation, because they just didn't live
up to previous works.
>26: A Family Matter by Will Eisner
>21: Cathedral Child
>6: Soulwind
>5: Superman/Madman Hollabaloo
>5: Thrillkillers '62
>5: Femforce:Time Storm
Lots of divided voting, apparently, meant only a few
supporters could place you in this category. (I mean,
Femforce?)
>Best Anthology:
>51: Elfquest
>44: Legends of the DC Universe
>39: Oni Double Feature
>24: Action Girl
>24: Heartthrobs
>23: Heavy Metal
>23: Dork
>22: Batman Chronicles
>21: Mythography
RIP. I miss you.
>21: Gangland
>Best Web Comic:
>635: Sluggy Freelance (www.sluggy.com)
Ah, now All Is Made Clear.
>48: Daredevil #0 Web Edition on Marvel Interactive
>42: "My Obsession with Chess" by Scott McCloud
>(http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/chess/chess.html)
>26: None
>18: "Daily Rare Bit Fiends" by Rick Veitch
>15: Don Simpson's Megaton Man
>14: Kevin & Kell
>12: Megaton Man
>7: Argon Zark
>7: Scott McCloud's comics (www.scottmccloud.com)
Two places for the same site! Cool!
>Best Comic Strip:
>165: Dilbert
Apparently, art DOESN'T matter to the online crowd.
>124: Sluggy Freelance
>82: Fox Trot
>59: "For Better or For Worse" by Lynn Johnson
>54: Doonesbury
>30: Rose is Rose
>27: Red Meat
Never heard of it. Any fans care to describe it?
>22: Peanuts
>18: Non Sequitor
>18: Spider-Man by Stan Lee
>Other Categories
>Best Company/Imprint:
>248: DC
Even though no one seems to like their books anymore,
they're still the fave.
>140: DC Vertigo
>104: Marvel
>53: Dark Horse
>40: Warp Graphics
>25: Image
>25: Marvel Knights
>20: Oni
>19: Slave Labor
>11: Kitchen Sink
>Best Character:
>80: Spider Jerusalem
>54: Bun-Bun
Who?
>49: Jesse Custer
>38: Jack Knight (Starman)
>37: Batman
>34: Dilbert
>27: Deadpool
>21: Green Lantern (Hal Jordan)
>19: John Constantine
>19: Spider-Man
>Best Team:
>118: JLA
>98: Avengers
Surprise, surprise. The classics rise again.
>48: Jay & Silent Bob
>43: Thunderbolts
>32: X-Men
>31: Invisibles
>29: Legion of Super-Heroes
>27: Stormwatch
>26: Batman, Batgirl, Robin, Nightwing
>24: Cast of Strangers in Paradise
>Best Other-Media Adaptation:
>256: Batman/Superman Adventures
>114: Blade Movie
>53: Jay & Silent Bob Action Figures - Graphitti
>16: spawn cartoon
>15: Avengers/Thunderbolts novel by Pierce Askegren
>13: Pi
>13: Spawn Manga Action Figures
>9: Six String Samuria
>8: The Supergirl episodes of the Superman cartoon
>7: Alpha Flight Figures
>Best Publication:
>164: Wizard
I'm sorry, I misread "Best" for "Only".
>54: Comic Buyer's Guide
>34: Newsarama
>29: No Award
>27: Previews
>25: Comic Shop News
>25: The Comics Journal
>23: Comic Book Artist
>22: The Jack Kirby Collector
>16: CSN
>Best Web Site:
>115: www.sluggy.com
>82: Newsarama (http://www.mania.com/newsarama/index.html)
>62: Comic Book Resources
>38: www.elfquest.com
>31: Space Ghost Coast-to-Coast
>28: www.warrenellis.com
>26: COMICON.com
>25: Mania
>20: NCRL
>17: Rich's Ramblings
We've outgrown the days when special-targeted or
fan sites can compete with the big guns. Unless you
stack the vote. :)
>Best RAC'r:
>100: Warren Ellis
>84: Kurt Busiek
>61: Randy Lander
>37: Erik Larsen
>36: Dave Van Domelen
>32: Kevin Smith
>29: Don MacPherson
>29: D. Curtis Johnson
>28: Mark Waid
>28: Chris Claremont
And again, you have to be pro or semi-pro (reviewer) to
get people's attention. Who was it who said people didn't
care about pros online?
-- Johanna
Comics Worth Reading -- http://members.aol.com/johannald
Mikko Aittola
Random Squiddies 98 comments follow:
------
Best Inker:
19: John Byrne --- And hey, I didn't even vote Byrne!!! How about that?
-----
Best Letterer:
Comicraft won???? It must be the kewl fonts and balloons they
use for Thing and Iron Man. And the sound effects that fill the
panels so that the reader can't see what's happening.
35: John Byrne --- Didn't vote for Byrne here either.
Basicly, I can't understand the people who didn't vote
Todd Klein, Workman or the other guys that still
can *really* LETTER and design the sound effects and stuff.
---------
Best Colorist:
100: Liquid! --- The worst bunch of colorists in the
history of this industry.
Gee, could these two be related?
18: Patricia Mulvhill
11: Trish Mulvihill
Ditto.
5: Steve Buccelato
3: Steve Bucellato
--------
Ahem!
49: Tom Breevoort
47: Tom Brevoort
-------
Special spelling award for these guys:
19: Queseda & Palomotti
--------
My vote for the best political cartoonist (Terho Ovaska)
isn't on the list. My vote for the best single comic
isn't on the list. What gives? Is my vote for the
best penciler counted either??? I demand a recount.
Kenneth Starr should investigate this.
------
Best New Series:
42: Daredevil --- IMO these relaunches shouldn't count
31: Avengers volume 3 --- at least the 1997 relaunches shouldn't count
-------
/Mikko
KurtBusiek
the others.
Thanks especially to both Tom Brevoorts. And my creative teams can at least
outnumber the others and beat 'em into submission! But I voted for Garth and
Steve myself, so it was nice to see them beat Sluggy Freelance...
kurt
David J. Snyder
K. Krueger <kir...@best.com> wrote:
>
>
>Sluggy Freelance website (an excellent online comic, I might add.) Many
>people came to us through that, enough that the results would have been
>greatly swayed by non-rac readers. I made a decision, consistent with
>prior policies, to disallow 'party-line' ballots, with only votes for
>one comic/comic strip. Many of the Sluggy fans are comic fans too, and
>had legitimate ballots - Sluggy did very well in the results, but did not
>win every single category, like they would have if I'd allowed the
>party-line ballots.
>
method. Even with you throwing out these party-line votes, the
results are still clearly not representative of the rac community,
as I'm fairly certain Pete Abrams is not the third most popular
writer and most popular inker of rac participants, nor is Sluggy
Fleelance the most popular series.
Somebody correct me if they think I'm wrong.
-Dave
--
"Being called an idiot tends to take people out of the dating mood."
"Well, it actually kind of turns me on."
"I fear you."
-Buffy and Xander, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
DivaLea
Lea
CLOCKWORK ANGELS, intro by Warren Ellis
Image Comics
Pre-order now from PREVIEWS! (January, page 111)
http://members.aol.com/divalea
Charles Sumner
Snyder) wrote:
> This strikes me as a potentially fundamental flaw in the Web ballot voting
> method. Even with you throwing out these party-line votes, the
> results are still clearly not representative of the rac community,
> as I'm fairly certain Pete Abrams is not the third most popular
> writer and most popular inker of rac participants, nor is Sluggy
> Fleelance the most popular series.
>
> Somebody correct me if they think I'm wrong.
No argument here. I'm a big fan of Sluggy Freelance and did vote for it for
best web comic, but everthing else I voted for was related to print comics.
(I didn't even think to vote for it for best website, as I was voting for that
award was referring to... best related website which was NCRL for me).
I like Sluggy and think Pete Abrams is a clever and talented writer, but
the way it showed up in the awards is offensive and defeats the purpose
of the Squiddies.
Charley Sumner csu...@fas.harvard.edu
"That's brilliant! They've hid their information in plain
sight by disguising it as a web page." - Gunsmith Cats
br...@khepri.com
> Best Letterer:
> Comicraft won???? It must be the kewl fonts and balloons they
> use for Thing and Iron Man. And the sound effects that fill the
> panels so that the reader can't see what's happening.
Well... that and the racial slurs in WOLVERINE... or PETER PARKER working for
the Daily BULGE... can't forget those, um, wonderful (?), uh... *TYPOS*!
Ahh... the power of spell-checking, and the lost art of editing...
--
Brian Scot Johnson
br...@khepri.com
Khepri Comics Online:
http://www.khepri.com
Dave Van Domelen
JohannaLD <joha...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Best Writer:
>>105: Pete Abrams
>
>Who?
>
>>Best Inker:
>>60: Pete Abrams
>
>Who? Is this that guy that had the website link Kirby
>was talking about?
>
>>88: Sluggy Freelance
>
>Ballot-stuffing. What IS this?
>
>>54: Bun-Bun
>
>Who?
The answer to all of the above is...Sluggy Freelance and its mailing
list. Abrams regularly electioneers on his website to get it voted into the
top of various "top 10/100/1000 websites" lists, and he stuck a note in for
the Squiddies too. Repeat of the Duckslide, basically.
Now, I like Sluggy Freelance and read it every day. But Abrams is only
a mediocre artist with a few competent computer-inking tricks up his sleeve.
He's a pretty good humor writer, but not consistently good enough to merit
any awards when compared to people like Priest, Busiek or Crilley. Bun-Bun,
though, does deserve some recognition, if only so he'll put down the
switchblade.
Dave Van Domelen, thinks about the only way to make the Squiddies
resistant to ballotbox stuffing would be to have a voting "academy" of
regulars (who would then be inelegible for any awards themselves) to vote
from among nominations sent in by the public. Thus, a bazillion votes for
Sluggy Freelance from the webpage wouldn't count any more than a few votes
for, say, Cathedral Child....
Randy Lander
>
> I like Sluggy and think Pete Abrams is a clever and talented writer, but
> the way it showed up in the awards is offensive and defeats the purpose
> of the Squiddies.
I agree here. The ballot stuffing rendered several categories
questionable if not totally invalid.
May I suggest that if we do the web-voting next year, anyone voting for
"Sluggy Freelance" in more than one category be disqualified? Or dragged
into the street and shot for attempting to ballot-stuff? ;)
--
The above are the opinions of one Randy W. Lander. Had they been the
Biblical Truth, your bushes would be on fire.
---------------------------------------------------------
rwla...@snapjudgments.com <*> http://www.snapjudgments.com ICQ #6993546
Bryant Durrell
>The actual voting was also somewhat complicated. In addition to the
>screw up that lost some ballots early on, we had some attempts at ballot
>stuffing. Individuals doing it were easily caught and their votes thrown
>out, but much more difficult was the fact that we got mentioned on the
>people came to us through that, enough that the results would have been
>greatly swayed by non-rac readers. I made a decision, consistent with
>prior policies, to disallow 'party-line' ballots, with only votes for
>one comic/comic strip. Many of the Sluggy fans are comic fans too, and
>had legitimate ballots - Sluggy did very well in the results, but did not
>win every single category, like they would have if I'd allowed the
>party-line ballots.
Hm. Interesting, that. I'm going to go way out on an opinionated
limb, and say that I don't think Pete Abrams -- author of Sluggy -- is
the best inker in comics. I also don't think he's a better writer than
Alan Moore or Grant Morrison.
I don't know. Has Sluggy Freelance seen any discussion at all in
rac.*? I think what's bugging me is that this suddenly doesn't seem
like it's "our" awards anymore. Like any other Web-based voting
system, it's subject to sudden waves of devoted fans.
What am I getting at? I think I'd like to see a moratorium on
Web-based voting systems. I think it makes it too easy for someone
with a popular Web site to push balloting in one direction or another.
I think people should have to fill out a ballot and mail it in; let
them be processed by a automatic mail handler if need be.
There. That's my highly opinionated limb.
--
Bryant Durrell [] dur...@innocence.com [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell
[----------------------------------------------------------------------------]
"Real Men are NOT afraid to say: 'Fuck OFF, you're Not my type.'" -- Drieux
Dave Van Domelen
Randy Lander <rwla...@snapjudgments.com> wrote:
>Charles Sumner wrote:
>>
>> I like Sluggy and think Pete Abrams is a clever and talented writer, but
>> the way it showed up in the awards is offensive and defeats the purpose
>> of the Squiddies.
>
>I agree here. The ballot stuffing rendered several categories
>questionable if not totally invalid.
>
>May I suggest that if we do the web-voting next year, anyone voting for
>"Sluggy Freelance" in more than one category be disqualified? Or dragged
>into the street and shot for attempting to ballot-stuff? ;)
Or, here's another idea. Kill the web-based part of the Squiddies and
make non-paper comics ineligible, period. Let someone come up with another
awards thing for the web comics.
Squiddies - the Online Awards for Offline Comics.
Dave Van Domelen, notes that paper-based reprint collections of
web-based comics would also be ineligible, sorry Don Simpson (and Eric
Schwartz)....
Mikko Aittola
da...@schultz-2.io.com (David J. Snyder) writes:
> This strikes me as a potentially fundamental flaw in the Web ballot voting
> method. Even with you throwing out these party-line votes, the
> results are still clearly not representative of the rac community,
> as I'm fairly certain Pete Abrams is not the third most popular
> writer and most popular inker of rac participants, nor is Sluggy
> Fleelance the most popular series.
>
> Somebody correct me if they think I'm wrong.
Err...maybe this is news to you but: Only the votes count.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
dva...@eyrie.org (Dave Van Domelen) writes:
> Dave Van Domelen, thinks about the only way to make the Squiddies
> resistant to ballotbox stuffing would be to have a voting "academy" of
> regulars (who would then be inelegible for any awards themselves) to vote
> from among nominations sent in by the public. Thus, a bazillion votes for
> Sluggy Freelance from the webpage wouldn't count any more than a few votes
> for, say, Cathedral Child....
You're joking, right?
/Mikko
Todd VerBeek
>> Best Letterer:
>> Comicraft won???? It must be the kewl fonts and balloons they
>> use for Thing and Iron Man. And the sound effects that fill the
>> panels so that the reader can't see what's happening.
Seriously, I think it has more to do with the ubiquity of the name. The
Comicraft studio name is in the credits of =so many= books that they can
earn "mindshare" by that alone. If (for example) Todd Klein had the time
and wrist fortitude to letter as many books as Starkings' crew, he
would've done better in the voting.
Cheers, Todd (who humbly notes that the same principle applies to the
"favorite r.a.c.er" category)
Mikko Aittola
Randy Lander <rwla...@snapjudgments.com> writes:
> I agree here. The ballot stuffing rendered several categories
> questionable if not totally invalid.
Especially the votes for Randy Lander in the favorite
racer category.
/Mikko
DivaLea
>> I agree here. The ballot stuffing rendered several categories
>> questionable if not totally invalid.
>
> Especially the votes for Randy Lander in the favorite
> racer category.
No ridding. Everyone knows Randy gave racing up because Pops begged him to
after his brother disappeared mysteriously years ago.
Mikko Aittola
> make non-paper comics ineligible, period. Let someone come up with another
> awards thing for the web comics.
> Squiddies - the Online Awards for Offline Comics.
I hope the guy who draws Sluggy Freelance has a printer then.
Naturally, all the Avengers online fan fics and Wolverine pin-ups
and Spider-Man web-comics would also make those series
ineligible.
/Mikko
David W. Stepp
No, you're right, or at least I am with you. At the very least, Sluggy
Freelance or whateevr should be eliminated from the current vote and the
ballots re-tabulated. Looks like the Squiddies are invalid this year.
D.
Mikko Aittola
I wrote:
> I hope the guy who draws Sluggy Freelance has a printer then.
Ok, I'm stupid. Sorry.
Sluggy Freelance *is* available on paper also. You can
order it from plan9.org and Amazon.com.
Is it not nifty?
/Mikko
David J. Snyder
Mikko Aittola <mait...@vipunen.hut.fi> wrote:
>
> Err...maybe this is news to you but: Only the votes count.
>
Only the votes count if the votes were actually from members of the
rac community. Clearly a large number of the voters have never posted
to rac.
Nat Gertler
>
> At the very least, Sluggy
> Freelance or whateevr should be eliminated from the current vote and the
> ballots re-tabulated. Looks like the Squiddies are invalid this year.
Or certainly would be if we invalidated the votes of folks because
they were fans of something that certain people don't want to see
win...
Mikko Aittola
> rac community. Clearly a large number of the voters have never posted
> to rac.
Who said you have to post to rac in order to have a right to vote
in the awards?
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
dst...@NOSPAMpost.its.mcw.edu (David W. Stepp) writes:
> No, you're right, or at least I am with you. At the very least, Sluggy
> Freelance or whateevr should be eliminated from the current vote and the
> ballots re-tabulated. Looks like the Squiddies are invalid this year.
Let's also eliminate Kurt Busiek from the best writer category.
I asked couple of my friends to vote for him, maybe they did
and since they're not part of the elitist's here...
/Mikko
Dave Van Domelen
Mikko Aittola <mait...@vipunen.hut.fi> wrote:
>
>dva...@eyrie.org (Dave Van Domelen) writes:
>> Or, here's another idea. Kill the web-based part of the Squiddies and
>> make non-paper comics ineligible, period. Let someone come up with another
>> awards thing for the web comics.
>> Squiddies - the Online Awards for Offline Comics.
>
>
> and Spider-Man web-comics would also make those series
> ineligible.
Now you're just being deliberately obtuse for the sake of starting a
flamewar. It's very simple. If the primary means of distribution is online,
it would be ineligible. A reprint collection of online strips would be
inelegible, but a comic which is later scanned in would be eligible. If
there's a mixture (like Megaton Man, which exists both in print-first and
web-first modes throughout its history), then only those books which were
mainly print are eligible. And if a title has no original print version,
just reprints, it's not eligible at all.
In any case, it looks like Sluggy electioneering may have killed the
Squiddies anyway, so it's a moot point. As several other people have tried
to pound into your head, the Squiddies are supposed to be a reflection of the
RAC* community, and it's obvious they are no longer filling that role.
Hence, I *am* serious about a "voting academy" idea, if only to try and make
sure the Squiddies aren't the awards reflecting who has the biggest webpage.
Web comics are a good thing, but they should have their own awards and not
abuse their position online to stuff ballotboxes.
Dave Van Domelen, it's the old Tragedy of the Commons thing....
David J. Snyder
Mikko Aittola <mait...@vipunen.hut.fi> wrote:
>
> Who said you have to post to rac in order to have a right to vote
> in the awards?
>
case, since these are suppose to be the rac awards.
Todd VerBeek
>> method.
I couldn't agree more. Especially with the "fundamental" part, because I
really don't see a way of avoiding it. Putting the ballot on the web
makes it easy prey to be hijacked by folks who don't even know what
"r.a.c" is an abbreviation for. I wish I had an answer, because there are
some obvious benefits to the web ballot... but I don't. The closest I can
think of would be to announce the voting =only= on Usenet, and prohibit
candidates from linking to the ballot. But that'd be damn hard to
enforce, and a bit dodgy even if we could.
My pal Charles Sumner said:
>I like Sluggy and think Pete Abrams is a clever and talented writer, but
>the way it showed up in the awards is offensive and defeats the purpose
>of the Squiddies.
As far as I'm concerned, /Transmetropolitan/ won "Best Series", and I
encourage Warren to feel free to say so. And I sincerely hope that Abrams
has the class not to brag that his series "won" the rec.arts.comics
Squiddy awards. Because it didn't, not in any moral sense. All this has
proven is that /Sluggy/ fans like the series enough to vote for it, not
that r.a.c. participants like it (which is the whole point that the
Squiddies are intended to reflect).
Cheers, Todd
Martin Wisse
>Ok, I'll start the ball rolling with feedback, since I didn't
>vote. (Liberal smilies should be sprinkled below.)
>
>>Writer Categories
>
>Shouldn't this say "creator categories" or something?
>Or did Erik Larsen run the votes?
>
>>Best Writer:
>>154: Kurt Busiek
>>141: Warren Ellis
>>105: Pete Abrams
>
>Who?
The guy who does Sluggy Frelance, at www.sluggy.com
>>Best Inker:
>>60: Pete Abrams
>
>Who? Is this that guy that had the website link Kirby
>was talking about?
Yup.
>>Best Web Comic:
>>635: Sluggy Freelance (www.sluggy.com)
>
>Ah, now All Is Made Clear.
Heh.
Martin Wisse
Martin Wisse
>David W. Stepp wrote:
>>
>> At the very least, Sluggy
>> Freelance or whateevr should be eliminated from the current vote and the
>> ballots re-tabulated. Looks like the Squiddies are invalid this year.
>
>Or certainly would be if we invalidated the votes of folks because
>they were fans of something that certain people don't want to see
>win...
The problem is that most people who voted for Sluggy, have no idea what the
Squiddies are, what rac.* is and don't care about the newsgroups. The squiddies
were not meant for them. My suggestion? Let only people vote who have posted
to the rac.* groups. At the very least stop doing the web ballots.
Martin Wisse
Tom Galloway
Bryant Durrell <dur...@innocence.com> wrote:
>In article <7dp19b$l6d$1...@shell2.ba.best.com>,
>>out, but much more difficult was the fact that we got mentioned on the
>>Sluggy Freelance website (an excellent online comic, I might add.) Many
>>people came to us through that, enough that the results would have been
>>greatly swayed by non-rac readers. I made a decision, consistent with
I suspect this may have happened last year as well; I know that there
were voting urges in Newsarama, for example.
>What am I getting at? I think I'd like to see a moratorium on
>Web-based voting systems. I think it makes it too easy for someone
>with a popular Web site to push balloting in one direction or another.
>I think people should have to fill out a ballot and mail it in; let
>them be processed by a automatic mail handler if need be.
I'd have to agree. I'm also somewhat suspect of the Best RAC'r results,
due to the pull down with list of nominated folk. I suspect some non-trivial
number of votes may have gone to pros just because people not familiar with
RAC knew their names. Nothing against Warren or Kurt, who have been active,
but I don't recall Kevin Smith ever posting to RAC or being active, and
Mark Waid certainly wasn't active enough (read 33 posts in 1998 in three
clumps, nothing since early July according to Dejanews) to warrant a
ninth place, one vote out of seventh, result.
As a side note, I also think it's finally time to split the Best RAC'r
category into pro and fan divisions. 7 of the top 10 were pros, and 3
of the next 10, possibly 5 (the two possibles are Elaine, who I consider
still more of a fan than a pro due to a very limited amount of work so far,
and Michael Doran, who while a pro journalist tends to post on non-journalistic
matters. Johanna I didn't count as she's no longer at DC). There's a fine line
here; I've not had as much problems with past pro high placements since
said pros tended to be active general participants, but now more pros
are active only in regards to their work.
tyg t...@netcom.com
Redemption Tickets
> What am I getting at? I think I'd like to see a moratorium on
> Web-based voting systems. I think it makes it too easy for someone
> with a popular Web site to push balloting in one direction or another.
> I think people should have to fill out a ballot and mail it in; let
> them be processed by a automatic mail handler if need be.
> There. That's my highly opinionated limb.
I sure hope that's not a fringe opinion; seems like the right way to do
things. The log-rolling did in fact get me to go find out what Sluggy
Freelance was, but I won't be reading the strip in the future.
aaron
Now alone outside, the peace that comes with quiet
The lines of wires black in twilight
- The Spinanes, "Lines And Lines"
Redemption Tickets
>>49: Scott Adams
> Political?
Maybe they were thinking of his sexism. ("Well," says Cowboy Wally, "I'm
all for the plight of women.")
>>Best Anthology:
>>23: Dork
I love Evan Dorkin, but was there even an issue of Dork this year?
>>27: Red Meat
> Never heard of it. Any fans care to describe it?
It's somewhere between South Park and Art Spiegelman's avant-garde Dick
Tracy parodies. Half the time it's dumb gross-out humor, half the time
it's great. There is an archive at www.redmeat.com, but it's not a web
strip as such.
aaron
You won! You won!
It's like being in a book!
- Blue Aeroplanes, "Detective Song"
Mogen Dave
>dva...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (Dave Van Domelen) writes:
>> If the primary means of distribution is online, it would be ineligible.
>
> Why?
Why not?
>> A reprint collection of online strips would be inelegible, but a comic
>> which is later scanned in would be eligible.
>
> Why?
Why not?
>> If there's a mixture (like Megaton Man, which exists both in print-first
>> and web-first modes throughout its history), then only those books which
>> were mainly print are eligible.
>
> Why?
Why not?
>> And if a title has no original print version, just reprints, it's not
>> eligible at all.
>
> Why?
Why not?
>> the Squiddies are supposed to be a reflection of the RAC* community,
>
> Ooooh....the precious RAC* community! Let's all kneel before it!!!
Are you some kind of idiot?
> I don't understand how a comic printed on paper is automagically
> better than the one available on the web-page.
Well, that answers my last question.
JohannaLD
>I suspect this may have happened last year as well; I know that there
>were voting urges in Newsarama, for example.
A number of web sites had "vote for me" drives; the one
I'm most familiar with is the "Cheeks the Toy Wonder" one.
There were a number of requests on AOL areas he
frequents, and people voted who didn't even
know what
Usenet was. (It was presented by some as kind of a
"we'll show those other online areas!")
>Mark Waid certainly wasn't active enough (read 33 posts in 1998 in three
>clumps, nothing since early July according to Dejanews) to warrant a
>ninth place, one vote out of seventh, result.
I took that as either irony or support for his "I hate
rac" comments.
I think a rac-only awards is a fine thing. I'm willing to
work on putting together some sort of committee, if
someone who knows how these things work will direct.
If nothing else, it would provide needed error-checking;
there were a number of obvious duplications that should
have been combined in the results.
-- Johanna
Comics Worth Reading -- http://members.aol.com/johannald
David W. Stepp
> David W. Stepp wrote:
> >
> > At the very least, Sluggy
> > Freelance or whateevr should be eliminated from the current vote and the
> > ballots re-tabulated. Looks like the Squiddies are invalid this year.
>
> Or certainly would be if we invalidated the votes of folks because
> they were fans of something that certain people don't want to see
> win...
Wait! Aren't you the genius who just declared in the Elayne vs the
world thread that a large group of white men with no women might be
suspicious or even evidence of bias? Yet the saturation of an award
specific to rac by a venue that is never discussed on rac must be ok?
Don't waste bandwidth with the usual sputter. I just wanted to document
this for the record.
D.
k...@tsoft.net
> (David J. Snyder) wrote:
>> This strikes me as a potentially fundamental flaw in the Web ballot voting
>> results are still clearly not representative of the rac community,
>> as I'm fairly certain Pete Abrams is not the third most popular
>> writer and most popular inker of rac participants, nor is Sluggy
>> Fleelance the most popular series.
>>
> No argument here. I'm a big fan of Sluggy Freelance and did vote for it for
> best web comic, but everthing else I voted for was related to print comics.
> (I didn't even think to vote for it for best website, as I was voting for that
> award was referring to... best related website which was NCRL for me).
> I like Sluggy and think Pete Abrams is a clever and talented writer, but
> the way it showed up in the awards is offensive and defeats the purpose
> of the Squiddies.
Depends on what the purpose is, doesn't it? It's not as if there is any
real award given. Is anyone on RAC going to be fooled for a moment into
believing that "Sluggo" is a more popular character than Spider Jerusalem?
Those results have "ballot box stuffing" written all over them, and as
long as people recognize this, then the real results are pretty plain to
see. Of course, that means ignoring every Sluggo-related vote, which is
probably not what the pro-Sluggo faction intended, but otherwise the
awards are just being hijacked for free advertising.
I hope no one is falling for this ploy, BTW. Don't reward this kind of
behavior with any attention (i.e. web site hits), or you'll just encourage
it in the future.
--
KarlHiller [] Systems Librarian, ne'er-do-well, axolotl fancier, INTP
"Sluggy Who?" - Precious Roy
Charles Sumner
Durrell) wrote:
> What am I getting at? I think I'd like to see a moratorium on
> Web-based voting systems. I think it makes it too easy for someone
> with a popular Web site to push balloting in one direction or another.
Actually, I think that web based voting can work, but not when it's as
open to write-in voting as this year's Squiddys were. I'd rather see the
voting be done in two sessions. A first wave of open nominations,
followed by a second-round ballot with the top 5 choices listed and no
possibility of write-ins (much like the way the Oscars are done). It's
from this second list that the winner is chosen.
I actually like this method for a number of reasons. When I submitted my
ballot for the Squiddies, I voted for a number of choices for which I
ended up being the only voter (Matt Howarth for Best Letterer; Usagi
Yojimbo's Grasscutter for Best Story for example). Now I voted for those
choices because I believed that they deserved votes and I wanted to put
them in and I doubt any RACer would argue with my ability to make those
choices even if they disagreed with what I voted for. However, I'd be
happy to vote again from a more limited choice in a second-round to let my
opinion be voiced as to the best of the year from the top choices. I
suspect that a number of the results would be different if this method
were followed as all of the people who voted for the second-tier people
would now be voting again differently.
Alternatively, we could discourage outside votes by putting a trivia
question at the top of the ballot. Something like requiring the person
filling it out to name the great hero that the Squiddies honor. That
should trip up most people who don't at least occassionally follow the
newsgroup. :-)
Charles Sumner csu...@fas.harvard.edu
"'Cause life's not what you think, it's what you know;
and when you give your hand to fate, she don't let go."
- John Gorka "Downtown Tonight"
Redemption Tickets
> I'd rather see the voting be done in two sessions. A first wave of
> open nominations, followed by a second-round ballot with the top 5
> choices listed and no possibility of write-ins (much like the way the
> Oscars are done).
While this is a good idea if it lets people vote for what they really
like best (in the first ballot) without feeling like they're wasting
their votes, it wouldn't solve the problem of people drumming up votes
outside whatever community it is that the Squiddies are supposed to
represent.
aaron
"People falling down -- I love people falling down. I've always got my eye
out for flat spaces to have someone fall down on. Empty highways have this
almost narcotic attraction for me."
- Hal Hartley
twis...@hotmail.com
dva...@eyrie.org (Dave Van Domelen) wrote:k Kirby
> >was talking about?
>
> The answer to all of the above is...Sluggy Freelance and its mailing
> list. Abrams regularly electioneers on his website to get it voted into the
> top of various "top 10/100/1000 websites" lists, and he stuck a note in for
> the Squiddies too. Repeat of the Duckslide, basically.
Yeah, well I tried it too. Alright, very obviously, ironically and crappily.
> Dave Van Domelen, thinks about the only way to make the Squiddies
> resistant to ballotbox stuffing would be to have a voting "academy" of
> regulars
Hey, I'm up for that.
> (who would then be inelegible for any awards themselves)
Fuck.
Rich Johnston
twis...@hotmail.com
www.twistandshoutcomics.com
Home of Ramblings '99, the oldest comics news/rumour column on the
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Danny Sichel
It's "Doctor COBRA"! "COBRA"!!!
> Best Letterer:
My vote for Donna Barr appears to be absent.
> Best Web Site:
I note there's a hardcore porn site in there - did we have a M3OWer
voting, or what?
> Best RAC'r:
> 1: Icicle
> 1: David Stepp
> 1: David "Icicle" Stepp
It's not as blatant as the Brevoort/Breevoort showdown, but...
eternally
David W. Stepp wrote:
> In article <7dqumo$kqp$1...@hiram.io.com>, da...@schultz-2.io.com (David J.
> Snyder) wrote:
>
> > Somebody correct me if they think I'm wrong.
>
> No, you're right, or at least I am with you. At the very least, Sluggy
> Freelance or whateevr should be eliminated from the current vote and the
> ballots re-tabulated. Looks like the Squiddies are invalid this year.
certainly looks that way. i've never had so many entries i had never
heard of (or even seen on the ballot!) win. (i assume most or all
of them were involved with Sluggy-whatever...)
-= e.
Michael Doran
<<I suspect this may have happened last year as well; I know that there
were voting urges in Newsarama, for example.>>
joha...@aol.com (JohannaLD) wrote:
<<A number of web sites had "vote for me" drives;>>
First off, though I'm not sure if there is direct connection being made
here, but while the last two years I have certainly made my readers aware
Squiddy voting was in progress and made them aware Newsarama was a
candidate (indirectly encouraging them to vote for it no doubt), I want
to be clear I did not wage a "vote for me" campaign, in that I never
asked for anyone to vote for Newsarama, and I made them aware of the
other candidates and categories...
If this is improper and shades the voting inaccurately, then I'll be
happy to concede the votes Newsarama has received for the last two years.
Is there a fine line between advertising the awards and the fact I am a
candidate, and actively and directly campaining for yourself...?
Absolutey, but I think I stayed on the proper side of the line, but I 'm
more than willing to bend to the majority here..
Second, thanks to those seemigly same 80-something people who voted for
Newsarama this year and last...
Lastly, as I don't really want to make this out to be about me and my
work, I agree that steps might be taken so that the awards more
accurately reflect the voting preferences of the actual RAC community, as
opposed to a web-wide based vote sponsored by RAC... if this constitutes
rules prohibting, restricting, or governing web-based pointers/voting
urges like the ones in Newsarama, I would not only encourge them but
offer anything I can do to help to draw them up...
m.
K. Krueger
JohannaLD <joha...@aol.com> wrote:
>Ok, I'll start the ball rolling with feedback, since I didn't
>vote. (Liberal smilies should be sprinkled below.)
>
>>Writer Categories
>
>Shouldn't this say "creator categories" or something?
>Or did Erik Larsen run the votes?
>
hours of staring at these things. Fixed.
>>Best Writer:
>>154: Kurt Busiek
>>141: Warren Ellis
>>105: Pete Abrams
>
>Who?
>
Sluggy Freelance writer.
>>Best Inker:
>>60: Pete Abrams
>
>Who? Is this that guy that had the website link Kirby
>was talking about?
>
Yup.
(I actually really do like the comic, too.)
>Sometimes, I think you should throw votes out based on
>a demonstrated lack of technical knowledge in the voters.
>
There are quite a few votes in categories that are dubious. I
tended to leave these alone, and let things stand by themselves.
This is actually part of the reason I want to move to a small
committee-style next year - I can't say for certain that, say,
Frank Miller didn't paint anything last year. But a group of
five or so RAC'rs probably could be fairly sure.
>>51: Richard Pini
>>49: Tom Breevoort
>>47: Tom Brevoort
>
>Um, Kirby?
>
Oops. :-) Well, it could just be a coincidence, and there are two people
with remarkably similar names. Or maybe one is the bizarro-Breevort.
Um, yeah.
(There actually were several other variant spellings that got combined,
and I just somehow missed one of them, despite the fact that they
ended up right next to each other. I probably should have set things
aside until the next morning and proofread, but what is Usenet for,
if not the home of a million editors?)
Fixed.
>>Best Political Cartoonist:
>>156: Gary Trudeau
>
>You ever get the idea that this is the only editorial
>cartoonist some people know of?
>
Yeah. It's why there's been regular talk of eliminating this category.
>>49: Scott Adams
>
>Political?
>
Well, it's a stretch. He certainly does a lot of work on office politics.
>>Book and Story Categories
>>Best Story:
>>76: JLA - The Nail
>
>Wow! That's a surprise.
>
Yeah, it's nice that there were a few. :-)
>>Best Series:
>>88: Sluggy Freelance
>
>Ballot-stuffing. What IS this?
>
It's a web comic. It's nifty. I'm brainstorming ways to deal with
ballot stuffing, when it really is several hundred real different people
doing it (as opposed to one person with a robot or too much time on
their hands, which I can identify and control most cases of.) The only
way that would work seems to be an editorial board with a willingness
to throw out party-line ballots. And even then, a lot of people voted
Sluggy in a few places (like here) and other things in other categories.
I could just throw it out altogether, but it's a valid choice.
We could pull a World Fantasy Award stunt, and eliminate comic strips
from categories like best series, but that makes me unhappy.
>>Best Character:
>>54: Bun-Bun
>
>Who?
>
From Sluggy Freelance. (Sense a pattern here?)
He's a cute little psychopathic switch-blade wielding rabbit. Ballot
stuffing or no, what's not to love?
>And again, you have to be pro or semi-pro (reviewer) to
>get people's attention. Who was it who said people didn't
>care about pros online?
>
Yeah, this category is starting to get a little difficult. People
have suggested separating the pros from the fans, and maybe it
wouldn't be a bad idea.
--
Kirby Krueger O- kir...@best.com
<*> "Most .sigs this small can't open their own jump gate."
KurtBusiek
>>People have suggested separating the pros from the fans, and maybe it
wouldn't be a bad idea.>>
Physically?
Waid'll be all for it!
kurt
Todd VerBeek
>> At the very least, Sluggy
>> Freelance or whateevr should be eliminated from the current vote and the
>> ballots re-tabulated. Looks like the Squiddies are invalid this year.
My pal Nat Gertler said:
>Or certainly would be if we invalidated the votes of folks because
>they were fans of something that certain people don't want to see
>win...
Nat, this isn't a case of "certain people" not wanting to see something
win. I have absolutely nothing against Sluggy Freelance, its creator, or
any other vote-receiver in particular. What I object to is the fact that
a whole bunch of people who have no association with rec.arts.comics came
in and took over what was intended to be a thoughtful survey of
rec.arts.comics participants, to turn it into a cheap publicity stunt.
Kirby didn't go to the trouble of running the Squiddy balloting this year
(or previous vote-takers in previous years), and we all didn't take the
trouble to formulate our ballots and vote, for the sake of a contest of
which creator can mobilise the most online fans to stuff the ballotbox.
He did it to get a survey of what participants in r.a.c think are the best
comics/creators/etc. of the past year.
Gross ballot-stuffing tactics from =any= fanbase are detrimental to that,
and it becomes =especially= offensive when the ballot-stuffers are people
who (for the most part) don't even know what r.a.c. =is=... kind of like
if some syndicated radio personality asked his listeners to get their
hands on ballots for some fan-club book awards, and vote for their latest
ghost-written book in every category for which it might conceivably
qualify. It might be within the rules, but it wouldn't produce anything
worth the time, effort, or anyone's attention.
Cheers, Todd
Carl Henderson
>May I suggest that if we do the web-voting next year, anyone voting for
>"Sluggy Freelance" in more than one category be disqualified? Or dragged
>into the street and shot for attempting to ballot-stuff? ;)
May I suggest we not wait until next year? The Squiddies are the
rec.arts.comics community's awards; not the publicity tool for some
well-organized and unethical web cartoonist.
Blatant ballot-box stuffing on the part of Pete Abrams and fans has
resulted in undeserved wins in several Squiddy catagories:
>Best Series:
>88: Sluggy Freelance
>84: Transmetropolitan
>Best Inker:
>60: Pete Abrams
>50: Jimmy Palmiotti
At a MINIMUM, wins for "Sluggy Freelance" and company in "Best Series" and
"Best Inker" should be thrown out, and these honors be awarded to the second
place finishers--"Transmetropolitan" and Jimmy Palmiotti, repectively.
To do anything else, makes a joke of the entire process. "Sluggy Freelance"
DID NOT win "Best Series" and should not be recognized as such.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Henderson
carl.he...@airmail.net
------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Krueger
Redemption Tickets <aa...@quinsky.eecs.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Bryant Durrell <dur...@innocence.com> wrote:
>> What am I getting at? I think I'd like to see a moratorium on
>> Web-based voting systems. I think it makes it too easy for someone
>> with a popular Web site to push balloting in one direction or another.
>> them be processed by a automatic mail handler if need be.
>
>> There. That's my highly opinionated limb.
>
>I sure hope that's not a fringe opinion; seems like the right way to do
>things. The log-rolling did in fact get me to go find out what Sluggy
>Freelance was, but I won't be reading the strip in the future.
>
something I've been worried about for the past few weeks, and I feel
much better about throwing away as many ballots as I did. (On the first
test-run, Pete Abrams won best writer by a 2-1 margin over Busiek,
before I went back and cleared out a lot of the stuffed ballots.)
It's not a large technical problem to switch back to email only. It's
actually easier than the web page, technically, and going back to a
weekly post of pseudo-nominees would work. Alas, it's not as nifty. :-)
Actually, these are the options that I've seen so far that I remember:
a) Do it like it is now, don't worry about it.
This, of course, has the obvious problem of making them less of a
rec.arts.comics.* awards, and more of a web awards that grew out of
rec.arts.comics. There are reasons to not want this - I think that
rec.arts.comics _likes_ the fact that they are a community award more
than not.
b) Return to early nineties technology. (We've actually had a web-based
form for several years, but not as the primary vehicle, and not so
spiffy, before this year.) This is easily do-able.
However, this is as good a time as any to consider new ideas.
c) Have a panel of rac regulars pick a list of nominees, and run the
vote. This gets rid of ballot stuffing from a random source, but it
would actually be much harder to notice stuffers. With a limited
number of ballots, they all look the same. With a write-in ballot,
it's not too hard to see if a lot look the same, and if they do,
something is wrong. I'm not sure if we're worried about the Astro
City mailing list getting together, though. (I actually did see
more than a few Books of Magic heavy ballots. I think that the
squiddies must have been mentioned on some mailing list for that,
too.)
d) Have a two-stage ballot, starting like the current system, and
then picking the top nominees from there by a panel. This gives
people the chance to reward underappreciated comics, but still
lets them have their vote 'count'.
I'm unsure with how much paranoia to approach this. We've always had
the possibility in the past of this sort of thing, even with email
ballots, and there's always at least one mailing list that clearly
sends a dozen people or so, but never before enough to seriously
affect the results like this.
Rich Johnston
important here...
Best writer?
2: Richard Johnston
2: Paul Chadwick
See? that Concrete guy is only as good as my X-Flies!
2: Joe Harris
Give me Cable, I could do that.
2: Donna Barr
You see, men are just as ggod as women.
2: Chris Claremont
Bob Harris? Give me the X-books... people like me just as much as Chris, and I'm
cheaper too!
1: Chris Ware
I beat my second favourite writer... I wonder if I'm Chris' second fave writer
too?
1: Mark Millar
Mark? you're toast.
Best Penciller:
1: Frank Quitely
1: Joe Quesada
1: Richard Johnston
1: Walter Simonson
1: Andy Kubert
1: Steve Rude
1: Jeff Smith
1: Jaime Hernandez
1: Chris Sprouse
1: Brian Michael Bendis
Spot the odd one out...
Best Inker:
5: Rich Johnston
Ha ha!
1: Chris Ware
What? No, seriously...
1: Mark Evanier
Sorry Mark, I guess you just can't actually write as well as me.
Best Colorist:
4: Mike Meyer
You go Mike!
4: Chris Ware
You're in good company.
1: Robin Riggs
And you're way above Robin. Hang on... what's going on here?
Best Creative Team:
4: Rich Johnston + Lance Gueck
Shit... looks like we'd better do something together again.
3: Paul Jenkins and Jae Lee
He, Lance, let's take over Inhumans
3: Erik Larsen, IHOC, and Chris Eliopoulos (Savage Dragon)
And Dragon!
3: Waid & Ross
I'm sure I've got a Kingdom proposal around me somewhere... but remember Lance,
i'll take all the credit!
2: Smith, Quesada & Palmiotti
It's all in the wrist.
Best Editor
4: Mike Meyer
2: Andy Helfer
2: Art Young
DC is ours to do with as we please!
1: Diana Schutz
Give Maverick to Mike!
1: Gary Groth
And Fantagraphics!
1: scott dunbier
1: Shelly Roeberg
Remember this when I see you Saturday!
Best Political Cartoonist:
1: Rich Johnston
What?
4: X-Flies
4: Flash
3: Eddie Campbell's Bacchus
2: Berlin
2: 300
1: The Desert Peach
1: Quantum & Woody
1: Acme Novelty Library
The world has gone mad.
2: Twist And Shout Comics
1: Top Cow
Hey! Eidos! Buy us! We're cheap!
Web Site Thing
17: Rich's Ramblings
Hey! Our biggest vote for anything!
21: Michael Doran
21: Elaine Riggs
17: Johanna Draper
11: Rich Johnston
Gah! Curse you all for making me this way!
4: Mike Doran
And more for him down here!
1: JohannaLD
And her!
Fry you all! Fry to hell!
8-)
See you all soon...
Rich Johnston
twis...@hotmail.com
http://www.twistandshoutcomics.com
Ramblings '99: The oldest internet comics news/rumour column.
Nat Gertler
>
> What I object to is the fact that
> a whole bunch of people who have no association with rec.arts.comics came
> in and took over what was intended to be a thoughtful survey of
> rec.arts.comics participants, to turn it into a cheap publicity stunt.
If this is intended to be a thoughtful survey, running it on a
whoever-wants-to-vote for however-they-choose-to-classify-them
seems an odd way to do it. Seems more like a popularity contest
to me.
K. Krueger
Carl Henderson <carl.he...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>I've been thinking about this problem since I first saw the Squiddy results
>this morning. I've had a few ideas for fixing things that I'd like to propose:
>
>1) Eliminate web-based voting. It is a lot easier to get people to go stuff
>the ballot boxes if all they have to do is go to a web page, pull down a menu,
>and select "Pete Abrams" (or whatever unethical prick tries it next time).
>On the other hand, going to a newsgroup, finding the ballot, filling it
>out, and emailing it to the awards administrator takes effort--effort that
>most ballot box stuffers are not going to go through.
>
True. This is a logical conclusion to reach, I agree.
>2) Require the ballots to be from "real" email addresses. DIsallow entries
>from the various web-based free email services. It wasn't a problem this time,
>but eventually someone is going to try creating 50 different hotmail, usa.net,
>and deja-news addresses in an attempt to stuff the ballots.
>
Some people actually _did_ try this, and I found them and threw the ballots
out. My scripts recorded the IP address people came to the ballot from.
While for some people this didn't mean much (like AOL), for others,
it made them stick out like a sore thumb, such as, say, ki...@hotmail.com
and ki...@yahoo.com having votes from the same IP, and with similar content.
I'm fairly confident that I can keep this problem under control. Changing
your remote IP requires some skill (a script to do it, or changing your
IP which for most people means logging out and dialing in again, and I
detect based on subnet, so even this won't work for most people.) And if
someone really does make a smart robot to do this, it'll show up in the
results, and the offending ballots can be found.
>3) When in doubt, throw it out. There needs to be a general consensus that the
>Squiddy awards administrator has the power--indeed the duty--to throw out any
>ballots that are part of attempts to subvert the voting. I gathered from
>Kirby's comments that he felt that he couldn't discard fully-filled out--and
>otherwise acceptible--ballots from "Sluggy Freelance/Pete Abrams" supporters.
>
Yes, some consistent guidelines are a minimum necessity. Before this
started happening, _I_ voted for Sluggy as best web comic. And there
were a lot of ballots that were half Sluggy, half other things. It'd
probably be easier to come up with a reasonable policy to get rid of
sites that send stuffers than to deal with this on the individual ballot
level (ie, disqualify Sluggy from the awards). I _did_ discard a lot
of ballots that were Sluggy only, or Sluggy and one token vote elsewhere.
(Like all sluggy + a wizard vote.)
>On the other hand, if the consensus of the rac* community is to move to a
>"voting acadamy" system, I'd like to propose it be as broad-based as possible.
>Why not let the "voting acadamy" consist of everyone who has posted at least
>one (non-spam) message to any of the rac* newsgroups?
>
A commitee selection process is bound to be a lot of trouble. However,
I'm sure there are programs out there to tell me all the email addresses
from certain groups - they're very popular, though rarely used for good
purposes. Of course, there are huge technical issues - how do we deal
with spam-blocked addresses? Which newsgroups do we include? How easy
is it to get _all_ the addresses in a very specific year long time-frame?
And once we have them, what do we do? Verify ballots against the list?
What about everyone who changed email addresses? What about people
with multiple addresses? What about people who find rec.arts.comics
in January 2000, and become new active participants - are they eligible?
In short, this is not any less thorny than just picking a certain number.
Or, we could just have an opt-in mailing list, post to to the relevant
groups, and assume that anyone joining read the groups and was interested.
I doubt that more than a few Sluggy non-rac fans would be interested in
this. However, a committee of dozens has a sizeable share of problems
also.
I guess I'm not really sold on any solutions, and am waiting for a convincing
argument to back a certain one.
K. Krueger
Ojerasmus <ojer...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Or certainly would be if we invalidated the votes of folks because
>>>they were fans of something that certain people don't want to see
>>>win...
>
>
To be fair, Sunday Sluggy _is_ in color. I don't happen to think it's
a masterpiece of coloring, but there's a reasonable argument to leave it
as a valid candidate there.
>I dont see how limiting some of the awards to actual comic
>books is a problem. Comic strips and web-comics have
>their seperate awards why not comic books. Otherwise
> projects that require you to be on the web have an
>unfair advantage.
>
This is a reasonable suggestion that would help. Before the Sluggy
Phenomenon, there's never been much attention from strip fans -
Scott Adams would pick up a few votes, Calvin & Hobbes would get a
few for best team, but always little blips. In fact, astute readers
will remember that I suggested removing comics entirely in December,
due to lack of interest. :-)
This would largely fix the specific problem that we _did_ have. However,
people seem more focused on the problems that we could have (which I
think is wise) now that we've had this one abuse, and a satisfying solution
will take some work, or a clever idea that I haven't seen yet.
K. Krueger
Carl Henderson <carl.he...@airmail.net> wrote:
>In article <19990330164544...@ng-fi1.aol.com>, joha...@aol.com (JohannaLD) wrote:
>
>
>>I think a rac-only awards is a fine thing. I'm willing to
>>work on putting together some sort of committee, if
>>someone who knows how these things work will direct.
>>If nothing else, it would provide needed error-checking;
>>there were a number of obvious duplications that should
>>have been combined in the results.
>
>
>I do have one concern. Any such committee needs to be set up as a way of
>fixing problems in the Squiddies--not attempting to set up a competing
>RAC-only awards.
>
>The Squiddies _are_ the RAC awards.
>
Absolutely agreed. They aren't even, in my mind, my awards. I'm willing
to deal with them, and the scripting involved, but I consider myself more
of a janitor than an emporer. When a consensus on how to fix it is
reached, I'll pass them on to that message, and be as involved as I think
is necessary/appropriate.
However, one caveat: 'reached a consensus' never happens fully on Usenet,
and often is in the eye of the beholder. I make no apologies for using
my own definition, therefore, of when a consensus is reached. We're still
firmly in the panic/brainstorming stage, with no real plan forming, so far.
Nat Gertler
>
> My personal preference would be for the ballot to be posted to r.a.c.*
> only. Anyone who wants to vote should have to at least take the trouble
> to come here to get a copy of the ballot for submission.
At which point, instead of going to the voting site, those following
a campaigner will probably just follow his link to that message
on Deja News.
Nat Gertler
>
> My pal Nat Gertler said:
> >whoever-wants-to-vote for however-they-choose-to-classify-them
> >seems an odd way to do it. Seems more like a popularity contest
> >to me.
>
> accusing the folks who are offended by this kind of shit doesn't strike me
> as a particularly good approach either, Nat. Save your indignation for a
> cause that deserves it.
I do. If you're reading indignation in my statements, then you're
misreading them.
But if you want my view, I don't see a bunch of people voting for
something they like in a popularity contest to be an abuse of the
system. That would seem to me to *be* the system. And trying to say
that they are not something as ill-defined as a RACr, which seems to
be open to anyone who wishes to involve themselves (and which,
arguably, is just what the voters did by voting) does not seem a
strong distinction to me.
And any system where votes are to be disqualified on the
basis that they contain votes for a qualified but "wrong"
candidate is dubious at best.
But it's of no great concern to me in any case. I don't
consider popularity contests to be very important.
Paul O'Brien
>
>> Best Letterer:
>> Comicraft won???? It must be the kewl fonts and balloons they
>> use for Thing and Iron Man. And the sound effects that fill the
>> panels so that the reader can't see what's happening.
I suspect it's purely and simply that they letter so many comics
that more people have heard of them than of any other letterer.
I certainly can't for the life of me see how they could have won on
merit.
Paul O'Brien
pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk, www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/
So shall fall ALL who challenge the might of Michael Parkinson.
Paul O'Brien
<da...@schultz-2.io.com> writes
>>
>This strikes me as a potentially fundamental flaw in the Web ballot voting
>method. Even with you throwing out these party-line votes, the
>results are still clearly not representative of the rac community,
>as I'm fairly certain Pete Abrams is not the third most popular
>writer and most popular inker of rac participants, nor is Sluggy
>Fleelance the most popular series.
Couldn't agree more. The Squiddies are supposed to be Usenet awards,
not Internet awards. The Sluggy Freelance site was plainly ballot
stuffing, and to be honest I think all their votes should have been
disallowed.
Rich Johnston
says...
Look, here's one thought. It's a RAC awards. No one is allowed to appeal for
votes or even mention the Squiddies outside of RAC on the net while voting is
taking place. Any appeal, mention or link automatically disqualifies the
individual.
Appeals on RAC are, however, perfectly valid.
What do you think?
Rich Johnston
buffer
buffer
buffer
F Uy
> Charles Sumner wrote:
> > I like Sluggy and think Pete Abrams is a clever and talented writer, but
> > the way it showed up in the awards is offensive and defeats the purpose
> > of the Squiddies.
> I agree here. The ballot stuffing rendered several categories
> questionable if not totally invalid.
Ballot stuffing is not a new issue to the Squiddies. It happened
both years that I ran them -- Scandinavian Carl Barks fans in 1995
and Callahan Comics in 1996. You disqualify the worst partisans and
allow the rest. Kirby referenced that in his commentary.
http://members.tripod.com/comics_faq/squiddies/campaign.html
-F
.
Mikko Aittola
dva...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (Dave Van Domelen) writes:
> If the primary means of distribution is online, it would be ineligible.
Why?
> A reprint collection of online strips would be inelegible, but a comic
> which is later scanned in would be eligible.
Why?
> If there's a mixture (like Megaton Man, which exists both in print-first
> and web-first modes throughout its history), then only those books which
> were mainly print are eligible.
Why?
> And if a title has no original print version, just reprints, it's not
> eligible at all.
Why?
> the Squiddies are supposed to be a reflection of the RAC* community,
Ooooh....the precious RAC* community! Let's all kneel before it!!!
> Hence, I *am* serious about a "voting academy" idea, if only to try and make
> sure the Squiddies aren't the awards reflecting who has the biggest webpage.
> Web comics are a good thing, but they should have their own awards and not
> abuse their position online to stuff ballotboxes.
You're the guy who invented bureaucracy, right?
I don't understand how a comic printed on paper is automagically
better than the one available on the web-page. If the one in
the web-page has so much fans that they can outnumber the elitists
here...more power to them.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
da...@schultz-2.io.com (David J. Snyder) writes:
> I don't know if anyone's ever said it. I'm saying it should be the
> case, since these are suppose to be the rac awards.
What If...the guy who runs the sluggy web-site puts up a
script on his page that asks a name and then posts
an article to rac-group.
I'm sure posting to rac makes one immortal too.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
t...@netcom.com (Tom Galloway) writes:
> I suspect this may have happened last year as well; I know that there
> were voting urges in Newsarama, for example.
What a cop-out!
> I'd have to agree. I'm also somewhat suspect of the Best RAC'r results,
> due to the pull down with list of nominated folk. I suspect some non-trivial
> number of votes may have gone to pros just because people not familiar with
> RAC knew their names. Nothing against Warren or Kurt, who have been active,
> but I don't recall Kevin Smith ever posting to RAC or being active, and
> Mark Waid certainly wasn't active enough (read 33 posts in 1998 in three
> clumps, nothing since early July according to Dejanews) to warrant a
> ninth place, one vote out of seventh, result.
Mark Waid seems to be the only rac poster who understand how
sad place this is. Just look at how much people whine about
these awards, for example.
> As a side note, I also think it's finally time to split the Best RAC'r
> category into pro and fan divisions.
How about making each race their own category? And let's
not forget the cats and dogs of the frequent rac posters.
> of the next 10, possibly 5 (the two possibles are Elaine, who I consider
> still more of a fan than a pro due to a very limited amount of work so far,
> and Michael Doran, who while a pro journalist tends to post on
> non-journalistic matters.
The people here sure can draw the line!
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
ver...@i2k.com (Todd VerBeek) writes:
> As far as I'm concerned, /Transmetropolitan/ won "Best Series",
And I'm sure you think that Dole beat Clinton in the election
too.
> And I sincerely hope that Abrams has the class not to brag that his
> series "won" the rec.arts.comics Squiddy awards.
It seems Abrams series DID won the Squiddy award.
> All this has proven is that /Sluggy/ fans like the series enough to
> vote for it,
Well, what do YOU think is the point of voting???
> not that r.a.c. participants like it
I'm a r.a.c. participant and I like it.
/Mikko
jayembee
> After an assortment of delays and complications, the squiddy
> results are in!
OK, so who are the eight tasteless people who voted for me? :-)
--- jayembee (Jerry.B...@eds.com)
"I have spent my life in contemplation of the nature of man and how
he relates to the universe of truth. That man lies like a carpet."
Randy Lander
>
> > the Squiddies are supposed to be a reflection of the RAC* community,
>
> Ooooh....the precious RAC* community! Let's all kneel before it!!!
Mikko, I can only assume you're being deliberately stupid. Fact is, the
Squiddies are the awards of the RAC* hierarchy. Ergo, they should
represent the views of the RAC* community. How hard is this to grasp?
> I don't understand how a comic printed on paper is automagically
> better than the one available on the web-page. If the one in
> the web-page has so much fans that they can outnumber the elitists
> here...more power to them.
Except it's not called the "Sluggy Freelancer Website Awards." Hell,
it's not even called the "Online Fan Awards." They're called the
Squiddies, they are the awards of the RAC.* community, and they should
reflect the RAC.* community. Elitist or not.
And thank you, btw, for almost certainly causing a flamewar where I had
hoped for an interesting discussion of the results. Yet another thread
you've ruined for me across various Usenet groups.
--
The above are the opinions of one Randy W. Lander. Had they been the
Biblical Truth, your bushes would be on fire.
---------------------------------------------------------
rwla...@snapjudgments.com <*> http://www.snapjudgments.com ICQ #6993546
Carl Henderson
> In any case, it looks like Sluggy electioneering may have killed the
>Squiddies anyway, so it's a moot point. As several other people have tried
>to pound into your head, the Squiddies are supposed to be a reflection of the
>RAC* community, and it's obvious they are no longer filling that role.
>Hence, I *am* serious about a "voting academy" idea, if only to try and make
>sure the Squiddies aren't the awards reflecting who has the biggest webpage.
>Web comics are a good thing, but they should have their own awards and not
>abuse their position online to stuff ballotboxes.
Your voting acadamy concept isn't a bad idea, but I think it might be possible
to both protect the Squiddies from future ballot box stuffing attempts, while
preserving their more "democratic" nature.
I've been thinking about this problem since I first saw the Squiddy results
this morning. I've had a few ideas for fixing things that I'd like to propose:
1) Eliminate web-based voting. It is a lot easier to get people to go stuff
the ballot boxes if all they have to do is go to a web page, pull down a menu,
and select "Pete Abrams" (or whatever unethical prick tries it next time).
On the other hand, going to a newsgroup, finding the ballot, filling it
out, and emailing it to the awards administrator takes effort--effort that
most ballot box stuffers are not going to go through.
2) Require the ballots to be from "real" email addresses. DIsallow entries
from the various web-based free email services. It wasn't a problem this time,
but eventually someone is going to try creating 50 different hotmail, usa.net,
and deja-news addresses in an attempt to stuff the ballots.
3) When in doubt, throw it out. There needs to be a general consensus that the
Squiddy awards administrator has the power--indeed the duty--to throw out any
ballots that are part of attempts to subvert the voting. I gathered from
Kirby's comments that he felt that he couldn't discard fully-filled out--and
otherwise acceptible--ballots from "Sluggy Freelance/Pete Abrams" supporters.
On the other hand, if the consensus of the rac* community is to move to a
"voting acadamy" system, I'd like to propose it be as broad-based as possible.
Why not let the "voting acadamy" consist of everyone who has posted at least
one (non-spam) message to any of the rac* newsgroups?
Randy Lander
>
> Randy Lander <rwla...@snapjudgments.com> writes:
> > I agree here. The ballot stuffing rendered several categories
> > questionable if not totally invalid.
>
> racer category.
Short answer: Go fuck yourself, Mikko.
Long answer: Actually, I do think the favorite rac.er (racer? Do I get a
cool car with hydraulic jacks and everything?) award was unbalanced by
voting for pros and reviewers. I'm thankful to everyone who voted for
me, but I do think I was probably ranked higher than I should be, given
how little (comparatively) I participate in some of the discussions
here.
Ojerasmus
>>they were fans of something that certain people don't want to see
>>win...
Nat, it got votes for best colorist.
I have no problem with it winning best web comic
even if there was just as much ballot stuffing in that
cat as any other but it was taking up spaces on awards
it wasn't even eligible for which degrades the whole
process.
I dont see how limiting some of the awards to actual comic
books is a problem. Comic strips and web-comics have
their seperate awards why not comic books. Otherwise
projects that require you to be on the web have an
unfair advantage.
Owen Erasmus
Randy Lander
>
> Ok, I'm stupid. Sorry.
The temptation to put this in a .sig file is overwhelming.
Carl Henderson
>As a side note, I also think it's finally time to split the Best RAC'r
>category into pro and fan divisions. 7 of the top 10 were pros, and 3
>of the next 10, possibly 5 [...] There's a fine line
>here; I've not had as much problems with past pro high placements since
>said pros tended to be active general participants, but now more pros
>are active only in regards to their work.
Let me second this. Best RAC'er really does needs to be split into "Fan" and
"Pro" subcategories. Otherwise, it is a "apples" and "oranges" sort of thing.
David J. Snyder
Nat Gertler <n...@gertler.com> wrote:
>If this is intended to be a thoughtful survey, running it on a
>whoever-wants-to-vote for however-they-choose-to-classify-them
>seems an odd way to do it. Seems more like a popularity contest
>to me.
Sure, it's a popularity contest. But it's supposed to be RAC's
popularity contest.
-Dave
--
"Being called an idiot tends to take people out of the dating mood."
"Well, it actually kind of turns me on."
"I fear you."
-Buffy and Xander, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Carl Henderson
>>Mark Waid certainly wasn't active enough (read 33 posts in 1998 in three
>>clumps, nothing since early July according to Dejanews) to warrant a
>>ninth place, one vote out of seventh, result.
>
>I took that as either irony or support for his "I hate
>rac" comments.
I'm a big fan of irony. I was certainly tempted to vote for Waid.
>I think a rac-only awards is a fine thing. I'm willing to
>work on putting together some sort of committee, if
>someone who knows how these things work will direct.
>If nothing else, it would provide needed error-checking;
>there were a number of obvious duplications that should
>have been combined in the results.
This a good idea--take a look at the top vote-getters in the "Best Editor"
catagory:
>Best Editor:
>
>126: Archie Goodwin
>51: Richard Pini
>49: Tom Breevoort
>47: Tom Brevoort
I do have one concern. Any such committee needs to be set up as a way of
fixing problems in the Squiddies--not attempting to set up a competing
RAC-only awards.
The Squiddies _are_ the RAC awards.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Henderson
carl.he...@airmail.net
------------------------------------------------------------------
Off Colour
wrote:
>> the Squiddies are supposed to be a reflection of the RAC* community,
>
> Ooooh....the precious RAC* community! Let's all kneel before it!!!
McDumbass. These are the Rac* awards. They are supposed to reflect
rac*. No one's asking you to kneel down before it, although I might
personally enjoy seeing you standing in front of the Rac* bus as it
hurtles down the road.
Chris!
"Busiek is a weak Yanqui pig...
And he doesn't have a compound and a private army."
- Warren Ellis; suffused with power and drunk off his arse at 2am
Tom Galloway
>From: t...@netcom.com (Tom Galloway)
><<I suspect this may have happened last year as well; I know that there
>were voting urges in Newsarama, for example.>>
><<A number of web sites had "vote for me" drives;>>
>First off, though I'm not sure if there is direct connection being made
>here, but while the last two years I have certainly made my readers aware
>Squiddy voting was in progress and made them aware Newsarama was a
>candidate (indirectly encouraging them to vote for it no doubt), I want
>to be clear I did not wage a "vote for me" campaign, in that I never
>asked for anyone to vote for Newsarama, and I made them aware of the
>other candidates and categories...
Let me make clear that I wasn't trying to slam Mike or Newsarama, nor do
I think Mike did anything wrong either year. I do think there's a
problem, as shown by this year's results, in promoting the Squiddies
outside of rac. While I think Kirby screened for obvious ballot box
stuffing of duplicate votes from the same user, web based voting, as I
think I mentioned to him, opens up the "Hank the angry drunken dwarf"
type of voting (Howard Stern listeners swamped the online People
magazine poll for "Most Beautiful Person" with votes for Hank, a regular
on Stern's show), particularly when combined with websites promoting
the Squiddies to those not active on rac.
tyg t...@netcom.com
David J. Snyder
>rac*. No one's asking you to kneel down before it, although I might
>personally enjoy seeing you standing in front of the Rac* bus as it
>hurtles down the road.
>
JohannaLD
>I do have one concern. Any such committee needs to be set up as a way of
>fixing problems in the Squiddies--not attempting to set up a competing
>RAC-only awards.
>The Squiddies _are_ the RAC awards.
I'm certainly not interested in setting up a competition or
trying to "steal" anything; I just wanted to get the ball
rolling by saying, yes, I will work on this. (I think I'm a
great candidate to help because I've been here forever
but never voted. :) )
People who are seriously interested in forming a
"steering committee" are invited to email me, unless
someone else has a better idea?
-- Johanna
Comics Worth Reading -- http://members.aol.com/johannald
DrN...@hotmail.com
Just a few quick points:
For best writer, I was surprised that Peter David came that close to
topping Alan Moore. I personally like PAD's work better (most notably
X-Factor and Supergirl), but I was under the impression that Moore was the
more popular of the two. Maybe he'll take off in Next Year's votes if ABC
does well (and doesn't suffer from all the delays I am worried that he's
destined for).
No clue who Pete Abrams is, and I'm certain I have not read any discussion
of his work on racm. Certainly not more than Robinson, Moore, Morrison, or
Ennis. I guess he's related to all these other high scoring things I've never
heard of ((Sluggy Freelance beats Avengers, Transmet, JLA, AND Preacher in a
vote by RACers? I don't buy it for one second).
Phil Jiminez and Darick Robertson...top 5 artists, and I can't for the life
of me place their books. Someone please educate me?
Only one other guy listed No Award for colorist. Me, I think too often it
gets in the way. Blurry, smeary, irritating. Anyone know some books that are
really brought to life by color?
I'm glad Ostrander/Mandrake did so well. They've been having some troubles
with Martian Manhunter, but they do deserve recognition for great work earlier
this year.
I'm also glad Goodwin was remembered. I'm REALLY looking forward to his
Manhunter reprint book. And, now we know exactly how many crazies we have on
channel (14).
Speaking of scum, I've read approximately zero of the top 12 candidates for
best story. Guess I'm not trendy, darn me. On the other hand, I am pretty hip
to the popular new series.
Shock and horror, was the Clerks comic book really that great? I remember
the art was kind of really crappy. Was it the parody of toy speculation that
garnered all those votes? I guess a lot of folks have been burned by that
kind of crap.
More shock and horror, what's with all the Star Wars Manga votes? That
little sucker was way expensive, and not nearly as good a read as the kirby
and Essential reprint books. Ah well, free country.
Finally, two quick bits. Comic Book E-Mag didn't do as well as I'd hoped.
Check it out, I like it. Plus, it's been a regular, weekly mag for like five
years now, quite an accomplishment. Also, darnit, Collector Times had their
votes split all up:
4: The Collector Times (http://www.CollectorTimes.com)
1: www.collectortimes.com
1: Collector Times www.collectortimes.com
1: http://www.collectortimes.com
Check it out, too. It's monthly, so I recommend it less than I do CBEM, but
there are some good bits to it.
Take Care
Nate
JohannaLD
>Let me second this. Best RAC'er really does needs to be split into "Fan"
>and "Pro" subcategories. Otherwise, it is a "apples" and "oranges" sort of
thing.
I'd go further: Favorite Pro, RAC'er, and Reviewer categories.
DivaLea
>Mikko Aittola wrote:
>>
>> Ok, I'm stupid. Sorry.
>
>The temptation to put this in a .sig file is overwhelming.
Give in.
Lea
CLOCKWORK ANGELS, intro by Warren Ellis
Image Comics
Pre-order now from PREVIEWS! (January, page 111)
http://members.aol.com/divalea
Mike Chary
>kir...@best.com (K. Krueger) wrote:
>
>> After an assortment of delays and complications, the squiddy
>> results are in!
>
>OK, so who are the eight tasteless people who voted for me? :-)
>
Me, for one.
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
GIVE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL A NEW TRIAL!! http://www.slip.net/~kbaird/freemumia.html
http://www.sff.net/people/tbisson/MUMIA.html
"Ipsa scientia potestas est." - Roger Bacon
Bryant Durrell
Michael Doran <XZY...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>From: t...@netcom.com (Tom Galloway)
>
><<I suspect this may have happened last year as well; I know that there
>were voting urges in Newsarama, for example.>>
>
>joha...@aol.com (JohannaLD) wrote:
>
><<A number of web sites had "vote for me" drives;>>
>
>First off, though I'm not sure if there is direct connection being made
>here, but while the last two years I have certainly made my readers aware
>Squiddy voting was in progress and made them aware Newsarama was a
>candidate (indirectly encouraging them to vote for it no doubt), I want
>to be clear I did not wage a "vote for me" campaign, in that I never
>asked for anyone to vote for Newsarama, and I made them aware of the
>other candidates and categories...
FWIW, the Newsarama mentions never struck me as out of line. It is
certainly within the function of a comics news site to mention the
Squiddies.
--
Bryant Durrell [] dur...@innocence.com [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell
[----------------------------------------------------------------------------]
"You're infatuated with someone you love because they're SATAN."
Charles S. LePage
joha...@aol.com (JohannaLD) wrote:
> >Best Web Site:
> >115: www.sluggy.com
> >82: Newsarama (http://www.mania.com/newsarama/index.html)
> >62: Comic Book Resources
> >38: www.elfquest.com
> >31: Space Ghost Coast-to-Coast
> >28: www.warrenellis.com
> >26: COMICON.com
> >25: Mania
> >20: NCRL
> >17: Rich's Ramblings
>
> We've outgrown the days when special-targeted or
> fan sites can compete with the big guns. Unless you
> stack the vote. :)
I don't mind losing to Newsarama or comicon.com. But "sluggy.com"? What is
that all about? Who sent all the Sluggites over here to stuff the ballot box?
Charles S. LePage/NCRL
http://www.jacksonville.net/~ncrl
Charles S. LePage
dva...@eyrie.org (Dave Van Domelen) wrote:
> Dave Van Domelen, thinks about the only way to make the Squiddies
> resistant to ballotbox stuffing would be to have a voting "academy" of
> regulars (who would then be inelegible for any awards themselves) to vote
> from among nominations sent in by the public. Thus, a bazillion votes for
> Sluggy Freelance from the webpage wouldn't count any more than a few votes
> for, say, Cathedral Child....
I'll volunteer for this, since my site can't seem to win a Squiddy anymore..
:)
Dale Hicks
>
> Actually, I think that web based voting can work, but not when it's as
> open to write-in voting as this year's Squiddys were. I'd rather see the
> voting be done in two sessions. A first wave of open nominations,
> followed by a second-round ballot with the top 5 choices listed and no
> possibility of write-ins (much like the way the Oscars are done). It's
> from this second list that the winner is chosen.
I don't care for it, as I voted my opinion of the best, and voting
for the lesser of five evils is like voting for president, except that
we have a popular vote.
The web page will allow the proper method of "nominating" people by
simply including them as a choice for future voters.
> Alternatively, we could discourage outside votes by putting a trivia
> question at the top of the ballot. Something like requiring the person
> filling it out to name the great hero that the Squiddies honor.
And let the guy find out and put that on his web page.
--
Cranial Crusader dhi...@gibralter.net
(who wonders if that Abrams guy paints anything, and why he didn't
win that as well)
Dale Hicks
> From: carl.he...@airmail.net (Carl Henderson)
>
> >Let me second this. Best RAC'er really does needs to be split into "Fan"
> >and "Pro" subcategories. Otherwise, it is a "apples" and "oranges" sort of
> thing.
>
> I'd go further: Favorite Pro, RAC'er, and Reviewer categories.
I can top that: Pro, Smart-ass RAC'er, Trivia-hound RAC'er,
Annoying-as-hell RAC'er, Crabby RAC'er, and Trying-to-talk-comics
RAC'er and Reviewer categories.
--
Cranial Crusader dhi...@gibralter.net
(who's starting his Smart-ass campaign early this year)
Dale Hicks
> Time for the Rich Johnston perspective. I think we all need to focus on what's
> important here...
>
> Best Colorist:
>
> 1: Robin Riggs
Is black a color?
> Best Political Cartoonist:
>
> 1: Rich Johnston
>
> What?
Ballot stuffing, remember?
--
Cranial Crusader dhi...@gibralter.net
Dale Hicks
>
> Just a few quick points:
>
> For best writer, I was surprised that Peter David came that close to
> topping Alan Moore. I personally like PAD's work better (most notably
> X-Factor and Supergirl), but I was under the impression that Moore was the
> more popular of the two.
Did he do a lot last year?
> Phil Jiminez and Darick Robertson...top 5 artists, and I can't for the life
> of me place their books. Someone please educate me?
Jiminez is George Perez, Jr., who has done TEMPEST, TITANS, HEARTTHROBS
and INVISIBLES for DC/Vertigo, and has a ton of splash pages and covers
to his credit.
> Only one other guy listed No Award for colorist. Me, I think too often it
> gets in the way. Blurry, smeary, irritating. Anyone know some books that are
> really brought to life by color?
Well, KABUKI for one. In a more comics sense, JLA-THE NAIL was beautifully
done by high-placer Mulvihill (or however it's spelled, I'm sure I'm to
blame for the wrong spelling on the ballot).
> Speaking of scum, I've read approximately zero of the top 12 candidates for
> best story. Guess I'm not trendy, darn me. On the other hand, I am pretty hip
> to the popular new series.
Don't worry, I only read two, and I have the DD issues sitting waiting
to be read.
--
Cranial Crusader dhi...@gibralter.net
Bob Heer
list even more ridiculous...
(you know, if I knew this would turn into the Second Annual Montgomery
Burns Award For Outstanding Achievement In Excellence I wouldn't have
bothered to vote)
Even ignoring the obvious problem, you have things like 29 people voting
for Jim Lee as best inker. One of those 29 want to clue me in on what
exactly Jim Lee inked in 1998, except for a buyout with DC (which is
certainly award-worthy, but not in this category)? And Aragones with 40
votes in editorial cartoons? The result is riddled with stuff like that,
books and creator votes that belong to other years, or maybe even other
realities. As well as various things which should have been merged. One
example that affects a top ten finish:
Best Reprint Book:
14: Jack Kirby's Mr. Miracle
13: Kirby's New Gods
7: DC 4th world reissues
5: THE NEW GODS
1: Mister Miracle
Since the NEW GODS book actually came out in 1997, all seven of the votes
for "4th world reissues" should go to the Mister Miracle book, giving it
at least 22, putting it in the top 10 (I assume many of the 18 who voted
for NG would have voted for MM if they knew NG wasn't from 1998, which
could have put it in the top 3).
Also, I'm not sure if some votes were counted. I assume mine were, since
I voted the straight Scott Roberts ticket on the creator categories, and
he had one each there. But I also thought I voted for "Grasscutter" in
USAGI YOJIMBO, and I'm almost sure I saw a few other votes for that on the
pulldown menu (written a few different ways), yet it only has one vote
total.
Bob Heer bg...@torfree.net http://www.geocities.com/area51/dimension/1428
--
The score is still Q to 12
--
Carl Henderson
>From: carl.he...@airmail.net (Carl Henderson)
>
>>Let me second this. Best RAC'er really does needs to be split into "Fan"
>>and "Pro" subcategories. Otherwise, it is a "apples" and "oranges" sort of
>thing.
>
>I'd go further: Favorite Pro, RAC'er, and Reviewer categories.
That's a good idea. Reviewers do a lot of work, and usually don't get much
more than flames for it...
Peter Meilinger
: In article <37016d04...@news.sprint.ca>, Off Colour <cr...@212.net> wrote:
: >rac*. No one's asking you to kneel down before it, although I might
: >personally enjoy seeing you standing in front of the Rac* bus as it
: >hurtles down the road.
: We have a bus?
How much room in the back of that thing? I'm moving in a couple months,
and I'd hate to waste the money on a van...
Pete
Carl Henderson
> Phil Jiminez and Darick Robertson...top 5 artists, and I can't for the life
>of me place their books. Someone please educate me?
Phil Jiminez drew the JLA/Titans mini-series and some issues of the Invisibles
in 1998. Darick Robertson draws Transmetropolitan.
Sidne G. Ward
>>da...@schultz-2.io.com (David J. Snyder) wrote:
>>> This strikes me as a potentially fundamental flaw in the Web ballot voting
>>> method.
>I couldn't agree more. Especially with the "fundamental" part, because I
>really don't see a way of avoiding it. Putting the ballot on the web
>makes it easy prey to be hijacked by folks who don't even know what
>"r.a.c" is an abbreviation for. I wish I had an answer, because there are
>some obvious benefits to the web ballot... but I don't. The closest I can
>think of would be to announce the voting =only= on Usenet, and prohibit
>candidates from linking to the ballot. But that'd be damn hard to
>enforce, and a bit dodgy even if we could.
I think the benefits to the web balloting have been overshadowed by the
problems associated with it.
My personal preference would be for the ballot to be posted to r.a.c.*
only. Anyone who wants to vote should have to at least take the trouble
to come here to get a copy of the ballot for submission.
Sidne Gail Ward
sw...@primenet.com
John Northey
Squiddy to be a ballot sent to anyone who posted to rac* 24+ times in
the past year (twice a month on average) thus making sure they
actually are an active part of the community. Some tweaking might be
needed due to people who's posts arent saved on dejanews for whatever
reason. With that you'd kill ballot box stuffing and make it as fair
as possible I'd think.
On other issues I am in favour of the Fan/Pro/Reviewer split, with
people able to win in both Reviewer/Fan. As far as this years results
go, well, the rules allowed what happened to happen so accept it and
move on for the 99 vote (unless you want a 98 1/2 vote of course).
John Northey.
Crazy Canadian and creator of the Fans of Teri Sue Wood site.
http://www.sentex.net/~jnorthey/TSW
Sidne G. Ward
>JohannaLD <joha...@aol.com> wrote in article <19990330202435...@ng114.aol.com>...
>> From: carl.he...@airmail.net (Carl Henderson)
>>
>> >Let me second this. Best RAC'er really does needs to be split into "Fan"
>> >and "Pro" subcategories. Otherwise, it is a "apples" and "oranges" sort of
>> thing.
>>
>> I'd go further: Favorite Pro, RAC'er, and Reviewer categories.
>I can top that: Pro, Smart-ass RAC'er, Trivia-hound RAC'er,
>Annoying-as-hell RAC'er, Crabby RAC'er, and Trying-to-talk-comics
>RAC'er and Reviewer categories.
I'm pretty sure some of these are Bizarro Squiddy categories.
Or they should be.
Sidne Gail Ward
sw...@primenet.com
John Northey
wrote:
>Sidne G. Ward wrote:
>> My personal preference would be for the ballot to be posted to r.a.c.*
>> only. Anyone who wants to vote should have to at least take the trouble
>> to come here to get a copy of the ballot for submission.
>
>a campaigner will probably just follow his link to that message
>on Deja News.
Or we get something even worse, a email link that fills in the
subject, to, and body with what the person wants to have sent in. It
isn't hard and it would be giving a unique address for each one. Not
hard to abuse if someone really wants to.
Todd VerBeek
>> What I object to is the fact that
>> a whole bunch of people who have no association with rec.arts.comics came
>> in and took over what was intended to be a thoughtful survey of
>> rec.arts.comics participants, to turn it into a cheap publicity stunt.
My pal Nat Gertler said:
>If this is intended to be a thoughtful survey, running it on a
>whoever-wants-to-vote for however-they-choose-to-classify-them
>seems an odd way to do it. Seems more like a popularity contest
>to me.
Well, defending an obviously ill-intended abuse of the system, and
accusing the folks who are offended by this kind of shit doesn't strike me
as a particularly good approach either, Nat. Save your indignation for a
cause that deserves it.
Cheers, Todd
Tom Galloway
>>I'd go further: Favorite Pro, RAC'er, and Reviewer categories.
>more than flames for it...
Well, save for this year when reviewers took the top three non-pro positions
in the RACer category. :-)
tyg t...@netcom.com
Todd VerBeek
>>> After an assortment of delays and complications, the squiddy
>>> results are in!
>jayembee <Jerry.B...@eds.com> wrote:
>>OK, so who are the eight tasteless people who voted for me? :-)
My pal Mike Chary said:
>Me, for one.
Now, now, Mike. You're not tasteless. You just don't taste good. {grin}
Cheers, Todd (another one)
Christopher J. Sypal
Northey) wrote:
>Well, with the mess what I'd love to see (if possible) is for the
>Squiddy to be a ballot sent to anyone who posted to rac* 24+ times in
>the past year (twice a month on average) thus making sure they
>actually are an active part of the community. Some tweaking might be
Uh... no. I don't think that someone who for the past year has posted
20 insults every day is more a part of the community than someone who
has been reading almost every day for the past seven years and only
posting when they feel they have something important to say. (Not to
mention one who write really horrible run-on sentences)
One idea that I've thought up based on my previous experiences (yes, I
did the very first racmux poll (back when it was racx)), is to ask
people to send in nominations. Then take the top five nominations from
each category and have a final vote.
It will allow one or more people to check the nominations for
duplicates, errors, and ballot stuffing.
Of course, it will be more work. Plus we will only know the top five
favorites, and not the sixth, seventh, eighth, etc.
-Chris Sypal-
{Christopher J. Sypal -- csy...@radiks.net}
[ The Domestic Anime CD Guide ]
[ http://www.radiks.net/csypal/cds/ ]
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
-----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------
twis...@hotmail.com
"Dale Hicks" <dhi...@gibSPAMLESSralter.net> wrote:
>
> Ballot stuffing, remember?
>
And what a successful ballot stuff it was!
Rich Johnston
twis...@hotmail.com
www.twistandshoutcomics.com
Home of Ramblings '99, the oldest comics news/rumour column on the internet.
Sidne G. Ward
>kir...@best.com (K. Krueger) wrote:
>> After an assortment of delays and complications, the squiddy
>> results are in!
>OK, so who are the eight tasteless people who voted for me? :-)
I did.
Sidne Gail Ward
sw...@primenet.com