Ursa Major Award Nominees are chosen, and it's not a good sign
PlanetFur
http://christopherbair.blogspot.com/
If the UMA are to be taken seriously, they need to change, and change
quickly. These are the complaints I have with the awards, and I'm sure
others will share at least some of them.
Charles Melville
PlanetFur wrote:
I sure don't. To be honest, I just can't see the problems that you
do.
Would any of the authors not in the fandom actually attend the
awards? Unknown, although it's not impossible. Certainly Ms Norman has
come across the continent just to attend Conifur a few times, without the
lure of an award. It would be nice if they could attend, but I don't see
that's it's a necessity. "But really, there were quite a few novels
published in the furry fandom or related to them far better than Cerulean
Sins or Between Darkness and Light." Well, that's a matter of opinion,
isn't it? And apparently nobody contested the choices because nobody else
made any other nominations. The opinion of those who -did- make
nominations was that there -wasn't- anything better. And those who
thought so and -didn't- raise their voices to make alternative
nominations, well -- God helps those who help themselves.
I don't understand what difference what age group the animated entries
were designed for matters. It's the reaction that they stir that is of
importance. If it was nominated at all, then it appealed to someone in
the fandom, and was obviously supported by enough votes to get on the
ballot.
The 'Published Illustration' nominees do -not- include a work by Fred
Patton, but refers to the -cover art- done by Ursula Vernon. Fred's
connection as an editor is not a consideration, and doesn't really affect
the voting, or give any impression of 'conflict of interest' as you
suggest. If the piece wins or not, it'll be on the strength of the
artist's work. As for the two pieces not represented by a link, I agree
that's something that should be corrected, but it's the responsibility of
the artists to get them somewhere online where they can be linked to. I
notice that all other links are to websites that actively promote the
referenced books or artwork for sale by the respective publishers, and are
covers; but the remaining two are interior pages, one of the which is in a
con book -- last year's -- and is not available online for sale. The
artists themselves should be nudged to display their work, and is not the
responsibility of the Awards.
"Where are the board games, RPG games, etc?" Nobody nominated them.
Either there was nothing that impressive out there, or nobody bothered to
make a nomination.
If the furry awards aren't very impressive in form, it's because the
furry fans can't afford anything better. Sure, a plaque or a statue would
be great. I'm all for it. Who's paying for it? I don't expect it would
come cheap, especially if there were multiple awards to give out each year
and each had to be engraved. To make it viable, you'd have to have a
blue-plate dinner at the con for the awards and put the money towards the
cost of the awards. But the average furry fan can barely afford to get
-to- the con and spends the time there cutting costs and counting pennies,
sharing rooms and eating at McDonalds.
The awards are still young. Give it some time to grow and it'll shape
up and gain a little prestige.
--
-Chuck Melville-
Comic book fanatic and sometimes-creator-type-person
PlanetFur
> awards? Unknown, although it's not impossible.
No, it's not impossible, but if people nominated feel it's not worth going
to C-ACE, for example, to pick up the award should they win, then obviously
it's not a worthwhile award in their eyes. Especially since many of the
nominees are backed by big money companies.
> Certainly Ms Norman has
> come across the continent just to attend Conifur a few times, without the
> lure of an award. It would be nice if they could attend, but I don't see
> that's it's a necessity.
No, it's never a necessity, but if every category's winners are not in
attendance, it says something about the awards themselves. If only one or
two miss out, then it's not that big of a deal. The images on the UMA site
only show one person picking up an award ever. This is not a positive
indication of how the awards are seen.
> "But really, there were quite a few novels
> published in the furry fandom or related to them far better than Cerulean
> Sins or Between Darkness and Light." Well, that's a matter of opinion,
> isn't it?
Not really. That's "related to [the furry fandom] far better", not a
superlative on how good the works are themselves. Cerulean Sins had
werewolves and werecats, but focused more on the lead necromancer and
vampires. Between Darkness and Light had humans and aliens (and not really
anthro aliens, just fuzzy ones). Shouldn't the nominations be about
anthropomorphics, as the winner would be Best Anthropomorphic Novel?
This, again, is showing that the awards' categories are in disarray and that
nominations really are just about whatever.
> And apparently nobody contested the choices because nobody else
> made any other nominations.
Maybe because there's a clear apathy about the awards? This year's nominees
are mostly jokes. Not because of the content, but because it's either
nominations of items that are completely outside the fandom (and as such,
promotion of them really helps nothing), or aren't even anthropomorphic.
Would people continue caring about an award for Furries that was given to
the movie I, Robot? Why not? Robots are anthropomorphized in the movie, why
couldn't it win for Best Anthropomorphic Motion Picture?
> The opinion of those who -did- make
> nominations was that there -wasn't- anything better. And those who
> thought so and -didn't- raise their voices to make alternative
> nominations, well -- God helps those who help themselves.
My complaints are that the awards really don't do anything other than have a
website indicating the winners. I've seen only one mention of someone
posting that they were even nominated (on SofaWolf's pages), and no winners
ever claiming they won. After two years and that many nominees, you'd think
more would. Now that we're in 2003, are we going to see more? I doubt it.
And I listed out major reasons why I see this is true.
> I don't understand what difference what age group the animated entries
> were designed for matters. It's the reaction that they stir that is of
> importance. If it was nominated at all, then it appealed to someone in
> the fandom, and was obviously supported by enough votes to get on the
> ballot.
Because of what you're tying the awards to. People see the top award on a
list as the main award. Hugos list Best Novel first. Oscars list Best
Picture first. These are their top honors. What does the UMA list first?
Best Motion Picture. And the nominees are all children's films. So what are
the implications? That the best thing for the UMAs are children's animated
films.
_You_ may not see it this way, but that's not the point of the awards. The
point of the awards are to mean something, to promote achievements in the
areas for which they are given. If people aren't willing to see them as
prestigious or for things other than children's animation, let's say, then
people really won't use them to promote their own names or brands, and thus,
apathy continues to reign in.
> The 'Published Illustration' nominees do -not- include a work by Fred
> Patton, but refers to the -cover art- done by Ursula Vernon. Fred's
> connection as an editor is not a consideration, and doesn't really affect
> the voting, or give any impression of 'conflict of interest' as you
> suggest.
There's a rule in editing collections in the publishing world, in that you
never include your own work in the collection, or credit yourself for
anything more than editing. There's also a rule in awards that the awards
body recuses themselves completely from any awards.
The fact that Fred Patten's name appears not once, but twice, in the
nominees will cause the awards to lose any prestige left they may have had.
Regardless of whether people may have actually nominated them, they need to
be recused because of their ties with the award's board.
If either of them win their category, it will further darken the awards,
that perhaps they won because of their ties. It doesn't matter that they won
fair-and-square, people just won't see it that way.
> If the piece wins or not, it'll be on the strength of the
> artist's work. As for the two pieces not represented by a link, I agree
> that's something that should be corrected, but it's the responsibility of
> the artists to get them somewhere online where they can be linked to.
Or it's the award's responsibility not to link any until they're all linked?
And ask permission to link them? They go so far as to put together a long
list of recommended reading, which I noted you didn't touch on when I said
this needs to stop, but they can't bother to ask for the art so that the
artist has a chance to win the award, or be withdrawn from the nomination if
they so wished?
> I
> notice that all other links are to websites that actively promote the
> referenced books or artwork for sale by the respective publishers, and are
> covers; but the remaining two are interior pages, one of the which is in a
> con book -- last year's -- and is not available online for sale. The
> artists themselves should be nudged to display their work, and is not the
> responsibility of the Awards.
Again, the awards could not just ask? If the awards are worthy, then the
people nominated would love to provide for free samples of their work, and
may even promote the awards so people can vote. I've seen writers hand out
booklets, ashcans, bookmarks, stickers, etc., letting people know they were
up for the Nebula or Hugo or Bram Stoker, because these are great awards to
tie to your name. You get no money from the award, but fans know that they
really mean something. No one really cares about the UMAs. People really
aren't going out of their way to win them. So the Awards need to take the
steps to build that up until it can be done by the rest of the fandom.
So yes, it is the awards' responsibility, until they're prestigious.
> "Where are the board games, RPG games, etc?" Nobody nominated them.
> Either there was nothing that impressive out there, or nobody bothered to
> make a nomination.
Or, really, the Recommended List had six console games on it. All five
nominated games came from that list. Fred Patten's works appear on that
list. I'm a bit tired now, but I would wager that I could go through the
nominees and find at least 90% of them from that recommended list.
These are serious issues I've brought up, and I'm sorry you do not see any
of them valid except the linking. But just think about them a little more,
about the impacts they could have in making the UMAs something people would
want.
> If the furry awards aren't very impressive in form, it's because the
> furry fans can't afford anything better. Sure, a plaque or a statue would
> be great. I'm all for it. Who's paying for it?
The awards. Again, you can't really expect the people receiving the awards
to promote them if the awards aren't going to shell out anything. You can't
expect them to be taken seriously if they're like any other web-based award.
What the Awards should do, as I suggested, is have the award ceremony at a
big con. Make it part of the sponsorship dinner, or a separate dinner or
festivity. Charge for the entry at a nominal amount, or ask that the con
attach a small amount to the cost of at-the-door registrations, or
something. Hell, the WorldCons are normally like $150 for the convention
regardless of who you are, because the money goes toward paying for the
statues and such.
> I don't expect it would
> come cheap, especially if there were multiple awards to give out each year
> and each had to be engraved. To make it viable, you'd have to have a
> blue-plate dinner at the con for the awards and put the money towards the
> cost of the awards.
And? The UMAs have the problem in that people don't really KNOW about them,
let alone care about them. Make it a big event, something that's worth $50 a
plate, or $5 extra per badge. Get an artist to make a nice sculpture or icon
to put on a plaque or glass-etching. I'm fairly sure there are enough
talented people that would put forth the effort for free if the awards were
willing to put forth the effort to recognize achievements properly.
> But the average furry fan can barely afford to get
> -to- the con and spends the time there cutting costs and counting pennies,
> sharing rooms and eating at McDonalds.
I think you're talking about the average YOUNG furry fan. I've seen people
pull out gold cars to pay for their items at Furry Cons. I've seen people
with $3000 cameras and $2000 fursuits walking around the conventions. I've
seen artists pull in over a grand in sales at a weekend. If the awards meant
something, these are probably the same people who would want to attend. So
it's no big thing if they had to pay $50 to have a nice meal and get to
listen to acceptance speeches of the many winners. That is, if the winners
were bothered to show up. You have to get them to show up with wanting the
award, as I've been saying.
> The awards are still young. Give it some time to grow and it'll shape
> up and gain a little prestige.
That's the thing. They won't really grow and shape up if they're not willing
to change. As they are, they're nothing more than a web-award. Just
something extra to list on your website, which a vast majority of the
nominees and winners ARE NOT doing.
This should be proof that there's something wrong, and a better dialogue
opened as to why. My points should illustrate some, at least.
Glen Wooten
>
> PlanetFur wrote:
>
>> As stated in my blog:
>>
>> http://christopherbair.blogspot.com/
>>
>> If the UMA are to be taken seriously, they need to change, and change
>> quickly. These are the complaints I have with the awards, and I'm sure
>> others will share at least some of them.
>
> furry fans can't afford anything better. Sure, a plaque or a statue would
> be great.
The award IS a plaque, actually...
--
Glen Wooten
_______________________________________________________________
| primary: jag...@rexx.com | secondary: kar...@sbcglobal.net |
_______________________________________________________________
| Terrie & Glen's web page: http://www.rexx.com/~jaguar |
_______________________________________________________________
iBuck
Either there was nothing that impressive out there, or nobody bothered to
make a nomination. >>
Or the board couldn't think outside the box, I droped a bunch of nominations
of.. GURPS Shapeshifters, War Gods OF Aegyptus, GURPS Uplift, 3d ed AD&D
Savage Speicies...
The question then is if the board then takes a look at the actual -quaility-
of the nominess, or just picks the most popular...
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Fallen Weeble
Many interesting points have been tossed back and forth in this (and
related) threads.
However, I question why we should bother with a "Best Convention"
category at all. There's no way to have anywhere near a fair vote for
that one, because to be truly qualified to make that call, one would
have to attend ALL the furry conventions (and I doubt that there are
few non-dealers who could make that claim).
So what would likely happen instead? My guess is that people will
vote for one of the conventions they DID attend. Let's take a quick
look at the Anthro Fandom Convention Attendance Sheet at
http://www.mustelid.com/otterhall/afcis.html
Together, FC and AC had 3150 paid memberships in 2003. That's a shade
over 50% of the 6142 memberships for all furry conventions and
furmeets listed. That means that these two conventions account for at
least as many paid memberships as all the others COMBINED.
With that said, it's likely that one of these two most heavily
attended conventions will likely be the one to win -- an annual
popularity contest between the two. And as much as I like both
conventions, it would seem like a fairly empty and pointless win
either way. The event organizers already know their attendance
stats...that's better feedback than any award could be.
On the other hand, it would do a disservice to the smaller conventions
who, though smaller, have a different kind of charm...something I
learned when I went to my first attendance-under-300 convention.
PlanetFur
> PlanetFur <nos...@nospam.planetfur.com> wrote in message news:<c4nq5b$2b3s$1...@velox.critter.net>...
>
>>As stated in my blog:
>>
>>http://christopherbair.blogspot.com/
>>
>>If the UMA are to be taken seriously, they need to change, and change
>>quickly. These are the complaints I have with the awards, and I'm sure
>>others will share at least some of them.
>
>
> Many interesting points have been tossed back and forth in this (and
> related) threads.
>
> However, I question why we should bother with a "Best Convention"
> category at all. There's no way to have anywhere near a fair vote for
> that one, because to be truly qualified to make that call, one would
> have to attend ALL the furry conventions (and I doubt that there are
> few non-dealers who could make that claim).
True. This is why open discussion with reason is good. Perhaps it would
be a favorite rather than best. The organizations, though, may be better
off with this category. Non-profit related fields, or charities that are
often assisted at conventions, etc.
This is something that just will need further discussion. But thank you
for your points. They are very sound.
Charles Melville
Glen Wooten wrote:
> Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote:
> > If the furry awards aren't very impressive in form, it's because the
> > furry fans can't afford anything better. Sure, a plaque or a statue would
> > be great.
>
> The award IS a plaque, actually...
Well, there you go then.
Charles Melville
PlanetFur wrote:
> > "But really, there were quite a few novels
> > published in the furry fandom or related to them far better than Cerulean
> > Sins or Between Darkness and Light." Well, that's a matter of opinion,
> > isn't it?
>
> Not really. That's "related to [the furry fandom] far better", not a
> superlative on how good the works are themselves. Cerulean Sins had
> werewolves and werecats, but focused more on the lead necromancer and
> vampires. Between Darkness and Light had humans and aliens (and not really
> anthro aliens, just fuzzy ones). Shouldn't the nominations be about
> anthropomorphics, as the winner would be Best Anthropomorphic Novel?
Not if it's meant to be a furry award. Problem here being just how you
define 'furry', and the fandom tends to define it pretty broadly. As such,
werewolves and fuzzy aliens seem to fall within the definition. Now, if you
want to change or firmly fix the definition of 'furry', have to it and good
luck. I take the presumption that this matter has already been taken into
consideration by those in charge of the awards when they set the categories.
> > And apparently nobody contested the choices because nobody else
> > made any other nominations.
>
> Maybe because there's a clear apathy about the awards? This year's nominees
> are mostly jokes. Not because of the content, but because it's either
> nominations of items that are completely outside the fandom (and as such,
> promotion of them really helps nothing), or aren't even anthropomorphic.
> Would people continue caring about an award for Furries that was given to
> the movie I, Robot? Why not? Robots are anthropomorphized in the movie, why
> couldn't it win for Best Anthropomorphic Motion Picture?
Because they're not furry. See comment above about defining 'furry'.
> My complaints are that the awards really don't do anything other than have a
> website indicating the winners. I've seen only one mention of someone
> posting that they were even nominated (on SofaWolf's pages), and no winners
> ever claiming they won. After two years and that many nominees, you'd think
> more would. Now that we're in 2003, are we going to see more? I doubt it.
> And I listed out major reasons why I see this is true.
I've had e-mail notices about it, and it's been publicized on the Flayrah
and DutchFurs sites that I know of. If I search about I bet I'll find evidence
of it being likewise posted on the MUCKS, weblogs and email lists. (In fact,
I've read a few happy notices on weblogs from a couple of people who were
nominated, and do plan to make one myself.) That means it going out through the
main furry channels. Apart from taking out a series of TV commercials, how else
should it be publicized?
> > I don't understand what difference what age group the animated entries
> > were designed for matters. It's the reaction that they stir that is of
> > importance. If it was nominated at all, then it appealed to someone in
> > the fandom, and was obviously supported by enough votes to get on the
> > ballot.
>
> Because of what you're tying the awards to. People see the top award on a
> list as the main award. Hugos list Best Novel first. Oscars list Best
> Picture first. These are their top honors. What does the UMA list first?
> Best Motion Picture. And the nominees are all children's films. So what are
> the implications? That the best thing for the UMAs are children's animated
> films.
Apart from the fact that that's the only kind they make -- and probably the
only ones available this past year -- so what? I say again, it's the work, not
the age level that's really important. Is there anybody in the furry fandom who
didn't think that either BROTHER BEAR or FINDING NEMO somehow touched them or
were evocative at some stage? It's the quality of the work that matters, not
the age-group that it's intended for. Consider that Neil Gaiman won a Hugo this
past year for a -children's- story.
> _You_ may not see it this way, but that's not the point of the awards. The
> point of the awards are to mean something, to promote achievements in the
> areas for which they are given. If people aren't willing to see them as
> prestigious or for things other than children's animation, let's say, then
> people really won't use them to promote their own names or brands, and thus,
> apathy continues to reign in.
You're right, I don't see it that way.
> > The 'Published Illustration' nominees do -not- include a work by Fred
> > Patton, but refers to the -cover art- done by Ursula Vernon. Fred's
> > connection as an editor is not a consideration, and doesn't really affect
> > the voting, or give any impression of 'conflict of interest' as you
> > suggest.
>
> There's a rule in editing collections in the publishing world, in that you
> never include your own work in the collection, or credit yourself for
> anything more than editing. There's also a rule in awards that the awards
> body recuses themselves completely from any awards.
Fred has no stories in the collection. Only an introduction. And he
-hasn't- taken any credit for anything beyond that, so far as I've seen. And
without first-hand knowledge of what's going on behind the scenes, I don't know
that Fred has any reason to recuse himself just yet. I don't think it was he
that nominated the book, or that he's doing anything to promote it over and
above the other nominees. Recuse himself in what way? Does that mean he should
be barred from voting? Or that he should remove himself from the panel? If so,
we'll probably find that most if not all of the panel would have to be recused
for pretty much the same reason, in that they've most likely contributed to one
nominee or another. If so, who'll be left to run the awards at all? Is that
rule thing written in stone, or simply a condition that most awards follow as a
matter of course? I mean, are there any exceptions out there?
> The fact that Fred Patten's name appears not once, but twice, in the
> nominees will cause the awards to lose any prestige left they may have had.
> Regardless of whether people may have actually nominated them, they need to
> be recused because of their ties with the award's board.
I'd be more willing to give Fred a lot more leeway here. If we couldn't
trust Fred to be fair, for pete's sake, who -could- we trust?
> If either of them win their category, it will further darken the awards,
> that perhaps they won because of their ties. It doesn't matter that they won
> fair-and-square, people just won't see it that way.
I think you're reaching, to be honest, and are making a mountain out of a
molehill. It might be the perception of a very few, but will have no greater
effect than that.
> > If the piece wins or not, it'll be on the strength of the
> > artist's work. As for the two pieces not represented by a link, I agree
> > that's something that should be corrected, but it's the responsibility of
> > the artists to get them somewhere online where they can be linked to.
>
> Or it's the award's responsibility not to link any until they're all linked?
Why do that? If they have a link at all, then they should do their best to
do so. -That- is the extent of their responsibility, apart from perhaps
contacting those without an online presence to please upload their work for
display. It's not their job, however, to do more than that.
> And ask permission to link them? They go so far as to put together a long
> list of recommended reading, which I noted you didn't touch on when I said
> this needs to stop,
Sorry. I didn't mention it, because I didn't agree with your opinion, but
didn't feel it needed much more said beyond that. Therefore... I disagree that
it -needs- to stop. It's a recommended reading list, and that's all. I find it
helpful, as it alerts me to stuff I might not have looked at or known about
previously.
> but they can't bother to ask for the art so that the
> artist has a chance to win the award, or be withdrawn from the nomination if
> they so wished?
Why can't they withdraw if they want to? What's preventing them?
> > I
> > notice that all other links are to websites that actively promote the
> > referenced books or artwork for sale by the respective publishers, and are
> > covers; but the remaining two are interior pages, one of the which is in a
> > con book -- last year's -- and is not available online for sale. The
> > artists themselves should be nudged to display their work, and is not the
> > responsibility of the Awards.
>
> Again, the awards could not just ask?
Haven't they? I'm not privy to their actions, so I haven't been informed as
to what they do or don't do when they make their choices. Except in cases of my
own nominations, when I get an e-mail informing me, or updating the
information. I suppose if I wanted to withdraw, I could e-mail them back. But
I don't know that the committee -hasn't- contacted the two respective artists or
not, or what their responses might have been. After all, they might -not- have
wanted to have their work posted online, or might even be unable to do so. (Not
everybody is connected, not even today.)
> If the awards are worthy, then the
> people nominated would love to provide for free samples of their work, and
> may even promote the awards so people can vote.
Makes sense. So, why aren't they?
> I've seen writers hand out
> booklets, ashcans, bookmarks, stickers, etc., letting people know they were
> up for the Nebula or Hugo or Bram Stoker, because these are great awards to
> tie to your name. You get no money from the award, but fans know that they
> really mean something. No one really cares about the UMAs.
You're not talking to the right people. I know a few of the other nominees,
and they're quite flattered.
> People really aren't going out of their way to win them.
What, like an election campaign, you mean? First off, it depends on who you
mean; some are being vocal in their respective corners. Secondly, most of the
nominees are probably too otherwise busy with other ongoing projects to get
overly concerned about it. Thirdly, there will probably be more noise as it
gets closer to the final days of voting.
> > "Where are the board games, RPG games, etc?" Nobody nominated them.
> > Either there was nothing that impressive out there, or nobody bothered to
> > make a nomination.
>
> Or, really, the Recommended List had six console games on it. All five
> nominated games came from that list. Fred Patten's works appear on that
> list. I'm a bit tired now, but I would wager that I could go through the
> nominees and find at least 90% of them from that recommended list.
Possibly. But the nominations were open to anything new that anyone wanted
to add to it. If no one did, that's not the fault of the award committee.
> > If the furry awards aren't very impressive in form, it's because the
> > furry fans can't afford anything better. Sure, a plaque or a statue would
> > be great. I'm all for it. Who's paying for it?
>
> The awards.
With what? It's a volunteer committee, who are putting their time and
effort into it as it is. (And, as noted elsewhere, the award -is- a plaque, so
perhaps this particular argument is moot anyway.)
> Again, you can't really expect the people receiving the awards
> to promote them if the awards aren't going to shell out anything. You can't
> expect them to be taken seriously if they're like any other web-based award.
>
> What the Awards should do, as I suggested, is have the award ceremony at a
> big con. Make it part of the sponsorship dinner, or a separate dinner or
> festivity. Charge for the entry at a nominal amount, or ask that the con
> attach a small amount to the cost of at-the-door registrations, or
> something. Hell, the WorldCons are normally like $150 for the convention
> regardless of who you are, because the money goes toward paying for the
> statues and such.
Nobody is going to a furry con is going to pay even $25 a plate for a
banquet in order to support the awards. It has nothing to do with the
worthiness of the award, but with the fact that nobody is going to bring that
much money to spend, and if they do, it will be directed towards other interests
at the convention.
> > But the average furry fan can barely afford to get
> > -to- the con and spends the time there cutting costs and counting pennies,
> > sharing rooms and eating at McDonalds.
>
> I think you're talking about the average YOUNG furry fan.
I'm talking about the AVERAGE furry fan. I'm hardly young, and though
firmly employed, I can barely scrape enough cash to attend a LOCAL furry con.
(Good job I'm on the con committee.)
> I've seen people pull out gold cars to pay for their items at Furry Cons.
Who have YOU been hanging around with?? I seldom see anyone with more than
just enough cash to get through the con and planefare there and back.
> I've seen people with $3000 cameras and $2000 fursuits walking around the
> conventions.
Money already spent well in advance of the convention, and probably scrimped
over a period of months SPECIFICALLY for those items. Not an indication of
free-spending cash in the attendee's pocket.
> I've seen artists pull in over a grand in sales at a weekend.
Pft. You aren't fooling me. I run a dealer's room. SOME artists do very
well, others don't. And the last few years have been lean, even if the trend
has been improving.
> > The awards are still young. Give it some time to grow and it'll shape
> > up and gain a little prestige.
>
> That's the thing. They won't really grow and shape up if they're not willing
> to change. As they are, they're nothing more than a web-award. Just
> something extra to list on your website, which a vast majority of the
> nominees and winners ARE NOT doing.
>
> This should be proof that there's something wrong, and a better dialogue
> opened as to why. My points should illustrate some, at least.
I'm not convinced by the argument. I think it's too soon to be able to make
a solid judgment as to whether or not the award committee is doing everything it
can be or not. I know a few of those on the committee, and while I don't know
everything that's going on behind the scenes -- not much at all, actually -- I
do know that they are giving things great consideration and are trying the
things they feel are best. Some things simply need time to grow. I trust them
to be making an effort. If they tried some of the things you're suggesting, it
would probably collapse under the weight of reaching too high all at once
instead of taking the small steps it needs to find its way and maintain its
balance. Gotta walk before you can run.
PlanetFur
Okay, I need to respond, because you either sideline my argument to make
a rebuttal irrelevant, or miss the point of what I stated. In the
latter, I'll clarify to ensure you understand.
> Not if it's meant to be a furry award. Problem here being just how you
> define 'furry', and the fandom tends to define it pretty broadly. As such,
> werewolves and fuzzy aliens seem to fall within the definition. Now, if you
> want to change or firmly fix the definition of 'furry', have to it and good
> luck. I take the presumption that this matter has already been taken into
> consideration by those in charge of the awards when they set the categories.
Taken from the UMA homepage as to their purpose:
More formally known as the Annual Anthropomorphic Literature and Arts of
the Year Awards, the Ursa Major Awards are awarded anually for
excellence in the furry arts. They are intended as Anthropomorphic
(a.k.a. Furry) Fandom's equivalents of S-F fandom's Hugo Awards, mystery
fandom's Anthony Awards, horror fandom's Bram Stoker Awards, and so forth.
If it's the Furry Fandom's equivalent of these awards, then it should
just be like these awards. They all award great achievements in their
own respective categories of those genres.
Now, what would you define as furry? It says Furry Fandom, and
excellence in furry arts. Would anything remotely related to animals be
eligible? Sentient animal-human hybrid beings? Just anything organic
that's anthropomorphized?
In any case, a book mostly about necromancers and vampires, and another
with humans and fuzzy aliens, I don't believe, fit these categories.
There were far better choices. The only reason these made the final
list? They were part of the 11 novels on the Recommended Reading List.
In fact, I haven't located a single nomination that was not part of the
Recommended Reading List.
And it's not as though people are not nominating outside this list.
iBuck stated he voted for games that were not on the list, and none made
it to the final nomination ballot.
How many novels which were more worthy of being considered furry were
not included because they weren't on the list?
> Because they're not furry. See comment above about defining 'furry'.
But who's to say they're not? They're not animal-like? Well, how is the
alien in Darkness and Light furry? Because he's an alien with a slight
cat-like pelt? That's way too vague.
> I've had e-mail notices about it, and it's been publicized on the Flayrah
> and DutchFurs sites that I know of. If I search about I bet I'll find evidence
> of it being likewise posted on the MUCKS, weblogs and email lists. (In fact,
> I've read a few happy notices on weblogs from a couple of people who were
> nominated, and do plan to make one myself.) That means it going out through the
> main furry channels. Apart from taking out a series of TV commercials, how else
> should it be publicized?
No offense to Flayrah and DutchFurs, but they're more of promoting press
reports with regards to this. The real test are when the people who
publish these works put "Winner/Nominee of the So-and-So Ursa Major
Award" on their publications, resumes, etc. If there's a mention in an
email or in a MUCK or it's on Flayrah/DutchFurs, it's still not anything
more than a web-award.
When the winner of the TV Series or Motion Picture states
"Winner/Nominee of the Ursa Major Award" in their ads or on their DVDs,
or even when IMDb starts listing the UMAs, then it'll move beyond a web
award in my eyes. Probably many other people's, who have heard of them.
Even the Razzies are listed on the IMDb, they get press, and they *mock*
the award ceremonies and the movies for which they're given.
> Apart from the fact that that's the only kind they make -- and probably the
> only ones available this past year -- so what? I say again, it's the work, not
> the age level that's really important. Is there anybody in the furry fandom who
> didn't think that either BROTHER BEAR or FINDING NEMO somehow touched them or
> were evocative at some stage? It's the quality of the work that matters, not
> the age-group that it's intended for. Consider that Neil Gaiman won a Hugo this
> past year for a -children's- story.
What about _Big Fish_? _Seabiscuit_? _Underworld_? _Cat in the Hat_?
Seems like there are more than just animated kids' films for furry
motion picture awards. But again, six nominees on the Recommended
Reading List, all animated directed at kids, and five of them made it to
the final ballot.
It's not that children's works cannot or should not win awards. But when
that's ALL that seems to get nominated and awarded the top award, it
diminishes the ability for the rest of the awards to distance themselves
from this in the general population's eyes.
There are adult-level movies out there. They never see the light of the
Recommended Reading List, and as such, have no shot of being nominated,
let alone winning, the award.
>>_You_ may not see it this way, but that's not the point of the awards. The
>>point of the awards are to mean something, to promote achievements in the
>>areas for which they are given. If people aren't willing to see them as
>>prestigious or for things other than children's animation, let's say, then
>>people really won't use them to promote their own names or brands, and thus,
>>apathy continues to reign in.
>
> You're right, I don't see it that way.
Okay, then, explain why no one's bothered so far? Because they're young?
Perhaps, but when will they mature enough that people will want to
associate themselves with winning the award? It shouldn't have to take
years if the awards are on level with, say, the Bram Stoker award.
There's something wrong with either their ambition or their worth.
>>There's a rule in editing collections in the publishing world, in that you
>>never include your own work in the collection, or credit yourself for
>>anything more than editing. There's also a rule in awards that the awards
>>body recuses themselves completely from any awards.
>
> Fred has no stories in the collection. Only an introduction. And he
> -hasn't- taken any credit for anything beyond that, so far as I've seen. And
> without first-hand knowledge of what's going on behind the scenes, I don't know
> that Fred has any reason to recuse himself just yet. I don't think it was he
> that nominated the book, or that he's doing anything to promote it over and
> above the other nominees. Recuse himself in what way? Does that mean he should
> be barred from voting? Or that he should remove himself from the panel? If so,
> we'll probably find that most if not all of the panel would have to be recused
> for pretty much the same reason, in that they've most likely contributed to one
> nominee or another. If so, who'll be left to run the awards at all? Is that
> rule thing written in stone, or simply a condition that most awards follow as a
> matter of course? I mean, are there any exceptions out there?
Except the RRL and the Nominees list both say Fred is the _EDITOR_ of
the work. Fred also has some major capacity with the awards as he mails
out the final ballots, apparently.
Let's see... "Fred Patten won this award... That's the guy I sent my
final ballot to..."
Not everyone knows Fred Patten personally. For him to be on the RRL,
which is the pre-nomination list apparent, and now on the nomination
list, puts the prestige and unbiased worth of the awards into
uncertainty. Whether or not Fred deserves the nomination and the award,
he should not be part of the board or in any way affiliated with the
awards if he wants to win, or he should recuse himself.
I can't think of a single genre or organization award where the people
who count the votes, hand out the awards, are part of the award
committee or help nominate are ever on the nominees or winners lists. If
anyone can come up with one (and one that's at least halfway to the
Nebula Awards' prestige, let's say), I'll apologize. But I don't see
this as possible.
>>The fact that Fred Patten's name appears not once, but twice, in the
>>nominees will cause the awards to lose any prestige left they may have had.
>>Regardless of whether people may have actually nominated them, they need to
>>be recused because of their ties with the award's board.
>
> I'd be more willing to give Fred a lot more leeway here. If we couldn't
> trust Fred to be fair, for pete's sake, who -could- we trust?
_I_ don't know Fred. I'm sure more than half the people voting don't
know him beyond just a name. How can anyone be sure?
Plus, what about next year? If more people are expected to vote, and
there's someone who is somehow attached to final ballots who won last
year, people will question the quality of the awards.
I know I question them based on the winners, the lack of branding with
winners, and the nominees all coming from the RRL.
>>If either of them win their category, it will further darken the awards,
>>that perhaps they won because of their ties. It doesn't matter that they won
>>fair-and-square, people just won't see it that way.
>
> I think you're reaching, to be honest, and are making a mountain out of a
> molehill. It might be the perception of a very few, but will have no greater
> effect than that.
Even very few can grow. If even one person brings up the question of how
unbiased the awards are given that someone wins who also is part of the
balloting, then there's already something wrong. Don't belittle that one
person asking by saying that only very few will have a problem.
NO ONE has a problem with how the Bram Stokers' winners won, because
they're independent of the awarding board.
>>Or it's the award's responsibility not to link any until they're all linked?
>
> Why do that? If they have a link at all, then they should do their best to
> do so. -That- is the extent of their responsibility, apart from perhaps
> contacting those without an online presence to please upload their work for
> display. It's not their job, however, to do more than that.
Because it creates a bias. You can't vote for the items you can't see.
Why do you think that independent film studios complained when the
Academy said no screeners were to be sent for the Oscar Award
nominations/voting? Because it is easy to see a big-budget film, as they
open to over 2,000 screens across the nation, but many of these indies
have maybe 200-300 screens. To have a better chance at winning, they
send out screeners so that those who will be voting CAN be more unbiased.
No, it's not their job to upload the images for the artists, but we're
talking about making the UMA more prestigious and more worthy, right? We
want people respecting the awards, nominating and voting more, and caring?
Thus the awards have more work ahead of them to achieve this. If the
fandom doesn't seem to care, is that the fandom's fault or the award's
fault?
>>And ask permission to link them? They go so far as to put together a long
>>list of recommended reading, which I noted you didn't touch on when I said
>>this needs to stop,
>
> Sorry. I didn't mention it, because I didn't agree with your opinion, but
> didn't feel it needed much more said beyond that. Therefore... I disagree that
> it -needs- to stop. It's a recommended reading list, and that's all. I find it
> helpful, as it alerts me to stuff I might not have looked at or known about
> previously.
Beyond that all the nominees came from the List? Among them, two works
from the person who's mailing out the final ballots, apparently? You
have *NO* problems with these?
I'd stop caring about an award that seems biased in their reading list
(no adult-oriented motion pictures have EVER made the List... Therefore,
none have been nominated and none have won), when this list chooses the
nominees. Do you disagree about this? I mean, there are about two
hundred online comics that could be considered furry, why aren't we
recommended even half of them? Even one quarter of them? There are over
fifty games released a year that could be considered furry. Why did we
only have six, all of which were for video game consoles?
I believe I have a valid point about this. The RRL should be completely
independent of the awards board. It's fine if they want to recommend
them, but do it apart from the awards, and the UMA should not link to it
or mention it in any way.
>>but they can't bother to ask for the art so that the
>>artist has a chance to win the award, or be withdrawn from the nomination if
>>they so wished?
>
> Why can't they withdraw if they want to? What's preventing them?
I don't know? If they were asked for their art and they did not feel
like providing it, then perhaps they don't want to be part of the
awards? Or maybe they just really couldn't care? The only people who
really know are the artists and the awards' board.
>>Again, the awards could not just ask?
>
> Haven't they? I'm not privy to their actions, so I haven't been informed as
> to what they do or don't do when they make their choices. Except in cases of my
> own nominations, when I get an e-mail informing me, or updating the
> information. I suppose if I wanted to withdraw, I could e-mail them back. But
> I don't know that the committee -hasn't- contacted the two respective artists or
> not, or what their responses might have been. After all, they might -not- have
> wanted to have their work posted online, or might even be unable to do so. (Not
> everybody is connected, not even today.)
Right. But there are ways to contact them. Part of a con book? Contact
the con! Etc.
>>If the awards are worthy, then the
>>people nominated would love to provide for free samples of their work, and
>>may even promote the awards so people can vote.
>
> Makes sense. So, why aren't they?
That's my whole point. People really see no point in the awards. I've
provided ample reasons why, and you've dismissed them based on your
opinion, rather than seeing another point that may be correct.
This above question should open your eyes. Why aren't Disney and
Dreamworks adding "Winner of the Ursa Major Award for Best Motion
Picture"? Because no one knows who the UMAs are. Why? Because they
aren't prestigious, and they aren't advertising, and they really aren't
unbiased and all-encompassing of the fandom itself.
I've explained why I feel these are happening. iBuck has pointed out
that nominations not on the list apparently aren't getting on the
nominee list. If people want to vote for something and they don't get
any of their nominees on the ballot time and time again, are they going
to continue bothering? Will they vote for a winner if they didn't want
any of the people on the nominee ballot to win anyways?
These are problems that need to be fixed. The RRL is a major problem
that can easily be fixed.
>>I've seen writers hand out
>>booklets, ashcans, bookmarks, stickers, etc., letting people know they were
>>up for the Nebula or Hugo or Bram Stoker, because these are great awards to
>>tie to your name. You get no money from the award, but fans know that they
>>really mean something. No one really cares about the UMAs.
>
> You're not talking to the right people. I know a few of the other nominees,
> and they're quite flattered.
Flattered does not equate to promoting the nomination. I can be
flattered that someone enjoys something of mine, but if they aren't
willing to buy it, it's just them saying something, and does nothing to
help my career nor pay the bills. I've got other things I can focus on
to get these accomplished.
When the UMAs start making their winners more money or helping their
careers farther, then you'll see the right people promoting their
nominations and awards.
>>People really aren't going out of their way to win them.
>
> What, like an election campaign, you mean? First off, it depends on who you
> mean; some are being vocal in their respective corners. Secondly, most of the
> nominees are probably too otherwise busy with other ongoing projects to get
> overly concerned about it. Thirdly, there will probably be more noise as it
> gets closer to the final days of voting.
Like people putting on their website, "My comic book is a finalist for
the 2003 Ursa Major Awards. Click here for more information and to vote."
Like being an artist at a convention and with every print sale or
sketchbook you do, you include a little quarter-page ad stating you're
up for best illustration for 2003. Here's the URL to get information on
the awards and how to vote.
When people care about winning the awards, they'll make sure they let
their fans know they can help them win.
>>> "Where are the board games, RPG games, etc?" Nobody nominated them.
>>>Either there was nothing that impressive out there, or nobody bothered to
>>>make a nomination.
>>
>>Or, really, the Recommended List had six console games on it. All five
>>nominated games came from that list. Fred Patten's works appear on that
>>list. I'm a bit tired now, but I would wager that I could go through the
>>nominees and find at least 90% of them from that recommended list.
>
> Possibly. But the nominations were open to anything new that anyone wanted
> to add to it. If no one did, that's not the fault of the award committee.
Except, as iBuck stated, someone did! He voted for games that weren't on
the list, and not one made it. The problem is that the RRL seems to be
"Here's what you can vote for" to too many people. This should be
blatantly obvious, and thus, the reason why nothing off the list seems
to get nominated. It's not people not bothering to nominate, it's the
awards already choosing what they want to see win.
Whether that's the intention or not, it's happening.
>>> If the furry awards aren't very impressive in form, it's because the
>>>furry fans can't afford anything better. Sure, a plaque or a statue would
>>>be great. I'm all for it. Who's paying for it?
>>
>>The awards.
>
> With what? It's a volunteer committee, who are putting their time and
> effort into it as it is. (And, as noted elsewhere, the award -is- a plaque, so
> perhaps this particular argument is moot anyway.)
Most awards are done by organizations. The only image I've seen of the
award is what appears to be a small framed letter. There's really
nothing else for the award.
Time for the Awards to start negotiating a way to have a convention eat
some of the cost for making better awards, or else, be forever just a
web-based award. Even if they do setup at a con and give out a small
plaque, ANY volunteers can really do this. The awards need to break out
and really shine above what anyone can do, to make themselves less of a
volunteer group and more of an awards organization.
>>Again, you can't really expect the people receiving the awards
>>to promote them if the awards aren't going to shell out anything. You can't
>>expect them to be taken seriously if they're like any other web-based award.
>>
>>What the Awards should do, as I suggested, is have the award ceremony at a
>>big con. Make it part of the sponsorship dinner, or a separate dinner or
>>festivity. Charge for the entry at a nominal amount, or ask that the con
>>attach a small amount to the cost of at-the-door registrations, or
>>something. Hell, the WorldCons are normally like $150 for the convention
>>regardless of who you are, because the money goes toward paying for the
>>statues and such.
>
> Nobody is going to a furry con is going to pay even $25 a plate for a
> banquet in order to support the awards. It has nothing to do with the
> worthiness of the award, but with the fact that nobody is going to bring that
> much money to spend, and if they do, it will be directed towards other interests
> at the convention.
Then that's the awards' problem. People spend an extra $100-$200 to
sponsor the CON, why is a $25 sponsorship to an awards cermony that's
meaningful so hard to comprehend. Someone spent $10K on a painting at a
convention last year.
If the awards mean something and there's prestige in them, then this
will happen. If the awards want to remain as they are, then yes, perhaps
this will never happen.
_I_ am voicing my concerns to change this, and make them something
better. This is why I'm presenting my arguments and hoping they get
heard by the right people, or more debates happen. Not excuses, and not
"_I_ wouldn't do that..." rebuttals.
>>I think you're talking about the average YOUNG furry fan.
>
> I'm talking about the AVERAGE furry fan. I'm hardly young, and though
> firmly employed, I can barely scrape enough cash to attend a LOCAL furry con.
> (Good job I'm on the con committee.)
And I've seen people in their thirties and above easily shell out
$300-$500 for purchases at my booth alone, or buying art well above this
price. I see far more furry fans with some money than those without at
these cons.
Maybe I'm just hanging with a different crowd. I'll ask around more
often when I'm out at these cons.
>>I've seen people pull out gold cars to pay for their items at Furry Cons.
>
> Who have YOU been hanging around with?? I seldom see anyone with more than
> just enough cash to get through the con and planefare there and back.
Apparently I do hang out with a different crowd. Sorry, my impressions
of these people are built on those who would be the target nominees and
winners and supporters of such awards. Quality artists, publishers,
writers, etc.
>>I've seen people with $3000 cameras and $2000 fursuits walking around the
>>conventions.
>
> Money already spent well in advance of the convention, and probably scrimped
> over a period of months SPECIFICALLY for those items. Not an indication of
> free-spending cash in the attendee's pocket.
No, most of these are spent with the purpose of a long-term investment.
They don't scrimp together to pay for it, they save their money for such
purchases all the time. Or they pay for them on credit and pay them off
as quickly as they can without hurting their budgets.
These people can afford to spend a little more on a special dinner to
meet the supposed cream of the crop of furry fandom. That is, if these
winners bother going to the convention of the awards. Having it at a
small convention in Montreal this year will pretty much kill most of
this, I think.
>>I've seen artists pull in over a grand in sales at a weekend.
>
> Pft. You aren't fooling me. I run a dealer's room. SOME artists do very
> well, others don't. And the last few years have been lean, even if the trend
> has been improving.
Sorry, I'm not trying to fool you, just telling the truth. I know a few
dealers at AC 2003 who sold over $3,000 in products over the weekend and
many, many artists who scored well over $500 easily. A few probably got
well past $1,000 alone.
These artists can afford to keep going to conventions because of the
money at these shows. Same with the dealers. I'd say last year was one
of the biggest in terms of sales for vendors and artists at Anthrocon,
so I don't know how lean it really could have been.
>>>The awards are still young. Give it some time to grow and it'll shape
>>>up and gain a little prestige.
>>
>>That's the thing. They won't really grow and shape up if they're not willing
>>to change. As they are, they're nothing more than a web-award. Just
>>something extra to list on your website, which a vast majority of the
>>nominees and winners ARE NOT doing.
>>
>>This should be proof that there's something wrong, and a better dialogue
>>opened as to why. My points should illustrate some, at least.
>
> I'm not convinced by the argument. I think it's too soon to be able to make
> a solid judgment as to whether or not the award committee is doing everything it
> can be or not. I know a few of those on the committee, and while I don't know
> everything that's going on behind the scenes -- not much at all, actually -- I
> do know that they are giving things great consideration and are trying the
> things they feel are best. Some things simply need time to grow. I trust them
> to be making an effort. If they tried some of the things you're suggesting, it
> would probably collapse under the weight of reaching too high all at once
> instead of taking the small steps it needs to find its way and maintain its
> balance. Gotta walk before you can run.
Right, which is why I'm making good suggestions here, mainly based on
the awards that have been around a while and what makes them work, as
well as the furry fandom itself and what parts of it are readily
available and produced by its professionals.
What's wrong with trying some of the things I've suggested? You assert
that it would probably collapse for reaching too high. Yet, the awards
already state they're the equivalent of such awards as the Bram Stokers.
If they're at this level, then they should be reaching that level.
Or, really, it's the ambition, and as the apathy reflects, they just
aren't even close to this level. My suggestions are ways to get closer
to this level. No, they don't need to be done all at once, but in the
least, the RRL needs to go, and the categories need to change for the
better.
Disney and Dreamworks just really aren't furry companies. They may make
movies that furries like, but they'll probably never put the UMA tag on
their trailers or DVD cases. It's just too small for them, and probably
always will be for how focused the awards are.
Kathmandu
news:c4nq5b$2b3s$1...@velox.critter.net...
>Between Darkness and Light had humans and aliens
>(and not really anthro aliens, just fuzzy ones)
What, pray tell, do you consider furry? As a fan of the series I have to
say there isn't anything that exemplifies what furry is better that a
species of felinoid aliens that can shed their clothing and pass as animals
and hunt and run on all fours. I think it is spot on for a nomination
myself. Fuzzy aliens are why I'm a furry to begin with. Since Lisanne
Norman is a furry herself and has frequented this newsgroup from time to
time in the past and may well drop in now I think there isn't a better
nomination that can be made.
I think the award should focus mainly on the fandom though but what is out
there? The field is so small that there really isn't any competition.
"Ghost Warrior" should be released this year and no matter how good or bad
it is will be irrelevant since it will likely be the only "Furry" film made
from within the fandom this year.
My advice, make your own awards if you don't like the Ursa Major awards.
Samantha Ann Patterson
Ghost Warrior is a short.
My short 'Free as a Bird' ran at FC2004.
So did a short by Smudge at Backbreaker Studio.
I also know at least 3 other furry community animators that have produced
shorts,
And that's WITHOUT counting all the nifty Korean and Japanese
flash animation featuring cat and bunny characters.
Okay, 'Ghost Warrior' has the highest jizz factor for fanboys. It uses
an expensive fur renderer, rembrandt lighting, has swords, and the main
character seems rather gayish and it gets into the who mysticism thing.
Doesn't flick my bic at all.
My point is, don't be a drooling fanboy and ignore the hard work of
lots of other people just because they aren't what gets you hot.
You're doing the very thing that people like Mike Eisner do when
saying '2D is teh suk! 3D roxxors!'
-Samantha, woman of wounded pride
(website for the curious: http://circle.twu.net/animate)
In article <c4sp04$1fm2$1...@velox.critter.net>,
Kathmandu <kath...@cableone.com> wrote:
>"PlanetFur" <nos...@nospam.planetfur.com> wrote in message
>news:c4nq5b$2b3s$1...@velox.critter.net...
>
PlanetFur
> My advice, make your own awards if you don't like the Ursa Major awards.
See, this crap is why furries are the laughing stock of geekdom and seen
as juvenile fanboys.
Here we have an awards system which is obviously broken, in that the
award winners seem not to care, the nominations are slim, and in
reality, hardly anyone's ever heard of the Ursa Major Awards.
The biggest rebuttal to my criticism of them is that they're good and if
I don't like them, I should make my own.
This is schoolyard bullshit. If the awards want to be the Bram Stokers
of the Furry Fandom, then they should start BEING the Bram Stokers of
the Furry Fandom, not "Yet Another Furry Award". If you don't like
something, make your own. Except, well, if everyone did that with the
awards, they would ALL be meaningless.
If you believe the UMA are good and they need no change, and those who
want something better should make their own, then indeed, Furry awards
will never have prestige.
It's time to mature and realize that criticism of broken systems is a
way of open debate about how to FIX things, not complain and do nothing.
PlanetFur
> Ghost Warrior is a short.
> My short 'Free as a Bird' ran at FC2004.
> So did a short by Smudge at Backbreaker Studio.
> I also know at least 3 other furry community animators that have produced
> shorts,
> And that's WITHOUT counting all the nifty Korean and Japanese
> flash animation featuring cat and bunny characters.
Right. There _are_ furries working on multimedia works, but don't have
the budgets for full feature-length motion pictures, nor to make
television series. This is why my suggestion was just to have a
multimedia award, so that furries COULD be eligible and we'd stop having
to look outside the fandom to award achievements IN the fandom.
> Okay, 'Ghost Warrior' has the highest jizz factor for fanboys. It uses
> an expensive fur renderer, rembrandt lighting, has swords, and the main
> character seems rather gayish and it gets into the who mysticism thing.
> Doesn't flick my bic at all.
That's just an opinion. But if GW had a shot against full-length
kids-oriented animated films (which seem to be about 90% of the
recommended readings, and about 95% of the nominations so far), then I'd
hope it would win. I doubt it, though, no matter how good it is, because
Disney, Dreamworks and Fox have much larger budgets.
> My point is, don't be a drooling fanboy and ignore the hard work of
> lots of other people just because they aren't what gets you hot.
> You're doing the very thing that people like Mike Eisner do when
> saying '2D is teh suk! 3D roxxors!'
Or, really, doing injustice to awards to showcase achievements in the
furry fandom. The RRL hardly stays within the fandom until you get to
very short works (illustration and short story), and some of the comics.
In reality, this, I do believe, is why people don't know about the
awards, and really don't care. Not only this, but the RRL *should* be
recommending works done by furries ONLY, as it's only recommended.
Alas, people seem to vote from this list, which hardly ever showcases
what furries do in the larger categories. Yeah, Shrek is probably better
than Rowsby's animation tests, but Shrek had corporations and millions
behind it, Rowsby does not.
And, as Kathmandu pointed out, the people who say the UMAs aren't broken
aren't really seeing that there are plenty of people working in the
fandom making the arts who are unheard of. And then someone on the team
of the UMAs has to say that people are apathetic about nominating.
Cause, and effect.
Charles Melville
PlanetFur wrote:
> Charles Melville wrote:
>
> > Not if it's meant to be a furry award. Problem here being just how you
> > define 'furry', and the fandom tends to define it pretty broadly. As such,
> > werewolves and fuzzy aliens seem to fall within the definition. Now, if you
> > want to change or firmly fix the definition of 'furry', have to it and good
> > luck. I take the presumption that this matter has already been taken into
> > consideration by those in charge of the awards when they set the categories.
>
> Taken from the UMA homepage as to their purpose:
>
> More formally known as the Annual Anthropomorphic Literature and Arts of
> the Year Awards, the Ursa Major Awards are awarded anually for
> excellence in the furry arts. They are intended as Anthropomorphic
> (a.k.a. Furry) Fandom's equivalents of S-F fandom's Hugo Awards, mystery
> fandom's Anthony Awards, horror fandom's Bram Stoker Awards, and so forth.
>
> If it's the Furry Fandom's equivalent of these awards, then it should
> just be like these awards. They all award great achievements in their
> own respective categories of those genres.
>
> Now, what would you define as furry? It says Furry Fandom, and
> excellence in furry arts. Would anything remotely related to animals be
> eligible? Sentient animal-human hybrid beings? Just anything organic
> that's anthropomorphized?
Don't talk to me about it; it's not -my- definition. It's simply the one that's
in general usage. I've my own complaints about, and I suspect that we don't really
disagree very much over it. But the generally accepted one is 'anything vaguely
animallike with fur, or maybe scales'. So long as that's the generally accepted
definition, I would think the awards have to reflect that in its selections.
> In any case, a book mostly about necromancers and vampires, and another
> with humans and fuzzy aliens, I don't believe, fit these categories.
But not very many people here agree with that. See Kathmandu's response elsewhere
on that score; his is not the only voice in favor of that opinion.
> There were far better choices. The only reason these made the final
> list? They were part of the 11 novels on the Recommended Reading List.
> In fact, I haven't located a single nomination that was not part of the
> Recommended Reading List.
I may be mistaken, but I had believed that the RRL was a culmination of the
nominations as they came in. That is, it is -comprised- of nominations. You mention
that some nominations have been ignored or lost along the way; now, I don't know the
system they're using to make eliminations, but perhaps, if they're genuine selections,
they require a minimum number of seconds in order to list it as a finalist? Does
anybody out there have better info on the process behind the nominations?
> > I've had e-mail notices about it, and it's been publicized on the Flayrah
> > and DutchFurs sites that I know of. If I search about I bet I'll find evidence
> > of it being likewise posted on the MUCKS, weblogs and email lists. (In fact,
> > I've read a few happy notices on weblogs from a couple of people who were
> > nominated, and do plan to make one myself.) That means it going out through the
> > main furry channels. Apart from taking out a series of TV commercials, how else
> > should it be publicized?
>
> No offense to Flayrah and DutchFurs, but they're more of promoting press
> reports with regards to this.
...and...?
> The real test are when the people who
> publish these works put "Winner/Nominee of the So-and-So Ursa Major
> Award" on their publications, resumes, etc. If there's a mention in an
> email or in a MUCK or it's on Flayrah/DutchFurs, it's still not anything
> more than a web-award.
I think that's something that will take a bit more time to occur. It's only a
couple of years old, and it takes a while for everything to catch up.
> > Apart from the fact that that's the only kind they make -- and probably the
> > only ones available this past year -- so what? I say again, it's the work, not
> > the age level that's really important. Is there anybody in the furry fandom who
> > didn't think that either BROTHER BEAR or FINDING NEMO somehow touched them or
> > were evocative at some stage? It's the quality of the work that matters, not
> > the age-group that it's intended for. Consider that Neil Gaiman won a Hugo this
> > past year for a -children's- story.
>
> What about _Big Fish_? _Seabiscuit_? _Underworld_?
What about them? How are any of these furry, except in the most tangential way?
These are even more 'out there' than the book selections you were complaining about up
above. I thought SEABISCUIT was a pretty darn good movie, but -furry-? C'mon.
> _Cat in the Hat_?
Not worthy. If anything, it deserves a Razzie. Not only is it a KID'S MOVIE, but
a desecration of the book. Frankly, I'd've been horrified if it had been nominated.
> Seems like there are more than just animated kids' films for furry
> motion picture awards.
So far, unproven.
> But again, six nominees on the Recommended
> Reading List, all animated directed at kids, and five of them made it to
> the final ballot.
>
> It's not that children's works cannot or should not win awards. But when
> that's ALL that seems to get nominated and awarded the top award, it
> diminishes the ability for the rest of the awards to distance themselves
> from this in the general population's eyes.
Tell it to the movie studios. We can't promote or award what ain't there.
> There are adult-level movies out there. They never see the light of the
> Recommended Reading List, and as such, have no shot of being nominated,
> let alone winning, the award.
I repeat, as yet unproven.
> >>_You_ may not see it this way, but that's not the point of the awards. The
> >>point of the awards are to mean something, to promote achievements in the
> >>areas for which they are given. If people aren't willing to see them as
> >>prestigious or for things other than children's animation, let's say, then
> >>people really won't use them to promote their own names or brands, and thus,
> >>apathy continues to reign in.
> >
> > You're right, I don't see it that way.
>
> Okay, then, explain why no one's bothered so far? Because they're young?
For the most simple reason in the world: Inertia. It's a new thing, certainly in
this fandom, and trying to get furry fandom excited about much of anything is like
trying to get a herd of cats to sit up and do tricks in complete unison. They'll
eventually come around and participate, eventually, in time, but not quickly, and
probably not soon. The only way their attentions will be instantly engaged is if we
add sex to the event.
> (SNIP re: Fred Patten)
I'm sorry, but I think the whole thing you've got about Fred Patten's involvement
here is a lot of concern over nothing at all. The minute someone can prove a problem
with his involvement, or show some solid evidence of some sort of double standard or
conflict of interest, I'll take it serious. Until nothing, I'm content to let it be.
> >>Or it's the award's responsibility not to link any until they're all linked?
> >
> > Why do that? If they have a link at all, then they should do their best to
> > do so. -That- is the extent of their responsibility, apart from perhaps
> > contacting those without an online presence to please upload their work for
> > display. It's not their job, however, to do more than that.
>
> Because it creates a bias. You can't vote for the items you can't see.
Then it's up to the artists to post their respective works and alert the UMA that
they're available for linkage.
> Why do you think that independent film studios complained when the
> Academy said no screeners were to be sent for the Oscar Award
> nominations/voting? Because it is easy to see a big-budget film, as they
> open to over 2,000 screens across the nation, but many of these indies
> have maybe 200-300 screens. To have a better chance at winning, they
> send out screeners so that those who will be voting CAN be more unbiased.
Totally different situation. The indies were being -denied- a fair opportunity to
have their work screened in the name of product security. Nobody's denying anybody a
chance to have their work viewed here; but they have to get up and make the work
available.
> >>And ask permission to link them? They go so far as to put together a long
> >>list of recommended reading, which I noted you didn't touch on when I said
> >>this needs to stop,
> >
> > Sorry. I didn't mention it, because I didn't agree with your opinion, but
> > didn't feel it needed much more said beyond that. Therefore... I disagree that
> > it -needs- to stop. It's a recommended reading list, and that's all. I find it
> > helpful, as it alerts me to stuff I might not have looked at or known about
> > previously.
>
> Beyond that all the nominees came from the List? Among them, two works
> from the person who's mailing out the final ballots, apparently? You
> have *NO* problems with these?
Not a one.
> I'd stop caring about an award that seems biased in their reading list
> (no adult-oriented motion pictures have EVER made the List... Therefore,
> none have been nominated and none have won),
My view is you're paying attention to the tail instead of the dog that's wagging
it. If there's no adult-oriented film nominated, then either there were none, or
there were none that anyone felt strongly enough to nominate. That's not bias, that's
just a simple vacuum.
> when this list chooses the
> nominees. Do you disagree about this? I mean, there are about two
> hundred online comics that could be considered furry, why aren't we
> recommended even half of them? Even one quarter of them? There are over
> fifty games released a year that could be considered furry. Why did we
> only have six, all of which were for video game consoles?
What I say above applies here as well. If they're out there, and you thought they
were worthy, then you should have nominated them.
> >>but they can't bother to ask for the art so that the
> >>artist has a chance to win the award, or be withdrawn from the nomination if
> >>they so wished?
> >
> > Why can't they withdraw if they want to? What's preventing them?
>
> I don't know? If they were asked for their art and they did not feel
> like providing it, then perhaps they don't want to be part of the
> awards? Or maybe they just really couldn't care? The only people who
> really know are the artists and the awards' board.
Exactly. And neither of us are privy to that information and thus we are engaging
in nothing more than endless speculations.
> >>Again, the awards could not just ask?
> >
> > Haven't they? I'm not privy to their actions, so I haven't been informed as
> > to what they do or don't do when they make their choices. Except in cases of my
> > own nominations, when I get an e-mail informing me, or updating the
> > information. I suppose if I wanted to withdraw, I could e-mail them back. But
> > I don't know that the committee -hasn't- contacted the two respective artists or
> > not, or what their responses might have been. After all, they might -not- have
> > wanted to have their work posted online, or might even be unable to do so. (Not
> > everybody is connected, not even today.)
>
> Right. But there are ways to contact them. Part of a con book? Contact
> the con! Etc.
But the con can't approve uploading the artist's work without his permission, and
you can't automatically assume that it's possible for them to contact the artist.
Personal experience has shown me how hard it can be to contact people when you need
to, even with the miracle of e-mail. (In this case, it so happens that they can, and
it'll probably be brought to their attentions at earliest mention, but then it's up to
them and their personal schedules.)
> >>People really aren't going out of their way to win them.
> >
> > What, like an election campaign, you mean? First off, it depends on who you
> > mean; some are being vocal in their respective corners. Secondly, most of the
> > nominees are probably too otherwise busy with other ongoing projects to get
> > overly concerned about it. Thirdly, there will probably be more noise as it
> > gets closer to the final days of voting.
>
> Like people putting on their website, "My comic book is a finalist for
> the 2003 Ursa Major Awards. Click here for more information and to vote."
Well, that's up to the individual recipient. Not much the UMA can do about that.
> Like being an artist at a convention and with every print sale or
> sketchbook you do, you include a little quarter-page ad stating you're
> up for best illustration for 2003. Here's the URL to get information on
> the awards and how to vote.
To be honest, not many in the furry fandom are even remotely that industrious to
begin with. The ones that are, are most likely looking to doing that very thing. I
know of at least one writer who's promoting her nomination as much as she can. I
expect one likely reason no one else is much doing this is probably because it never
occured to any of them.
> > Nobody is going to a furry con is going to pay even $25 a plate for a
> > banquet in order to support the awards. It has nothing to do with the
> > worthiness of the award, but with the fact that nobody is going to bring that
> > much money to spend, and if they do, it will be directed towards other interests
> > at the convention.
>
> Then that's the awards' problem. People spend an extra $100-$200 to
> sponsor the CON, why is a $25 sponsorship to an awards cermony that's
> meaningful so hard to comprehend. Someone spent $10K on a painting at a
> convention last year.
Then I guess we need to talk to -that- person. He seems to be the only one in the
fandom who has that much money to burn.
> Apparently I do hang out with a different crowd. Sorry, my impressions
> of these people are built on those who would be the target nominees and
> winners and supporters of such awards. Quality artists, publishers,
> writers, etc.
One of the things I hear from so many who attend the cons is that they're -not-
there for the art or books, but for the gathering; the dealer's room tends to be
incidental, except as a gathering place. That doesn't mean that they won't spend, or
that there's nothing there that they want, but it's less a concern than the experience
of the con and meeting with people. Which means the money is generally held in
reserve for special wants (that one item in the whole con) or for food and lodging.
> >>I've seen artists pull in over a grand in sales at a weekend.
> >
> > Pft. You aren't fooling me. I run a dealer's room. SOME artists do very
> > well, others don't. And the last few years have been lean, even if the trend
> > has been improving.
>
> Sorry, I'm not trying to fool you, just telling the truth. I know a few
> dealers at AC 2003 who sold over $3,000 in products over the weekend and
> many, many artists who scored well over $500 easily. A few probably got
> well past $1,000 alone.
Considering the number of attendees, I can believe that. But that wouldn't break
down to very much spent by the individual attendee. And most of the artists will lose
that money in costs and expenses during the con; what they actually take away will be
a smaller percentage.
Kathmandu
Well, here is some more school yard crap. You are nuts. Pbbbththth!
Ursa Majors were just someone going, "Hmmm we need some awards to give
out," and did it. Considering I could care less about them I figure you can
make up some and give them out as you see fit and be just as valid.
Awards like this are popularity contests and influenced by fads more than
quality...
Kathmandu
"Samantha Ann Patterson" <cir...@deeptht.armory.com> wrote in message
news:4071ead0$0$438$8ee...@newsreader.tycho.net...
> Owowow. Why don't you just stab me with a rusty spoon? It'd be less
painful!
Sorry, it was only an example. Since I didn't go to a convention and
haven't been exposed to too many for this year.
Such drama...
PlanetFur
> Don't talk to me about it; it's not -my- definition. It's simply the one that's
> in general usage. I've my own complaints about, and I suspect that we don't really
> disagree very much over it. But the generally accepted one is 'anything vaguely
> animallike with fur, or maybe scales'. So long as that's the generally accepted
> definition, I would think the awards have to reflect that in its selections.
Right, but you're debating that certain things are eligible and others
are not based on Furry.
What about insects? They have neither fur nor scales. Amphibians?
The broader it gets, the more which will be eligible.
>>In any case, a book mostly about necromancers and vampires, and another
>>with humans and fuzzy aliens, I don't believe, fit these categories.
>
> But not very many people here agree with that. See Kathmandu's response elsewhere
> on that score; his is not the only voice in favor of that opinion.
Right, but then again, the argument I'm making is that people favoring
things OUTSIDE the fandom are making it harder for the fandom to care
about the awards. Who wants to bother with an award that's only going to
go to companies or publishers who will never show up to a Furry Con?
>>There were far better choices. The only reason these made the final
>>list? They were part of the 11 novels on the Recommended Reading List.
>>In fact, I haven't located a single nomination that was not part of the
>>Recommended Reading List.
>
> I may be mistaken, but I had believed that the RRL was a culmination of the
> nominations as they came in. That is, it is -comprised- of nominations. You mention
> that some nominations have been ignored or lost along the way; now, I don't know the
> system they're using to make eliminations, but perhaps, if they're genuine selections,
> they require a minimum number of seconds in order to list it as a finalist? Does
> anybody out there have better info on the process behind the nominations?
You are mistaken. The RRL, according to the UMA, is what is eligible to
be nominated, because apparently people were having trouble coming up
with what was eligible.
Now it's a broken system. Obviously there's a serious problem here. The
Awards commitee now chooses the nominees based on their preferences, as
we've seen that you must be on that list to be nominated, and eventually
win. And they're overlooking a considerable amount of works.
>>No offense to Flayrah and DutchFurs, but they're more of promoting press
>>reports with regards to this.
>
> ...and...?
The point is that Flayrah and DutchFurs are *NOT* promoting anything,
merely reiterating in a central location what press information they
see. These are not opinion sites nor personal sites. They just report.
Using these as saying people are promoting the awards is incorrect.
They're taking the news from the UMA and putting it up for people to read.
>>The real test are when the people who
>>publish these works put "Winner/Nominee of the So-and-So Ursa Major
>>Award" on their publications, resumes, etc. If there's a mention in an
>>email or in a MUCK or it's on Flayrah/DutchFurs, it's still not anything
>>more than a web-award.
>
> I think that's something that will take a bit more time to occur. It's only a
> couple of years old, and it takes a while for everything to catch up.
Even in five more years, will people still be saying this if nothing
changes? Most organization and genre awards are only accepted once they
reach prestige. People voting on whether the TMNT or Digimon are better
TV Series will not reach this point, as the companies who produce these
really could care less about a fan award.
>>> Apart from the fact that that's the only kind they make -- and probably the
>>>only ones available this past year -- so what? I say again, it's the work, not
>>>the age level that's really important. Is there anybody in the furry fandom who
>>>didn't think that either BROTHER BEAR or FINDING NEMO somehow touched them or
>>>were evocative at some stage? It's the quality of the work that matters, not
>>>the age-group that it's intended for. Consider that Neil Gaiman won a Hugo this
>>>past year for a -children's- story.
>>
>>What about _Big Fish_? _Seabiscuit_? _Underworld_?
>
> What about them? How are any of these furry, except in the most tangential way?
> These are even more 'out there' than the book selections you were complaining about up
> above. I thought SEABISCUIT was a pretty darn good movie, but -furry-? C'mon.
If Cerulean Sins is furry, why isn't Underworld or Big Fish? And
Seabiscuit was a docudrama about THE HORSE and its team.
>>_Cat in the Hat_?
>
> Not worthy. If anything, it deserves a Razzie. Not only is it a KID'S MOVIE, but
> a desecration of the book. Frankly, I'd've been horrified if it had been nominated.
That's your opinion. I feel other works aren't worthy of the award (like
Brother Bear), but that's just my opinion. Problem here, is that the RRL
didn't include it, so it had no shot of ever being nominated. I keep
reiterating this point, but it fails to register. What more proof do you
require?
>>Seems like there are more than just animated kids' films for furry
>>motion picture awards.
>
> So far, unproven.
I just pointed them out. You just responded to them. But you applied
your OPINION, while I'm applying ELIGIBILITY.
The Awards people should not be determining what they think should win
the awards. Otherwise, people will really care less about them. You have
to move past this and fix the problems, so that the FANDOM can choose
what it believes deserves these "Bram Stoker of Furry" awards.
>>But again, six nominees on the Recommended
>>Reading List, all animated directed at kids, and five of them made it to
>>the final ballot.
>>
>>It's not that children's works cannot or should not win awards. But when
>>that's ALL that seems to get nominated and awarded the top award, it
>>diminishes the ability for the rest of the awards to distance themselves
>>from this in the general population's eyes.
>
> Tell it to the movie studios. We can't promote or award what ain't there.
Except that THERE ARE MULTIMEDIA WORKS IN THE FANDOM. Geez, you and
Kathmandu ignore these and are blinded. Same, apparently, as the Awards
staff. There just may be people who know of works that deserve an
achievement award, but they can't get them nominated because they
weren't on the list, and therefore, there's no point.
Whatever happened to the Gold Digger series? Brittany's a werecheetah,
after all. Shouldn't this deserve a nomination? It was completely
overlooked, and it was done by someone whose comic books are well known
in the furry fandom.
We *could* have promoted it as an achievement. We failed.
>>There are adult-level movies out there. They never see the light of the
>>Recommended Reading List, and as such, have no shot of being nominated,
>>let alone winning, the award.
>
> I repeat, as yet unproven.
Because you choose to ignore or fail to bother researching to see that
it is provable. Look around! Don't just go to one or two sites, or stick
with the same group of people. If you want to see more of this fandom,
look elsewhere. Look overseas. Google, for goodness sakes!
>>>>_You_ may not see it this way, but that's not the point of the awards. The
>>>>point of the awards are to mean something, to promote achievements in the
>>>>areas for which they are given. If people aren't willing to see them as
>>>>prestigious or for things other than children's animation, let's say, then
>>>>people really won't use them to promote their own names or brands, and thus,
>>>>apathy continues to reign in.
>>>
>>> You're right, I don't see it that way.
>>
>>Okay, then, explain why no one's bothered so far? Because they're young?
>
> For the most simple reason in the world: Inertia. It's a new thing, certainly in
> this fandom, and trying to get furry fandom excited about much of anything is like
> trying to get a herd of cats to sit up and do tricks in complete unison. They'll
> eventually come around and participate, eventually, in time, but not quickly, and
> probably not soon. The only way their attentions will be instantly engaged is if we
> add sex to the event.
And after two major years (this is the third), people still haven't
heard of it. People who go to many cons, including the ones where the
UMAs have a panel, still have not heard of them. It's not a matter of
inertia, it's a matter that they're just not worth anyone's time becaue
the Awards have made it this way.
I've pointed out why. Get out of the opinion mindset and debate a valid
point against mine. Go beyond what you know, and put something behind
it. You feel there are no mature motion pictures, and I have pointed out
some. Your conclusion? YOU don't think they're worthy, so they don't count.
Good job.
>>(SNIP re: Fred Patten)
>
> I'm sorry, but I think the whole thing you've got about Fred Patten's involvement
> here is a lot of concern over nothing at all. The minute someone can prove a problem
> with his involvement, or show some solid evidence of some sort of double standard or
> conflict of interest, I'll take it serious. Until nothing, I'm content to let it be.
There is a conflict of interest. He's up for an award from the award
body he's on. It's supposed to be open and voted on by the fandom.
There's a serious conflict. Whether or not he is the best is irrelevant,
he should not be on the panel if he's trying to win, or he should recuse
himself from the award if he wants to remain affiliated.
Again, show me any other award which allows its members to also win a
voting award. You can't find one.
If these awards want to be like the Bram Stokers, they need to act like
it. This is one of the main points that will cause them NOT to be
prestigious, when there's a hint of impropriety. NOT EVERYONE KNOWS
FRED, and as such, cannot determine whether he did anything wrong. It's
the public perception, not yours, not mine, that will make these awards
what they want to be.
>>>>Or it's the award's responsibility not to link any until they're all linked?
>>>
>>> Why do that? If they have a link at all, then they should do their best to
>>>do so. -That- is the extent of their responsibility, apart from perhaps
>>>contacting those without an online presence to please upload their work for
>>>display. It's not their job, however, to do more than that.
>>
>>Because it creates a bias. You can't vote for the items you can't see.
>
> Then it's up to the artists to post their respective works and alert the UMA that
> they're available for linkage.
Why? You're just saying it is without points. Because the awards
shouldn't do anything more? People will not care about them until they
work harder to make people aware of and eliminate any bias from the awards.
If the awards can link some of the images, it should link them all, or
none, to be fair in the category. The awards should easily be able to
get permission to repost these works if they're worth anything. If
they're not, that's the awards' fault.
>>Why do you think that independent film studios complained when the
>>Academy said no screeners were to be sent for the Oscar Award
>>nominations/voting? Because it is easy to see a big-budget film, as they
>>open to over 2,000 screens across the nation, but many of these indies
>>have maybe 200-300 screens. To have a better chance at winning, they
>>send out screeners so that those who will be voting CAN be more unbiased.
>
> Totally different situation. The indies were being -denied- a fair opportunity to
> have their work screened in the name of product security. Nobody's denying anybody a
> chance to have their work viewed here; but they have to get up and make the work
> available.
And again, what if they're unaware? What if they just don't care? That's
again the awards' fault. That's been my whole point about this.
>>>>And ask permission to link them? They go so far as to put together a long
>>>>list of recommended reading, which I noted you didn't touch on when I said
>>>>this needs to stop,
>>>
>>> Sorry. I didn't mention it, because I didn't agree with your opinion, but
>>>didn't feel it needed much more said beyond that. Therefore... I disagree that
>>>it -needs- to stop. It's a recommended reading list, and that's all. I find it
>>>helpful, as it alerts me to stuff I might not have looked at or known about
>>>previously.
>>
>>Beyond that all the nominees came from the List? Among them, two works
>>from the person who's mailing out the final ballots, apparently? You
>>have *NO* problems with these?
>
> Not a one.
Are you unbiased in this?
I would certainly have a problem if the Oscars' voting had to go to a
company for counting, who was owned by Steven Spielberg's company, and
he was up for any number of awards. Whether or not every rule was
followed, if Spielberg even won one award, even if he deserved it, the
Oscars would lose credibility and prestige. This is why a completely
independent company counts the awards, and not ONE of them are up for
any awards.
Hugos, Nebulas, Bram Stokers, Arthur Ellis, etc. All of these have a
clear independent panel and verification process, and there are no
improprieties. There's no room for anyone to question the validity of
the final results. They've gone through pains to ensure this happens.
They're also well-respected because someone who won an award from these
won them fairly. We no longer have this if Fred wins, because there's
not a 100% certainty he won fairly. He could have, quite possibly, but
that doesn't matter.
It _will_ do harm to the awards to keep this up. And it will continue to
be an immature web-based award if the awards' board can recommend and
win the awards they're giving away.
>>I'd stop caring about an award that seems biased in their reading list
>>(no adult-oriented motion pictures have EVER made the List... Therefore,
>>none have been nominated and none have won),
>
> My view is you're paying attention to the tail instead of the dog that's wagging
> it. If there's no adult-oriented film nominated, then either there were none, or
> there were none that anyone felt strongly enough to nominate. That's not bias, that's
> just a simple vacuum.
Except, as I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring, the RRL determines
the nominees. Period. And the RRL is put together by the awards panel,
which seems to include their own works!
iBuck has even mentioned that he nominated other works that are probably
even more worthy (I haven't played all of them, sorry) than the
kids-oriented video games on the list. But, since his choices aren't on
the RRL, they had no shot of being nominated.
I talked to iBuck today. He apparently will not be voting for a winner,
because he has no care whether any of the nominees win.
I'm sure you can find quite a few more people who will say the same
thing. I really could care less who wins a majority of the awards. The
Motion Picture and Television Show awards will never be publicized by
the winners, and the video games will probably follow suit. BECAUSE THEY
ARE OUTSIDE THE FANDOM.
>>when this list chooses the
>>nominees. Do you disagree about this? I mean, there are about two
>>hundred online comics that could be considered furry, why aren't we
>>recommended even half of them? Even one quarter of them? There are over
>>fifty games released a year that could be considered furry. Why did we
>>only have six, all of which were for video game consoles?
>
> What I say above applies here as well. If they're out there, and you thought they
> were worthy, then you should have nominated them.
Except that only the ones on the RRL get nominated.
The awards panel seems not to include them. Therefore, they can't get
nominated. It's not *MY* fault they weren't nominated. It's not THEIR
fault they weren't nominated. It's entirely the Awards' fault that they
were not nominated. Because they had no shot, based on an obvious bias.
>>>>but they can't bother to ask for the art so that the
>>>>artist has a chance to win the award, or be withdrawn from the nomination if
>>>>they so wished?
>>>
>>> Why can't they withdraw if they want to? What's preventing them?
>>
>>I don't know? If they were asked for their art and they did not feel
>>like providing it, then perhaps they don't want to be part of the
>>awards? Or maybe they just really couldn't care? The only people who
>>really know are the artists and the awards' board.
>
> Exactly. And neither of us are privy to that information and thus we are engaging
> in nothing more than endless speculations.
I'm providing some problems I _see_ here. The others were posted because
they were covers of commercial works that are available for sale.
Whether or not they loaned these to the awards, I can't speculate, but I
do know that it's in their best interest to allow stores to post these
images to sell them online, or for their own pages to showcase the works
for the B&M stores. So, for all we know, all of these works could have
just been pulled from another site without permission.
I really don't know.
>>>>Again, the awards could not just ask?
>>>
>>> Haven't they? I'm not privy to their actions, so I haven't been informed as
>>>to what they do or don't do when they make their choices. Except in cases of my
>>>own nominations, when I get an e-mail informing me, or updating the
>>>information. I suppose if I wanted to withdraw, I could e-mail them back. But
>>>I don't know that the committee -hasn't- contacted the two respective artists or
>>>not, or what their responses might have been. After all, they might -not- have
>>>wanted to have their work posted online, or might even be unable to do so. (Not
>>>everybody is connected, not even today.)
>>
>>Right. But there are ways to contact them. Part of a con book? Contact
>>the con! Etc.
>
> But the con can't approve uploading the artist's work without his permission, and
> you can't automatically assume that it's possible for them to contact the artist.
> Personal experience has shown me how hard it can be to contact people when you need
> to, even with the miracle of e-mail. (In this case, it so happens that they can, and
> it'll probably be brought to their attentions at earliest mention, but then it's up to
> them and their personal schedules.)
Unless the con gets full rights to them. Some do. I don't know.
There are many, many possibilities. The con could have valid contact
information for the artist. The artist may have an agent. There's so
many possibilities. It just seems weird that the only ones who weren't
linked were the ones not on covers.
>>>>People really aren't going out of their way to win them.
>>>
>>> What, like an election campaign, you mean? First off, it depends on who you
>>>mean; some are being vocal in their respective corners. Secondly, most of the
>>>nominees are probably too otherwise busy with other ongoing projects to get
>>>overly concerned about it. Thirdly, there will probably be more noise as it
>>>gets closer to the final days of voting.
>>
>>Like people putting on their website, "My comic book is a finalist for
>>the 2003 Ursa Major Awards. Click here for more information and to vote."
>
> Well, that's up to the individual recipient. Not much the UMA can do about that.
Blah, you seem fit to think that it's everyone else's responsibility to
make the UMAs great. It's not. It's the Awards' responsibility.
If the UMA is a worthless award, the people won't promote it. Therefore,
fewer people will care about it or know about it, and then the awards
will continue to be what they are.
My criticism and comments are here to HELP them, to get them to see
where I believe there are problems and make them something people will
want to promote.
What's your excuse for the apathy?
>>Like being an artist at a convention and with every print sale or
>>sketchbook you do, you include a little quarter-page ad stating you're
>>up for best illustration for 2003. Here's the URL to get information on
>>the awards and how to vote.
>
> To be honest, not many in the furry fandom are even remotely that industrious to
> begin with. The ones that are, are most likely looking to doing that very thing. I
> know of at least one writer who's promoting her nomination as much as she can. I
> expect one likely reason no one else is much doing this is probably because it never
> occured to any of them.
Really...? You do hang with the wrong crowd.
I just spoke with an artist last week about a commission someone else
wants, and I'm acting as an in-between. The artist will have to schedule
the work for the early fall, as conventions, comic work and other paying
art work are right now plaguing his schedule.
He is a professional and knows what awards could do for him and how to
use them to get a bigger pay each new work he does.
_I_ know what awards can do for writers and publishers, and how to
promote these nominations and awards. And if I were eligible for the
award (which I'm not, by the way, so I am still unbiased here), and
received a nomination, I'd not care to promote the UMA as they are. It
would be a waste of my time.
Now, if I were to get nominated for a Bram Stoker for ANY reason, I'd be
borrowing money to ensure I got the best press packs and free samples to
hand out to better my chances of winning. Why? Because winning a Bram
Stoker is WELL worth it, and could easily promote my sales to a far
higher plateau of money and licensing.
You take furries, especially the professional, as idiots. I know for a
fact they aren't. You push the problems onto the fandom and its members
as to why the UMAs aren't really that well known or the nominations
suck. I point the finger as the main source, and explain why in very
clear words.
The furry fandom's eligible members *are* industrious and know how to
act around awards. As a majority of them have shown, they just don't
care about the UMAs. Figure out why, please.
>>> Nobody is going to a furry con is going to pay even $25 a plate for a
>>>banquet in order to support the awards. It has nothing to do with the
>>>worthiness of the award, but with the fact that nobody is going to bring that
>>>much money to spend, and if they do, it will be directed towards other interests
>>>at the convention.
>>
>>Then that's the awards' problem. People spend an extra $100-$200 to
>>sponsor the CON, why is a $25 sponsorship to an awards cermony that's
>>meaningful so hard to comprehend. Someone spent $10K on a painting at a
>>convention last year.
>
> Then I guess we need to talk to -that- person. He seems to be the only one in the
> fandom who has that much money to burn.
Really? So the people who spend $300 on a commission every season, or
that artists can easily make a living just doing furry artwork, or that
comic book publishers are making regular publications with just furry
works, aren't showing you that people have money to spend on furry works?
The money's there, and the want to better this fandom into an actual
genre of fantasy is there. The UMAs just aren't on that path as they
are. Sorry.
>>Apparently I do hang out with a different crowd. Sorry, my impressions
>>of these people are built on those who would be the target nominees and
>>winners and supporters of such awards. Quality artists, publishers,
>>writers, etc.
>
> One of the things I hear from so many who attend the cons is that they're -not-
> there for the art or books, but for the gathering; the dealer's room tends to be
> incidental, except as a gathering place. That doesn't mean that they won't spend, or
> that there's nothing there that they want, but it's less a concern than the experience
> of the con and meeting with people. Which means the money is generally held in
> reserve for special wants (that one item in the whole con) or for food and lodging.
And as someone who does the dealers' room at a wide array of
conventions, I can say that Furry is no different than comic book,
anime, fantasy or gaming conventions as far as how important the
dealers' room is. You can estimate at some point, at least half the
convention's attendees will shop in the dealers' room and spend
something. Probably one quarter of those who purchase something will
spend over $100 during their stay.
This is from experience of talking with other vendors and just
observing. YOU may hang with people who only gather, but again, we've
established that I have a wider array of friends and acquaitances than
you seem to have. Sorry, don't mean to condescend, but we're arguing
points, and I have to establish facts behind my reasons.
People will spend the money on stuff they feel is worthy. This includes
an award banquet if it's worth it. They aren't, as things stand now.
>>>>I've seen artists pull in over a grand in sales at a weekend.
>>>
>>> Pft. You aren't fooling me. I run a dealer's room. SOME artists do very
>>>well, others don't. And the last few years have been lean, even if the trend
>>>has been improving.
>>
>>Sorry, I'm not trying to fool you, just telling the truth. I know a few
>>dealers at AC 2003 who sold over $3,000 in products over the weekend and
>>many, many artists who scored well over $500 easily. A few probably got
>>well past $1,000 alone.
>
> Considering the number of attendees, I can believe that. But that wouldn't break
> down to very much spent by the individual attendee. And most of the artists will lose
> that money in costs and expenses during the con; what they actually take away will be
> a smaller percentage.
Why wouldn't it? You think that people just go to a con with only about
$40 to spend? NO! You save up for the con just in case there are plenty
of things you want to buy, but just don't know it yet.
Most artists have been doing conventions far long enough that their
expenses are minimized. Tamar posts here often, and I'd love to hear his
average profit margin for doing Anthrocon. I'd wager he earns about a
300% profit going to the show.
Charles Melville
PlanetFur wrote:
> Charles Melville wrote:
>
> > Don't talk to me about it; it's not -my- definition. It's simply the one that's
> > in general usage. I've my own complaints about, and I suspect that we don't really
> > disagree very much over it. But the generally accepted one is 'anything vaguely
> > animallike with fur, or maybe scales'. So long as that's the generally accepted
> > definition, I would think the awards have to reflect that in its selections.
>
> Right, but you're debating that certain things are eligible and others
> are not based on Furry.
>
> What about insects? They have neither fur nor scales. Amphibians?
>
> The broader it gets, the more which will be eligible.
Yes. And so far as I know, they -are-.
> >>In any case, a book mostly about necromancers and vampires, and another
> >>with humans and fuzzy aliens, I don't believe, fit these categories.
> >
> > But not very many people here agree with that. See Kathmandu's response elsewhere
> > on that score; his is not the only voice in favor of that opinion.
>
> Right, but then again, the argument I'm making is that people favoring
> things OUTSIDE the fandom are making it harder for the fandom to care
> about the awards. Who wants to bother with an award that's only going to
> go to companies or publishers who will never show up to a Furry Con?
Eh. I'm -really- in disagreement here, and this only reinforces my belief that you're
making a big concern out of nothing at all. I believe that the purpose of the awards is
-not- for those things within the fandom, but to reward efforts made within the genre,
regardless of where it comes from. I'm not about to deny Stan Sakai an Ursa, should he win
it, because he's not a furry fan.
> >>There were far better choices. The only reason these made the final
> >>list? They were part of the 11 novels on the Recommended Reading List.
> >>In fact, I haven't located a single nomination that was not part of the
> >>Recommended Reading List.
> >
> > I may be mistaken, but I had believed that the RRL was a culmination of the
> > nominations as they came in. That is, it is -comprised- of nominations. You mention
> > that some nominations have been ignored or lost along the way; now, I don't know the
> > system they're using to make eliminations, but perhaps, if they're genuine selections,
> > they require a minimum number of seconds in order to list it as a finalist? Does
> > anybody out there have better info on the process behind the nominations?
>
> You are mistaken. The RRL, according to the UMA, is what is eligible to
> be nominated, because apparently people were having trouble coming up
> with what was eligible.
Right. I've been so informed since my last post.
> Now it's a broken system. Obviously there's a serious problem here.
-You- say it's broken. I'm not convinced.
> The Awards commitee now chooses the nominees based on their preferences, as
> we've seen that you must be on that list to be nominated, and eventually
> win. And they're overlooking a considerable amount of works.
Well, to be blunt, you're dead wrong. I examined both lists and found a total of five
entries on the final ballot that were -not- on the RRL at all. If you were correct in that
only those items entered on the RRL were even considered, then there wouldn't be -any- other
candidates. But there they are.
I had a short confer with one of the UMA committee people between this post and the
last, and I'm informed that the RRL is a separate entity, intended only to alert people to
good eligible candidates, but nothing more. The nomination process was open to all comers,
for -any- piece of anthropomorphic furry works of the past year. Once the nominations were
closed, they were tallied and those with the most nominations were put into the final
ballot, up to a total of five final candidates per category. (A couple of categories exceed
the limit of five because there were ties.) If a choice isn't there, it's because it either
wasn't nominated, or there weren't enough nominations to push it into the top five.
The five nominations -not- on the RRL are as follows:
Recommended Anthropomorphic Dramatic Series: Lenny And Sid
Recommended Anthropomorphic Short Fiction: A Man's Touch (by Phil Geusz); and Pelton (by
Phil Geusz)
Recommended Anthropomorphic Comic Strip: Jack (by David Hopkins)
Recommended Anthropomorphic Fanzine: Huzzah
> >>No offense to Flayrah and DutchFurs, but they're more of promoting press
> >>reports with regards to this.
> >
> > ...and...?
>
> The point is that Flayrah and DutchFurs are *NOT* promoting anything,
> merely reiterating in a central location what press information they
> see. These are not opinion sites nor personal sites. They just report.
...and...?
> Using these as saying people are promoting the awards is incorrect.
> They're taking the news from the UMA and putting it up for people to read.
Yes. That's correct. Sending such news to one of those sites is known as a Press
Release, and that -is- a promotion.
> >>The real test are when the people who
> >>publish these works put "Winner/Nominee of the So-and-So Ursa Major
> >>Award" on their publications, resumes, etc. If there's a mention in an
> >>email or in a MUCK or it's on Flayrah/DutchFurs, it's still not anything
> >>more than a web-award.
> >
> > I think that's something that will take a bit more time to occur. It's only a
> > couple of years old, and it takes a while for everything to catch up.
>
> Even in five more years, will people still be saying this if nothing
> changes?
Come back in five years, and we'll see.
> >>What about _Big Fish_? _Seabiscuit_? _Underworld_?
> >
> > What about them? How are any of these furry, except in the most tangential way?
> > These are even more 'out there' than the book selections you were complaining about up
> > above. I thought SEABISCUIT was a pretty darn good movie, but -furry-? C'mon.
>
> If Cerulean Sins is furry, why isn't Underworld or Big Fish? And
> Seabiscuit was a docudrama about THE HORSE and its team.
It was about considerably more than that. It was about the times during which the horse
became a winner, and how its status became inspirational to the nation. But it's a
historical biography, dramatized. How is it -furry-?
I can't respond to either CERULEAN SINS or UNDERWORLD, having neither read nor seen
either, but how would the latter be eligible if it's simply a gothic horror picture? And in
what way is BIG FISH furry?
> >>_Cat in the Hat_?
> >
> > Not worthy. If anything, it deserves a Razzie. Not only is it a KID'S MOVIE, but
> > a desecration of the book. Frankly, I'd've been horrified if it had been nominated.
>
> That's your opinion. I feel other works aren't worthy of the award (like
> Brother Bear), but that's just my opinion. Problem here, is that the RRL
> didn't include it, so it had no shot of ever being nominated. I keep
> reiterating this point, but it fails to register. What more proof do you
> require?
As far as CAT IN THE HAT is concerned, the only proof I need is that not enough people
considered it worthy enough to nominate, or it would have been. And your including it was
ironic since you were previously complaining about the nominations having all been kid
films.
> >>Seems like there are more than just animated kids' films for furry
> >>motion picture awards.
> >
> > So far, unproven.
>
> I just pointed them out. You just responded to them. But you applied
> your OPINION, while I'm applying ELIGIBILITY.
My 'opinion' is that none of the films (with the single exception of CAT IN THE HAT) is
in any way eligible.
> The Awards people should not be determining what they think should win
> the awards.
Now, -that's- YOUR opinion. I see nothing of the sort going on.
> >>It's not that children's works cannot or should not win awards. But when
> >>that's ALL that seems to get nominated and awarded the top award, it
> >>diminishes the ability for the rest of the awards to distance themselves
> >>from this in the general population's eyes.
> >
> > Tell it to the movie studios. We can't promote or award what ain't there.
>
> Except that THERE ARE MULTIMEDIA WORKS IN THE FANDOM.
What were they, where are they, were they produced in the past year, and if they were so
good then why didn't anybody nominate them?
> Geez, you and Kathmandu ignore these and are blinded. Same, apparently, as the Awards
> staff. There just may be people who know of works that deserve an
> achievement award, but they can't get them nominated because they
> weren't on the list, and therefore, there's no point.
More likely they weren't on the list because the people making the list weren't aware of
them.
> Whatever happened to the Gold Digger series? Brittany's a werecheetah,
> after all. Shouldn't this deserve a nomination? It was completely
> overlooked, and it was done by someone whose comic books are well known
> in the furry fandom.
Did anyone nominate it? (Speaking for myself, I stopped reading it years ago, and was
unaware it was still being published.) The nominations were open; all someone had to do was
-speak up-.
> We *could* have promoted it as an achievement. We failed.
Not our failure. If it wasn't nominate, then not enough people felt it was worth being
nominated.
> >>There are adult-level movies out there. They never see the light of the
> >>Recommended Reading List, and as such, have no shot of being nominated,
> >>let alone winning, the award.
> >
> > I repeat, as yet unproven.
>
> Because you choose to ignore or fail to bother researching to see that
> it is provable. Look around! Don't just go to one or two sites, or stick
> with the same group of people. If you want to see more of this fandom,
> look elsewhere. Look overseas. Google, for goodness sakes!
Google for what!? If there was something worth seeing, some good mutimedia sites,
wouldn't there be enough word-of-mouth so that everybody would at least be aware of it? I
haven't seen or heard any buzz on any multimedia events within the past year. If they want
me or anyone else to see it, they got to promote it. Can't be nominated if no one knows
they're out there. (And, again, if it hasn't been nominate, then it also may be that those
who -did- know about it didn't feel they were -worth- nominating,)
> And after two major years (this is the third), people still haven't
> heard of it. People who go to many cons, including the ones where the
> UMAs have a panel, still have not heard of them. It's not a matter of
> inertia, it's a matter that they're just not worth anyone's time becaue
> the Awards have made it this way.
>
> I've pointed out why. Get out of the opinion mindset and debate a valid
> point against mine. Go beyond what you know, and put something behind
> it. You feel there are no mature motion pictures, and I have pointed out
> some. Your conclusion? YOU don't think they're worthy, so they don't count.
No, my opinion was that the ones you mentioned weren't eligible. That's a difference.
> >>>>And ask permission to link them? They go so far as to put together a long
> >>>>list of recommended reading, which I noted you didn't touch on when I said
> >>>>this needs to stop,
> >>>
> >>> Sorry. I didn't mention it, because I didn't agree with your opinion, but
> >>>didn't feel it needed much more said beyond that. Therefore... I disagree that
> >>>it -needs- to stop. It's a recommended reading list, and that's all. I find it
> >>>helpful, as it alerts me to stuff I might not have looked at or known about
> >>>previously.
> >>
> >>Beyond that all the nominees came from the List? Among them, two works
> >>from the person who's mailing out the final ballots, apparently? You
> >>have *NO* problems with these?
> >
> > Not a one.
>
> Are you unbiased in this?
Completely.
> >>I'd stop caring about an award that seems biased in their reading list
> >>(no adult-oriented motion pictures have EVER made the List... Therefore,
> >>none have been nominated and none have won),
> >
> > My view is you're paying attention to the tail instead of the dog that's wagging
> > it. If there's no adult-oriented film nominated, then either there were none, or
> > there were none that anyone felt strongly enough to nominate. That's not bias, that's
> > just a simple vacuum.
>
> Except, as I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring, the RRL determines
> the nominees. Period. And the RRL is put together by the awards panel,
> which seems to include their own works!
And I've pointed out above that your conclusion is in error.
> iBuck has even mentioned that he nominated other works that are probably
> even more worthy (I haven't played all of them, sorry) than the
> kids-oriented video games on the list. But, since his choices aren't on
> the RRL, they had no shot of being nominated.
Meaning that not enough furry fans knew of them, would never -have- known of them
without being on the RRL, or probably, if they -had- known of them, weren't overly impressed
with them. You even say yourself that you haven't played them; how, then, can you judge
whether or not they were worthy enough of being on -either- list, other than by going with
iBuck's reccomendation? If nobody else seconded his nomination...
> >>when this list chooses the
> >>nominees. Do you disagree about this? I mean, there are about two
> >>hundred online comics that could be considered furry, why aren't we
> >>recommended even half of them? Even one quarter of them? There are over
> >>fifty games released a year that could be considered furry. Why did we
> >>only have six, all of which were for video game consoles?
> >
> > What I say above applies here as well. If they're out there, and you thought they
> > were worthy, then you should have nominated them.
>
> Except that only the ones on the RRL get nominated.
I repeat: that is not true.
> I'm providing some problems I _see_ here. The others were posted because
> they were covers of commercial works that are available for sale.
> Whether or not they loaned these to the awards, I can't speculate...
There's no loan involved. The links are to sites where the images are on view, or to
where the stories are available through a publisher. In short, they were already posted;
all the UMA site did is supply a direct link to them.
> >>>>People really aren't going out of their way to win them.
> >>>
> >>> What, like an election campaign, you mean? First off, it depends on who you
> >>>mean; some are being vocal in their respective corners. Secondly, most of the
> >>>nominees are probably too otherwise busy with other ongoing projects to get
> >>>overly concerned about it. Thirdly, there will probably be more noise as it
> >>>gets closer to the final days of voting.
> >>
> >>Like people putting on their website, "My comic book is a finalist for
> >>the 2003 Ursa Major Awards. Click here for more information and to vote."
> >
> > Well, that's up to the individual recipient. Not much the UMA can do about that.
>
> Blah, you seem fit to think that it's everyone else's responsibility to
> make the UMAs great. It's not. It's the Awards' responsibility.
Baloney. You keep citing the major media awards as examples, but you keep overlooking
the simple fact that NONE of them promote the individual nominees. That's the job of the
nominees themselves, and more often that of their publishers, producers, and agents,
primarily out of self-interest and prestige. -They- make the awards great, because they
thrive on it, and their work depends upon it.
> My criticism and comments are here to HELP them, to get them to see
> where I believe there are problems and make them something people will
> want to promote.
>
> What's your excuse for the apathy?
I offer none. Apathy, that is; never mind the excuses. I'm just in major disagreement
with you on virtually every count. I don't think there's a major problem. I don't think
the awards are broken. They may need refinement, but that's to be expected.
>
> >>Sorry, I'm not trying to fool you, just telling the truth. I know a few
> >>dealers at AC 2003 who sold over $3,000 in products over the weekend and
> >>many, many artists who scored well over $500 easily. A few probably got
> >>well past $1,000 alone.
> >
> > Considering the number of attendees, I can believe that. But that wouldn't break
> > down to very much spent by the individual attendee. And most of the artists will lose
> > that money in costs and expenses during the con; what they actually take away will be
> > a smaller percentage.
>
> Why wouldn't it? You think that people just go to a con with only about
> $40 to spend? NO! You save up for the con just in case there are plenty
> of things you want to buy, but just don't know it yet.
I've not only seen people who only go to a con with only $40 to spend, I'm one of them.
Sure, I save up what I can, but my bills only allow just so much spare change afterwards.
And I know that, while that's not universal, I'm not the only one. (Happily, that's slowly
changing for the better.)
--
-Chuck Melville-
Comic book fanatic and sometimes-creator-type-person
An URSA MAJOR nominee!!! Vote soon -- and vote often!
PlanetFur
>>Right, but then again, the argument I'm making is that people favoring
>>things OUTSIDE the fandom are making it harder for the fandom to care
>>about the awards. Who wants to bother with an award that's only going to
>>go to companies or publishers who will never show up to a Furry Con?
>
> Eh. I'm -really- in disagreement here, and this only reinforces my belief that you're
> making a big concern out of nothing at all. I believe that the purpose of the awards is
> -not- for those things within the fandom, but to reward efforts made within the genre,
> regardless of where it comes from. I'm not about to deny Stan Sakai an Ursa, should he win
> it, because he's not a furry fan.
But you're disagreeing not only based on opinion, but ignorance.
From the UMA website:
More formally known as the Annual Anthropomorphic Literature and Arts of
the Year Awards, the Ursa Major Awards are awarded anually for
excellence in the furry arts. They are intended as Anthropomorphic
(a.k.a. Furry) Fandom's equivalents of S-F fandom's Hugo Awards, mystery
fandom's Anthony Awards, horror fandom's Bram Stoker Awards, and so forth.
The Hugos?
The Hugo Award, also known as the Science Fiction Achievement Award, is
given annually by the World Science Fiction Society (WSFS). The
distinguishing characteristics of the Hugo Award are that it is
sponsored by WSFS, administered by the committee of the World Science
Fiction Convention (Worldcon) held that year, and determined by
nominations from and a popular vote of the membership of WSFS. In
general, a Hugo Award given in a particular year is for work that
appeared in the previous calendar year.
Who's eligible? http://worldcon.org/bm/const-2002.html#hugo
3.2.1: Unless otherwise specified, Hugo Awards are given for work in the
field of science fiction or fantasy appearing for the first time during
the previous calendar year.
Hugo awards are given for achievements in the field of SF and Fantasy.
NOT OUTSIDE IT.
(Unfortunately, each Bouchercon has its own website, as it changes each
year just as the WorldCons for the Hugos, but I was unable to find an
official Anthony Award page)
The Bram Stokers?
Each year, the Horror Writer's Association presents the Bram Stoker
Awards for Superior Achievement, named in honor of Bram Stoker, author
of the seminal horror work, Dracula. The Stoker Awards were instituted
immediately after the organization's incorporation in 1987. While many
members, including HWA's first President, Dean Koontz, had reservations
about awards for writing -- since the point of HWA was for writers to
cooperate for their mutual benefit, not to compete against one another
-- the majority of members heavily favored presenting awards, both to
recognize outstanding work in the horror field and to publicize HWA's
activities.
To ameliorate the competitive nature of awards, the Stokers are given
"for superior achievement," not for "best of the year," and the rules
are deliberately designed to make ties fairly probable. The first awards
were presented in 1988 (for works published in 1987), and they have been
presented every year since. The award itself is an eight-inch replica of
a fanciful haunted house, designed specifically for HWA by sculptor
Steven Kirk. The door of the house opens to reveal a brass plaque
engraved with the name of the winning work and its author.
Who's eligible? Since all works of Horror published in a given year are
automatically eligible for the awards, and since the entire membership
of HWA is involved in the awards process, there is no way to submit
works for consideration per se. The best strategy is simply to publicize
the work as widely as possible. Most members of HWA are voracious
readers and enthusiastic film buffs and subscribe to a variety of
magazines and news outlets offering reviews and ads for horror-related
works. Interested authors or publishers may, however, submit works to
the Stoker Additions Jury. The Jury is a body of six HWA members
entrusted with the option of adding one overlooked or inadequately
publicized work to each category on the final ballot.
Yet, the UMAs aren't even trying anything like the awards that they're
emulating. Bram Stokers go for horror, the award body has no picks
beforehand of recommendations, and the panel may include an overlooked
entry should they feel it's necessary. However, these works are only for
HORROR, not what Horror fans may enjoy.
Hugos? Works in science fiction and fantasy. Nominations are made from
those who attended the previous WorldCon or the current one, and voting
the same. The WorldCon does not offer any recommendations. Only works in
the fields of Science Fiction and Fantasy are eligible, not everything
that these fans may enjoy.
The UMA? The award body recommends a very slim list of choices, which
mostly consists of works OUTSIDE the Furry Fandom, mostly of what
furries may enjoy. This year it overlooked a serious amount of more
mature items and many works by furries or related to the furry fandom
itself. The awards body also nominated in two categories a work done by
someone affiliated with the awards, and it's on the nomination ballot.
All the final nominees are found on the recommended reading list.
I'd say that your admission of there's no problem comes from opinion,
not based on the Awards' own admission of ambition, and facts presented
from three years of observations.
As far as Stan Sakai, he may not consider himself a furry, but his work
is anthropomorphic in nature, and he's a guest at a furry con this year.
He's not a furry in his definition, but he certainly provides
entertainment and arts to the furry fandom. Not just something furries
may enjoy, but a comic book that is of high quality and sold at every
furry shop that sells comics.
That's saying something.
>>You are mistaken. The RRL, according to the UMA, is what is eligible to
>>be nominated, because apparently people were having trouble coming up
>>with what was eligible.
>
> Right. I've been so informed since my last post.
>
>>Now it's a broken system. Obviously there's a serious problem here.
>
> -You- say it's broken. I'm not convinced.
Who's heard of the UMA? Who's nominated? Who's going to be voting? Who
will show up to the presentation? What are the numbers for past years?
Who uses the nominations or wins to promote their works?
People just don't care. And the reason is because the awards don't
matter and there's nothing there for people to care ABOUT. That's a
broken award system.
I've provided proof. You're choosing to ignore it based on opinion. You
haven't established any refutable evidence that I'm wrong, just that you
don't think I'm right.
Why?
The RRL determines the nominees which determines the winners. The awards
body isn't being similar to the awards they say they aim to be for
furry, and they're really not going to fix this if we just give them a
few more years to "mature".
They need to change, not mature. They need to leave the fandom to make
the awards worthwhile and showcase the achievements, not the people who
hand out the awards.
>>The Awards commitee now chooses the nominees based on their preferences, as
>>we've seen that you must be on that list to be nominated, and eventually
>>win. And they're overlooking a considerable amount of works.
>
> Well, to be blunt, you're dead wrong. I examined both lists and found a total of five
> entries on the final ballot that were -not- on the RRL at all. If you were correct in that
> only those items entered on the RRL were even considered, then there wouldn't be -any- other
> candidates. But there they are.
Motion pictures, all five are on the RRL
TV Series, four of five are on the RRL, one isn't (Silverwing, my mistake)
Novel, all five are on the RRL
Short Story, all five are on the RRL
Other Literary, all SEVEN are on the RRL, including Fred Patten's work
Comic Book, all five are on the RRL, including the strange inclusion of
a year's worth of works from Furrlough and Extinctioners and Usagi,
versus one shots Circles and Genus: Male, who only had one issue in the
same year
Comic Strip, five of the six are on the RRL (Jack made it in, but isn't
on the RRL, my mistake)
Fanzines, five of the six are on the RRL (The RRL includes Fur Plus, but
the final ballot has Huzzah! My mistake again)
Illustration, all six are on the RRL, including the cover to the Fred
Patten edited work
Game, all five are on the RRL, of which only had six games.
So no, only three are in the ballots against fifty-two who were. Maybe
they're all deserving, but as I stated, the focus seems to be too narrow
for this to be a coincidence. All children's animated films for the
motion picture, and yet there were works which aren't oriented toward
kids were never mentioned and are worthy.
Where are they represented?
I highly doubt 6% outside influence on a list that has only 119 entries
is a sign that this system is not broken. You go by opinion, I go by
what's shown. And in my speculation, with these figures and tendency of
past awards from the UMA, no one will ever take them seriously as they are.
> I had a short confer with one of the UMA committee people between this post and the
> last, and I'm informed that the RRL is a separate entity, intended only to alert people to
> good eligible candidates, but nothing more. The nomination process was open to all comers,
> for -any- piece of anthropomorphic furry works of the past year. Once the nominations were
> closed, they were tallied and those with the most nominations were put into the final
> ballot, up to a total of five final candidates per category. (A couple of categories exceed
> the limit of five because there were ties.) If a choice isn't there, it's because it either
> wasn't nominated, or there weren't enough nominations to push it into the top five.
Yes, but the awards make and post the RRL *BEFORE* the nominations are
public. You can vote while they have the list "these are our
recommendations" for the exact same categories as the final ballot. You
say that anyone can get nominated in, and I just showed that this is not
true (three out of fifty-five, don't forget). The RRL needs to be
completely removed and not linked by the UMA to show an unbiased
attitude toward the awards.
> The five nominations -not- on the RRL are as follows:
>
> Recommended Anthropomorphic Dramatic Series: Lenny And Sid
Lenny and Sid isn't nominated. Silverwing is.
> Recommended Anthropomorphic Short Fiction: A Man's Touch (by Phil Geusz); and Pelton (by
> Phil Geusz)
These aren't nominated.
> Recommended Anthropomorphic Comic Strip: Jack (by David Hopkins)
As I pointed out in my comparison above.
> Recommended Anthropomorphic Fanzine: Huzzah
As above, again.
>>>>No offense to Flayrah and DutchFurs, but they're more of promoting press
>>>>reports with regards to this.
>>>
>>> ...and...?
>>
>>The point is that Flayrah and DutchFurs are *NOT* promoting anything,
>>merely reiterating in a central location what press information they
>>see. These are not opinion sites nor personal sites. They just report.
>
> ...and...?
Way to debate. I just stated why you cannot say that Flayrah and
Dutchfurs independently promote the UMA, because they just report the
news and press releases. Your reply? ...and...?
You must not have a response. So I'll just shoot down your theory that
Flayrah promotes the UMA. I see no proof of this. Same with DF. They're
just news posting sites.
Next.
>>Using these as saying people are promoting the awards is incorrect.
>>They're taking the news from the UMA and putting it up for people to read.
>
> Yes. That's correct. Sending such news to one of those sites is known as a Press
> Release, and that -is- a promotion.
No, that is a press release. In your thinking, a news agency that
reports on an armed robbery is promoting use of guns to get money
illegally. Or a news agency stating that a new Wal Mart is opening is
promoting Wal Mart.
They aren't. Flayrah and Dutchfurs aren't.
>>>>The real test are when the people who
>>>>publish these works put "Winner/Nominee of the So-and-So Ursa Major
>>>>Award" on their publications, resumes, etc. If there's a mention in an
>>>>email or in a MUCK or it's on Flayrah/DutchFurs, it's still not anything
>>>>more than a web-award.
>>>
>>> I think that's something that will take a bit more time to occur. It's only a
>>>couple of years old, and it takes a while for everything to catch up.
>>
>>Even in five more years, will people still be saying this if nothing
>>changes?
>
> Come back in five years, and we'll see.
Sure thing, but I bet you it won't happen unless the UMA change.
>>>>What about _Big Fish_? _Seabiscuit_? _Underworld_?
>>>
>>> What about them? How are any of these furry, except in the most tangential way?
>>>These are even more 'out there' than the book selections you were complaining about up
>>>above. I thought SEABISCUIT was a pretty darn good movie, but -furry-? C'mon.
>>
>>If Cerulean Sins is furry, why isn't Underworld or Big Fish? And
>>Seabiscuit was a docudrama about THE HORSE and its team.
>
> It was about considerably more than that. It was about the times during which the horse
> became a winner, and how its status became inspirational to the nation. But it's a
> historical biography, dramatized. How is it -furry-?
How is Stitch: The Movie furry, then? Because of the alien?
You have a loose definition attributed to furry here, so why can't I
apply it to Seabiscuit?
> I can't respond to either CERULEAN SINS or UNDERWORLD, having neither read nor seen
> either, but how would the latter be eligible if it's simply a gothic horror picture? And in
> what way is BIG FISH furry?
Cerulean Sins is about the necromancer and partner of the local Vampire
leader becoming more attuned to her pack of werecats and friends the
werewolves, while battling back an immensely powerful presence of an
Elder Vampire.
Underworld is about an age old battle between vampires and werewolves,
where werewolves are hunting down a human and the vampire hunter wants
to know why. In the investigation, she discovers that his family is tied
directly to their elder vampire, and the master werewolf, whom she
thought had died centuries ago. He has blood which allows him to be both
a vampire and a werewolf at once, and he battles against the vampires
trying to destroy the werewolves.
And, though I have not seen Big Fish, I am told that there is a scene
near the end which would involve a slightl anthropomorphic aspect. It's
not huge, but then again, we're talking about how far we can stretch it
anyways.
>>>>_Cat in the Hat_?
>>>
>>> Not worthy. If anything, it deserves a Razzie. Not only is it a KID'S MOVIE, but
>>>a desecration of the book. Frankly, I'd've been horrified if it had been nominated.
>>
>>That's your opinion. I feel other works aren't worthy of the award (like
>>Brother Bear), but that's just my opinion. Problem here, is that the RRL
>>didn't include it, so it had no shot of ever being nominated. I keep
>>reiterating this point, but it fails to register. What more proof do you
>>require?
>
> As far as CAT IN THE HAT is concerned, the only proof I need is that not enough people
> considered it worthy enough to nominate, or it would have been. And your including it was
> ironic since you were previously complaining about the nominations having all been kid
> films.
I'm merely suggesting as a rebuttal to your statement that all furries
have for motion pictures are animated kids' films. Cat in the Hat has
only mild animation, but in the end, it's still a live-action film.
Nice change of subject to get around the debate, though.
>>>>Seems like there are more than just animated kids' films for furry
>>>>motion picture awards.
>>>
>>> So far, unproven.
>>
>>I just pointed them out. You just responded to them. But you applied
>>your OPINION, while I'm applying ELIGIBILITY.
>
> My 'opinion' is that none of the films (with the single exception of CAT IN THE HAT) is
> in any way eligible.
And that's your opinion. The awards are not based on one person's
opinion. Sorry to disappoint you.
Underworld should definitely have been represented if Cerulean Sins had
been.
>>The Awards people should not be determining what they think should win
>>the awards.
>
> Now, -that's- YOUR opinion. I see nothing of the sort going on.
Fifty-two of 119 entries made it to the final ballot, only three weren't
on the list, and there are thousands of eligible items throughout the
year to correspond to the categories.
I'd say that the point's there. Just open your mind and admit that just
maybe it's true. So far, really, you're the only person who's arguing
that this isn't the case.
>>>>It's not that children's works cannot or should not win awards. But when
>>>>that's ALL that seems to get nominated and awarded the top award, it
>>>>diminishes the ability for the rest of the awards to distance themselves
>>>
>>>>from this in the general population's eyes.
>>>
>>> Tell it to the movie studios. We can't promote or award what ain't there.
>>
>>Except that THERE ARE MULTIMEDIA WORKS IN THE FANDOM.
>
> What were they, where are they, were they produced in the past year, and if they were so
> good then why didn't anybody nominate them?
Gold Digger. Rowsby's commercials. I'm sure Samantha can list a few more
from what she's seen.
I've pointed out why they weren't nominated. You choose to assume that
since three made it on which weren't on the RRL, that it's possible that
ANYTHING can do it. I'd say the stats are far against anything making it
to a ballot that isn't on the RRL.
But hey, delude yourself into believing there's nothing wrong with the
system, that it's just "young" that's causing nearly everyone to ignore
them.
>>Geez, you and Kathmandu ignore these and are blinded. Same, apparently, as the Awards
>>staff. There just may be people who know of works that deserve an
>>achievement award, but they can't get them nominated because they
>>weren't on the list, and therefore, there's no point.
>
> More likely they weren't on the list because the people making the list weren't aware of
> them.
Exactly. The Awards Board should not be recommending ANYTHING. That's
been my whole point. You think it's something great. Well, you just
admitted that it can't be, because it can't encompass everything that's
good, only what they've seen and think are good.
It needs to be detached from the awards entirely.
>>Whatever happened to the Gold Digger series? Brittany's a werecheetah,
>>after all. Shouldn't this deserve a nomination? It was completely
>>overlooked, and it was done by someone whose comic books are well known
>>in the furry fandom.
>
> Did anyone nominate it? (Speaking for myself, I stopped reading it years ago, and was
> unaware it was still being published.) The nominations were open; all someone had to do was
> -speak up-.
Since GD is one of AP's biggest productions, and there's a third one on
the way, I'd say it's still going strong. Who knows whether anyone
nominated it, but the OAV was just not on the RRL.
No one is GOING to speak up because of the problems that are apparent in
the awards' system. Instead of ignoring them, debate them. Instead of
using your opinion, cite facts that support what you're saying.
The awards aren't supported that well because there's no reason to do
so. I've illustrated why. Let me know why I'm wrong in that people don't
feel they're important.
Until then, don't ask people to speak up and work hard to get things
nominated that have a much harder shot of doing so.
>>We *could* have promoted it as an achievement. We failed.
>
> Not our failure. If it wasn't nominate, then not enough people felt it was worth being
> nominated.
You have to stop blaming people for not nominating. I've shown why many
people don't bother. I've even given an example of someone who nominated
who's now not going to be voting because he doesn't like ANY of the entries.
And he's a big fan of furry arts and contributor to them. Just nothing
he feels on the list is worthy of any attention.
>>Because you choose to ignore or fail to bother researching to see that
>>it is provable. Look around! Don't just go to one or two sites, or stick
>>with the same group of people. If you want to see more of this fandom,
>>look elsewhere. Look overseas. Google, for goodness sakes!
>
> Google for what!? If there was something worth seeing, some good mutimedia sites,
> wouldn't there be enough word-of-mouth so that everybody would at least be aware of it? I
> haven't seen or heard any buzz on any multimedia events within the past year. If they want
> me or anyone else to see it, they got to promote it. Can't be nominated if no one knows
> they're out there. (And, again, if it hasn't been nominate, then it also may be that those
> who -did- know about it didn't feel they were -worth- nominating,)
You've already told us you hang with people who have no money and only
go to conventions to gather with each other.
I'd say that your word of mouth capabilities would be extremely limited
compared to others who go out and find stuff, have a larger array of
contacts, and otherwise enjoy things IN the fandom, rather than just
something they can get quickly from big budget commercial enterprises.
>>And after two major years (this is the third), people still haven't
>>heard of it. People who go to many cons, including the ones where the
>>UMAs have a panel, still have not heard of them. It's not a matter of
>>inertia, it's a matter that they're just not worth anyone's time becaue
>>the Awards have made it this way.
>>
>>I've pointed out why. Get out of the opinion mindset and debate a valid
>>point against mine. Go beyond what you know, and put something behind
>>it. You feel there are no mature motion pictures, and I have pointed out
>>some. Your conclusion? YOU don't think they're worthy, so they don't count.
>
> No, my opinion was that the ones you mentioned weren't eligible. That's a difference.
Your opinion is that they're simply young. That's the only reason
they're still unheard of and not really prestigious, right? That's only
an opinion and not based on anything.
Bram Stokers were started in the 80s. They were quickly seen as
prestigious because of how careful the organization was in just
showcasing, not making a superlative, and that it was the members who
did all the choosing and voting, with absolutely no cajoling from the
board who hands out the awards and passes out the ballots.
>>>>I'd stop caring about an award that seems biased in their reading list
>>>>(no adult-oriented motion pictures have EVER made the List... Therefore,
>>>>none have been nominated and none have won),
>>>
>>> My view is you're paying attention to the tail instead of the dog that's wagging
>>>it. If there's no adult-oriented film nominated, then either there were none, or
>>>there were none that anyone felt strongly enough to nominate. That's not bias, that's
>>>just a simple vacuum.
>>
>>Except, as I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring, the RRL determines
>>the nominees. Period. And the RRL is put together by the awards panel,
>>which seems to include their own works!
>
> And I've pointed out above that your conclusion is in error.
Except you were in error in your own conclusion. But you still only
argue that Fred's a nice guy, so he can be unbiased about the ballots
when his name appears on them.
This isn't going to happen to those who view it from outside the
circle-of-those-who-know-Fred. You want the awards to be taken
seriously, to mature, to be something people care about? This is another
problem that needs fixed. No one tied to the board should ever be
nominated, recommended or on the final ballot. No one should ever win
who's tied to the board, EVER.
>>iBuck has even mentioned that he nominated other works that are probably
>>even more worthy (I haven't played all of them, sorry) than the
>>kids-oriented video games on the list. But, since his choices aren't on
>>the RRL, they had no shot of being nominated.
>
> Meaning that not enough furry fans knew of them, would never -have- known of them
> without being on the RRL, or probably, if they -had- known of them, weren't overly impressed
> with them. You even say yourself that you haven't played them; how, then, can you judge
> whether or not they were worthy enough of being on -either- list, other than by going with
> iBuck's reccomendation? If nobody else seconded his nomination...
Again, there were six games on the RRL. Five were put onto the final
ballot. How many furry fans voted outside this besides iBuck?
Seems to me that maybe NO ONE really knew of any, and just picked from
the list.
I'm basing my question over whether the RRL is truly helping or
hindering the nominations because iBuck publicly stated he voted outside
the list, and not one of his nominations made it. How many others do this?
There's only three outside the RRL on the final ballot. So hardly
anyone's choices, apparently.
>>>>when this list chooses the
>>>>nominees. Do you disagree about this? I mean, there are about two
>>>>hundred online comics that could be considered furry, why aren't we
>>>>recommended even half of them? Even one quarter of them? There are over
>>>>fifty games released a year that could be considered furry. Why did we
>>>>only have six, all of which were for video game consoles?
>>>
>>> What I say above applies here as well. If they're out there, and you thought they
>>>were worthy, then you should have nominated them.
>>
>>Except that only the ones on the RRL get nominated.
>
> I repeat: that is not true.
Except that only the games on the RRL got nominated. Look for yourself.
>>I'm providing some problems I _see_ here. The others were posted because
>>they were covers of commercial works that are available for sale.
>>Whether or not they loaned these to the awards, I can't speculate...
>
> There's no loan involved. The links are to sites where the images are on view, or to
> where the stories are available through a publisher. In short, they were already posted;
> all the UMA site did is supply a direct link to them.
Except that the four linked illustrations on the final ballot are all
hosted on UMA's site? They're not direct linked. Check again.
>>>>>>People really aren't going out of their way to win them.
>>>>>
>>>>> What, like an election campaign, you mean? First off, it depends on who you
>>>>>mean; some are being vocal in their respective corners. Secondly, most of the
>>>>>nominees are probably too otherwise busy with other ongoing projects to get
>>>>>overly concerned about it. Thirdly, there will probably be more noise as it
>>>>>gets closer to the final days of voting.
>>>>
>>>>Like people putting on their website, "My comic book is a finalist for
>>>>the 2003 Ursa Major Awards. Click here for more information and to vote."
>>>
>>> Well, that's up to the individual recipient. Not much the UMA can do about that.
>>
>>Blah, you seem fit to think that it's everyone else's responsibility to
>>make the UMAs great. It's not. It's the Awards' responsibility.
>
> Baloney. You keep citing the major media awards as examples, but you keep overlooking
> the simple fact that NONE of them promote the individual nominees. That's the job of the
> nominees themselves, and more often that of their publishers, producers, and agents,
> primarily out of self-interest and prestige. -They- make the awards great, because they
> thrive on it, and their work depends upon it.
No, you're saying that people should be out there trying to win the
awards. Why should they bother? If the awards aren't going to bother to
fix their obvious problems (obvious to most everyone else, I should
say), why should people spend their time and money trying to win them?
Especially if putting the award next to their name or on their resume
will just have people asking, "The whats?"
No, in this instance, it's up to the awards to work to better themselves
to the point that the people who are nominated will *want* to promote
their nominations.
Until then, it's all in the court of the UMA to fix themselves up. I'd
say that people who still ignore them or are apathetic to voting are
pretty much saying that there's a problem.
I'm trying to showcase how to fix them. Others have pointed out with a
good valid response why some ideas aren't that great. I've concurred.
With yours, though, I see no valid points that I haven't already conceded.
No one's interested in the UMAs as a whole. Not the fans, not the
publishers, not the movie makers or show makers, and not the writers and
artists and editors. The only people who seem to think the UMAs are
worth something are the awards people and you...
>>My criticism and comments are here to HELP them, to get them to see
>>where I believe there are problems and make them something people will
>>want to promote.
>>
>>What's your excuse for the apathy?
>
> I offer none. Apathy, that is; never mind the excuses. I'm just in major disagreement
> with you on virtually every count. I don't think there's a major problem. I don't think
> the awards are broken. They may need refinement, but that's to be expected.
Refinement is a sign of something broken. It's not a minor change. It's
not a matter of waiting years. People don't give a rat's ass about the
awards.
Your reasoning? Bah, they just haven't heard about them yet, give them time.
That's not a valid point nor excuse. They're at most every convention
they can go to. They have a website. They constantly have press releases
on Flayrah and Dutchfurs and AFF.
Yet, still, most people have not heard of them. Rather, they don't care.
That's a broken system.
>>Why wouldn't it? You think that people just go to a con with only about
>>$40 to spend? NO! You save up for the con just in case there are plenty
>>of things you want to buy, but just don't know it yet.
>
> I've not only seen people who only go to a con with only $40 to spend, I'm one of them.
> Sure, I save up what I can, but my bills only allow just so much spare change afterwards.
> And I know that, while that's not universal, I'm not the only one. (Happily, that's slowly
> changing for the better.)
Again, find better people to hang out with, then, or just a larger
group. If you and everyone you hang out with stay within their group at
cons, have very little money to spend, and haven't heard of too much
outside the immediate RRL, then you have no valid points, only opinions,
on arguing that there's nothing else.
Charles Melville
PlanetFur wrote:
> Charles Melville wrote:
>
> >>Right, but then again, the argument I'm making is that people favoring
> >>things OUTSIDE the fandom are making it harder for the fandom to care
> >>about the awards. Who wants to bother with an award that's only going to
> >>go to companies or publishers who will never show up to a Furry Con?
> >
> > Eh. I'm -really- in disagreement here, and this only reinforces my belief that you're
> > making a big concern out of nothing at all. I believe that the purpose of the awards is
> > -not- for those things within the fandom, but to reward efforts made within the genre,
> > regardless of where it comes from. I'm not about to deny Stan Sakai an Ursa, should he win
> > it, because he's not a furry fan.
>
> But you're disagreeing not only based on opinion, but ignorance.
>
> From the UMA website:
>
> More formally known as the Annual Anthropomorphic Literature and Arts of
> the Year Awards, the Ursa Major Awards are awarded anually for
> excellence in the furry arts. They are intended as Anthropomorphic
> (a.k.a. Furry) Fandom's equivalents of S-F fandom's Hugo Awards, mystery
> fandom's Anthony Awards, horror fandom's Bram Stoker Awards, and so forth.
I think you're way too overly concerned about the equivalency thing. The statement only means
that they're trying to forward an award program, like the other genres have, not that it's
supposed to be a cloned twin, exact down to purpose and procedure.
> Hugo awards are given for achievements in the field of SF and Fantasy.
> NOT OUTSIDE IT.
And the Ursas are given for achievements in furry fiction and art. It's not for work strictly
within the fandom, anymore than the Hugo is strictly for work done within -its- fandom.
> > I had a short confer with one of the UMA committee people between this post and the
> > last, and I'm informed that the RRL is a separate entity, intended only to alert people to
> > good eligible candidates, but nothing more. The nomination process was open to all comers,
> > for -any- piece of anthropomorphic furry works of the past year. Once the nominations were
> > closed, they were tallied and those with the most nominations were put into the final
> > ballot, up to a total of five final candidates per category. (A couple of categories exceed
> > the limit of five because there were ties.) If a choice isn't there, it's because it either
> > wasn't nominated, or there weren't enough nominations to push it into the top five.
>
> Yes, but the awards make and post the RRL *BEFORE* the nominations are
> public. You can vote while they have the list "these are our
> recommendations" for the exact same categories as the final ballot. You
> say that anyone can get nominated in, and I just showed that this is not
> true (three out of fifty-five, don't forget). The RRL needs to be
> completely removed and not linked by the UMA to show an unbiased
> attitude toward the awards.
You have -not- shown that it is not true that anyone can get nominated in. All that you have
shown is that it hasn't happened to the degree that you would like it to. But making a conclusion
by that without any further facts is nothing more than an assumption. The fact that anything at
all outside of the RRL was nominated proves that it -is- possible.
> > The five nominations -not- on the RRL are as follows:
> >
> > Recommended Anthropomorphic Dramatic Series: Lenny And Sid
>
> Lenny and Sid isn't nominated. Silverwing is.
>
> > Recommended Anthropomorphic Short Fiction: A Man's Touch (by Phil Geusz); and Pelton (by
> > Phil Geusz)
>
> These aren't nominated.
Right. My errors. I got the lists backwards when I was consulting them. :P Mea culpa.
> >>>>No offense to Flayrah and DutchFurs, but they're more of promoting press
> >>>>reports with regards to this.
> >>>
> >>> ...and...?
> >>
> >>The point is that Flayrah and DutchFurs are *NOT* promoting anything,
> >>merely reiterating in a central location what press information they
> >>see. These are not opinion sites nor personal sites. They just report.
> >
> > ...and...?
>
> Way to debate. I just stated why you cannot say that Flayrah and
> Dutchfurs independently promote the UMA, because they just report the
> news and press releases. Your reply? ...and...?
>
> You must not have a response.
No, that -was- my response. I don't see your point. So they're news sites and they just
report the press releases. So? Despite what you seem to think, it -is- still a promotion.
> So I'll just shoot down your theory that
> Flayrah promotes the UMA. I see no proof of this. Same with DF. They're
> just news posting sites.
I never said that -they- were promoting it. I said that the reports were posted there, and
thus is promoted.
> >>Using these as saying people are promoting the awards is incorrect.
> >>They're taking the news from the UMA and putting it up for people to read.
> >
> > Yes. That's correct. Sending such news to one of those sites is known as a Press
> > Release, and that -is- a promotion.
>
> No, that is a press release. In your thinking, a news agency that
> reports on an armed robbery is promoting use of guns to get money
> illegally. Or a news agency stating that a new Wal Mart is opening is
> promoting Wal Mart.
The first would be a considerable stretch of logic, but the latter is absolutely true. If a
news agency receives a press release that Wal Mart is opening a new store, then, yes, that press
release is a promotion. Who do you think -made- that press release? Why do you think it was
made? It was made by Wal Mart's PR branch for the sake of announcing their new store. That's
called a promotion.
> >>>>What about _Big Fish_? _Seabiscuit_? _Underworld_?
> >>>
> >>> What about them? How are any of these furry, except in the most tangential way?
> >>>These are even more 'out there' than the book selections you were complaining about up
> >>>above. I thought SEABISCUIT was a pretty darn good movie, but -furry-? C'mon.
> >>
> >>If Cerulean Sins is furry, why isn't Underworld or Big Fish? And
> >>Seabiscuit was a docudrama about THE HORSE and its team.
> >
> > It was about considerably more than that. It was about the times during which the horse
> > became a winner, and how its status became inspirational to the nation. But it's a
> > historical biography, dramatized. How is it -furry-?
>
> How is Stitch: The Movie furry, then? Because of the alien?
>
> You have a loose definition attributed to furry here, so why can't I
> apply it to Seabiscuit?
I consider the definition applied to SEABISCUIT to be much, much looser than with STITCH, but
I agree it's a decision left to the committee.
> > I can't respond to either CERULEAN SINS or UNDERWORLD, having neither read nor seen
> > either, but how would the latter be eligible if it's simply a gothic horror picture? And in
> > what way is BIG FISH furry?
>
> Cerulean Sins is about the necromancer and partner of the local Vampire
> leader becoming more attuned to her pack of werecats and friends the
> werewolves, while battling back an immensely powerful presence of an
> Elder Vampire.
>
> Underworld is about an age old battle between vampires and werewolves,
> where werewolves are hunting down a human and the vampire hunter wants
> to know why. In the investigation, she discovers that his family is tied
> directly to their elder vampire, and the master werewolf, whom she
> thought had died centuries ago. He has blood which allows him to be both
> a vampire and a werewolf at once, and he battles against the vampires
> trying to destroy the werewolves.
Personally, I have problems with allowing werewolves and the like into the definition, but I
can see where the definition as it's commonly accepted would apply. So, yeah, I guess UNDERWORLD
might apply in that case. No one nominated it? Not enough people were significantly impressed by
it then.
> And, though I have not seen Big Fish, I am told that there is a scene
> near the end which would involve a slightl anthropomorphic aspect. It's
> not huge, but then again, we're talking about how far we can stretch it
> anyways.
If it's minor, then it's probably not enough to garner it a slot.
> > As far as CAT IN THE HAT is concerned, the only proof I need is that not enough people
> > considered it worthy enough to nominate, or it would have been. And your including it was
> > ironic since you were previously complaining about the nominations having all been kid
> > films.
>
> I'm merely suggesting as a rebuttal to your statement that all furries
> have for motion pictures are animated kids' films. Cat in the Hat has
> only mild animation, but in the end, it's still a live-action film.
But still, essentially, a kid's story.
> >>>>Seems like there are more than just animated kids' films for furry
> >>>>motion picture awards.
> >>>
> >>> So far, unproven.
> >>
> >>I just pointed them out. You just responded to them. But you applied
> >>your OPINION, while I'm applying ELIGIBILITY.
> >
> > My 'opinion' is that none of the films (with the single exception of CAT IN THE HAT) is
> > in any way eligible.
>
> And that's your opinion. The awards are not based on one person's
> opinion. Sorry to disappoint you.
>
> Underworld should definitely have been represented if Cerulean Sins had
> been.
Then a lot more people should have nominated it.
> >>The Awards people should not be determining what they think should win
> >>the awards.
> >
> > Now, -that's- YOUR opinion. I see nothing of the sort going on.
>
> Fifty-two of 119 entries made it to the final ballot, only three weren't
> on the list, and there are thousands of eligible items throughout the
> year to correspond to the categories.
I contest 'thousands'. That's an inconceivably huge exaggeration. And even if there were,
there can only be a limited number that will win through to the finalists. They didn't make it on
the finalist ballot? Cream rises.
> I'd say that the point's there. Just open your mind and admit that just
> maybe it's true. So far, really, you're the only person who's arguing
> that this isn't the case.
So far as I can see, you're the only one actively arguing the other point here. At the
moment, it's just you and me here.
> >>Except that THERE ARE MULTIMEDIA WORKS IN THE FANDOM.
> >
> > What were they, where are they, were they produced in the past year, and if they were so
> > good then why didn't anybody nominate them?
>
> Gold Digger. Rowsby's commercials. I'm sure Samantha can list a few more
> from what she's seen.
What's a Rowsby? And how is Gold Digger a multi-media work?
> I've pointed out why they weren't nominated. You choose to assume that
> since three made it on which weren't on the RRL, that it's possible that
> ANYTHING can do it. I'd say the stats are far against anything making it
> to a ballot that isn't on the RRL.
I say you're interpreting the stats to mean what you want them to mean. All I've seen you
prove to me is that there's stuff out there not getting nominated because (generally speaking) no
one knows about them, no one's reccomended them, or else no one's thought them to be worthy of
notice.
> >>Geez, you and Kathmandu ignore these and are blinded. Same, apparently, as the Awards
> >>staff. There just may be people who know of works that deserve an
> >>achievement award, but they can't get them nominated because they
> >>weren't on the list, and therefore, there's no point.
> >
> > More likely they weren't on the list because the people making the list weren't aware of
> > them.
>
> Exactly. The Awards Board should not be recommending ANYTHING. That's
> been my whole point. You think it's something great. Well, you just
> admitted that it can't be, because it can't encompass everything that's
> good, only what they've seen and think are good.
And no one anywhere else is recommending anything else to their friends? There's no word of
mouth outside of the RRL? Friends aren't suggesting things to their friends, showing them books,
telling them of films, sending them to websites? I find that a bit incredible, to say the least.
> >>Whatever happened to the Gold Digger series? Brittany's a werecheetah,
> >>after all. Shouldn't this deserve a nomination? It was completely
> >>overlooked, and it was done by someone whose comic books are well known
> >>in the furry fandom.
> >
> > Did anyone nominate it? (Speaking for myself, I stopped reading it years ago, and was
> > unaware it was still being published.) The nominations were open; all someone had to do was
> > -speak up-.
>
> Since GD is one of AP's biggest productions, and there's a third one on
> the way, I'd say it's still going strong. Who knows whether anyone
> nominated it, but the OAV was just not on the RRL.
There's a Gold Digger OAV? Where was it shown?
> >>Because you choose to ignore or fail to bother researching to see that
> >>it is provable. Look around! Don't just go to one or two sites, or stick
> >>with the same group of people. If you want to see more of this fandom,
> >>look elsewhere. Look overseas. Google, for goodness sakes!
> >
> > Google for what!? If there was something worth seeing, some good mutimedia sites,
> > wouldn't there be enough word-of-mouth so that everybody would at least be aware of it? I
> > haven't seen or heard any buzz on any multimedia events within the past year. If they want
> > me or anyone else to see it, they got to promote it. Can't be nominated if no one knows
> > they're out there. (And, again, if it hasn't been nominate, then it also may be that those
> > who -did- know about it didn't feel they were -worth- nominating,)
>
> You've already told us you hang with people who have no money and only
> go to conventions to gather with each other.
Never said that. I said that I know people like that, and that I'm one of them. But I hang
-- when I hang at all -- with a fairly cosmopolitan group. And I've said that the general
interest of folks who go to furry cons is to gather with other furry fans.
> I'd say that your word of mouth capabilities would be extremely limited
> compared to others who go out and find stuff, have a larger array of
> contacts, and otherwise enjoy things IN the fandom, rather than just
> something they can get quickly from big budget commercial enterprises.
Probably, but that's not -my- limitation.
>
> >>> My view is you're paying attention to the tail instead of the dog that's wagging
> >>>it. If there's no adult-oriented film nominated, then either there were none, or
> >>>there were none that anyone felt strongly enough to nominate. That's not bias, that's
> >>>just a simple vacuum.
> >>
> >>Except, as I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring, the RRL determines
> >>the nominees. Period. And the RRL is put together by the awards panel,
> >>which seems to include their own works!
> >
> > And I've pointed out above that your conclusion is in error.
>
> Except you were in error in your own conclusion.
Not at all. I was only mistaken in the number of non-RRL entries. But the inclusion of even
one proves that the RRL does not dictate the final choices.
> But you still only
> argue that Fred's a nice guy, so he can be unbiased about the ballots
> when his name appears on them.
Actually, I haven't argued anything about Fred's niceness -- though I admit he -is- a nice
guy. I argue his professionality and his long experience, not only in furry fandom -- of which he
has been a member since the very beginning -- but of fandoms in general, including SF and Comics,
of which he has been actively involved in since at least the Sixties. I say his tenure and
experience gives him the maturity and credibilty that is required, and thusly earns our trust.
He's got mine.
> This isn't going to happen to those who view it from outside the
> circle-of-those-who-know-Fred.
I think you'll find it's a -very- large circle.
> I'm basing my question over whether the RRL is truly helping or
> hindering the nominations because iBuck publicly stated he voted outside
> the list, and not one of his nominations made it. How many others do this?
>
> There's only three outside the RRL on the final ballot. So hardly
> anyone's choices, apparently.
Or, what you seem reluctant to consider, the two lists coincide because those making the
nominations were in agreement with the RRL, that those items on the list -were- the best choices.
> >>> What I say above applies here as well. If they're out there, and you thought they
> >>>were worthy, then you should have nominated them.
> >>
> >>Except that only the ones on the RRL get nominated.
> >
> > I repeat: that is not true.
>
> Except that only the games on the RRL got nominated. Look for yourself.
But that doesn't mean that they were nominated simply because they were on the RRL.
> >>I'm providing some problems I _see_ here. The others were posted because
> >>they were covers of commercial works that are available for sale.
> >>Whether or not they loaned these to the awards, I can't speculate...
> >
> > There's no loan involved. The links are to sites where the images are on view, or to
> > where the stories are available through a publisher. In short, they were already posted;
> > all the UMA site did is supply a direct link to them.
>
> Except that the four linked illustrations on the final ballot are all
> hosted on UMA's site? They're not direct linked. Check again.
Oops! You're right. I hadn't noticed that. In which case, I expect the images -were- loaned
to the site.
> >>>>Like people putting on their website, "My comic book is a finalist for
> >>>>the 2003 Ursa Major Awards. Click here for more information and to vote."
> >>>
> >>> Well, that's up to the individual recipient. Not much the UMA can do about that.
> >>
> >>Blah, you seem fit to think that it's everyone else's responsibility to
> >>make the UMAs great. It's not. It's the Awards' responsibility.
> >
> > Baloney. You keep citing the major media awards as examples, but you keep overlooking
> > the simple fact that NONE of them promote the individual nominees. That's the job of the
> > nominees themselves, and more often that of their publishers, producers, and agents,
> > primarily out of self-interest and prestige. -They- make the awards great, because they
> > thrive on it, and their work depends upon it.
>
> No, you're saying that people should be out there trying to win the
> awards. Why should they bother? If the awards aren't going to bother to
> fix their obvious problems (obvious to most everyone else, I should
> say), why should people spend their time and money trying to win them?
> Especially if putting the award next to their name or on their resume
> will just have people asking, "The whats?"
Maybe you should start with actually -checking- with some of the nominees and -asking- THEM
their opinions on this, and finding out whether or not they're excited about it, rather than
making assumptions?
> I'm trying to showcase how to fix them. Others have pointed out with a
> good valid response why some ideas aren't that great. I've concurred.
> With yours, though, I see no valid points that I haven't already conceded.
Funny, I was thinking the same in regards to -your- arguments...
> No one's interested in the UMAs as a whole. Not the fans, not the
> publishers, not the movie makers or show makers, and not the writers and
> artists and editors.
Hey! I'm an artist. And a writer. And an editor. And a fan. And I know publishers. I can
speak better for what their interests are than you can! (I can't speak so well for the movie
makers, though.) Don't be telling -me- if I'm excited or not about being nominated. I know a few
of the other nominees who feel the same way. Don't be putting words in our mouths.
> The only people who seem to think the UMAs are
> worth something are the awards people and you...
Me. An artist. And a writer. And a fan. Etc. Fancy -my- being excited, eh?
> >>My criticism and comments are here to HELP them, to get them to see
> >>where I believe there are problems and make them something people will
> >>want to promote.
> >>
> >>What's your excuse for the apathy?
> >
> > I offer none. Apathy, that is; never mind the excuses. I'm just in major disagreement
> > with you on virtually every count. I don't think there's a major problem. I don't think
> > the awards are broken. They may need refinement, but that's to be expected.
>
> Refinement is a sign of something broken.
No, it's a sign of streamlining and polish.
> >>Why wouldn't it? You think that people just go to a con with only about
> >>$40 to spend? NO! You save up for the con just in case there are plenty
> >>of things you want to buy, but just don't know it yet.
> >
> > I've not only seen people who only go to a con with only $40 to spend, I'm one of them.
> > Sure, I save up what I can, but my bills only allow just so much spare change afterwards.
> > And I know that, while that's not universal, I'm not the only one. (Happily, that's slowly
> > changing for the better.)
>
> Again, find better people to hang out with, then, or just a larger group.
Why? You think they'll lend me more money?
> If you and everyone you hang out with stay within their group at
> cons, have very little money to spend, and haven't heard of too much
> outside the immediate RRL, then you have no valid points, only opinions,
> on arguing that there's nothing else.
I'm sorry, but my duties at the con compell me to interact with pretty much everybody there; I
don't get much time to hang with -any- one particular crowd. My lightweight wallet doesn't
prevent me from getting around; it just precludes me from making a lot of purchases.
--
-Chuck Melville-
Comic book fanatic and sometimes-creator-type-person
http://www.cafeshops.com/feliciakatara
PlanetFur
with an opinion and no fact. You even spout of ridiculously stupid opinions,
and I'll show where. Either find something new to debate, or stop
reiterating your opinion here.
"Charles Melville" <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote in message
news:40725737...@zipcon.com...
> > From the UMA website:
> >
> > More formally known as the Annual Anthropomorphic Literature and Arts of
> > the Year Awards, the Ursa Major Awards are awarded anually for
> > excellence in the furry arts. They are intended as Anthropomorphic
> > (a.k.a. Furry) Fandom's equivalents of S-F fandom's Hugo Awards, mystery
> > fandom's Anthony Awards, horror fandom's Bram Stoker Awards, and so
forth.
>
> I think you're way too overly concerned about the equivalency thing.
The statement only means
> that they're trying to forward an award program, like the other genres
have, not that it's
> supposed to be a cloned twin, exact down to purpose and procedure.
Except, well, they say they're INTENDED AS ANTHROPOMORPHIC (aka FURRY)
FANDOM _EQUIVALENTS_ OF...
Their INTENTION is to be the EQUIVALENT. In their own words. How am I
pulling that INTENTION and EQUIVALENT out as something to focus on and
I'm wrong in doing so?
It's right there as their MISSION. If they intend to be equivalents, they
should
use what makes these so great. You can't intend to be equivalent to
something
by just doing whatever you want in your own methods and hope it'll get you
there.
It just doesn't work.
> > Hugo awards are given for achievements in the field of SF and Fantasy.
> > NOT OUTSIDE IT.
>
> And the Ursas are given for achievements in furry fiction and art.
It's not for work strictly
> within the fandom, anymore than the Hugo is strictly for work done
within -its- fandom.
Wait, what? I didn't say the Hugo is done strictly in its fandom. I'm saying
they don't go outside science fiction and fantasy. The Ursas just tack furry
onto anything remotely interesting to those in the fandom as eligible.
This is the problem. Promote that which really is, as an achievement.
Giving, say, Pixar an award for best furry achievement really means shit to
them, no matter how big the Ursas could get. And then, you're just going to
insult those who may have made their own motion picture (though probably
short) in the fandom that is INTENDED to be furry.
I can't believe you don't see this as broken.
Saying that it's possible to win a Presidency without being part of a major
political party in the USA because there have been a couple of Presidents
who did, does not make this a very GOOD possibility. With the UMAs, the past
has shown that very few outside the RRL make it, year after year. And I've
shown great points that there are many, many items that never appeared on
the RRL. Your rebuttal? People just didn't nominate it enough, or didn't
know about it.
Bullshit. People just nominate mostly from the RRL. I think this much is
obvious. Want this proven? Withhold the RRL completely until the final
ballot. Have the panel make up the list before nominations and without
changing it, post it publicly after the finals are ready to go. If they
match 90% of them, like they seem to do, then of course they're good, and
I'm wrong. If they don't come close, then it's proof they prejudiced the
nominations.
What's wrong with doing this? It's not like there aren't other
recommendations people make all the time.
> > How is Stitch: The Movie furry, then? Because of the alien?
> >
> > You have a loose definition attributed to furry here, so why can't I
> > apply it to Seabiscuit?
>
> I consider the definition applied to SEABISCUIT to be much, much
looser than with STITCH, but
> I agree it's a decision left to the committee.
No, the committee should not be making these decisions at all. It should be
the fandom. The problem exists in that there really are no TV Series and
Motion Pictures that ARE furry that can compete against the major
productions that appeal to furries, and have furry aspects. Thus my
recommendation for a change to these categories.
> > > I can't respond to either CERULEAN SINS or UNDERWORLD, having
neither read nor seen
> > > either, but how would the latter be eligible if it's simply a gothic
horror picture? And in
> > > what way is BIG FISH furry?
> >
> > Cerulean Sins is about the necromancer and partner of the local Vampire
> > leader becoming more attuned to her pack of werecats and friends the
> > werewolves, while battling back an immensely powerful presence of an
> > Elder Vampire.
> >
> > Underworld is about an age old battle between vampires and werewolves,
> > where werewolves are hunting down a human and the vampire hunter wants
> > to know why. In the investigation, she discovers that his family is tied
> > directly to their elder vampire, and the master werewolf, whom she
> > thought had died centuries ago. He has blood which allows him to be both
> > a vampire and a werewolf at once, and he battles against the vampires
> > trying to destroy the werewolves.
>
> Personally, I have problems with allowing werewolves and the like into
the definition, but I
> can see where the definition as it's commonly accepted would apply. So,
yeah, I guess UNDERWORLD
> might apply in that case. No one nominated it? Not enough people were
significantly impressed by
> it then.
Underworld in the theaters picked up $51.9 mill ($91 mill globally) for a
September release, and stayed in the US theaters for 14 weeks. Not a bad run
for a dark fantasy movie. It was #1 for its opening weekend as well. It was
nominated for six awards (2 Golden Reel Awards, 3 Saturn Awards and a
Cinescape Award).
I'd say people were impressed by it.
If Cerulean Sins made it, why didn't Underworld, since the two are very
similar in many aspects. One was on the RRL, the other wasn't.
> > > As far as CAT IN THE HAT is concerned, the only proof I need is
that not enough people
> > > considered it worthy enough to nominate, or it would have been. And
your including it was
> > > ironic since you were previously complaining about the nominations
having all been kid
> > > films.
> >
> > I'm merely suggesting as a rebuttal to your statement that all furries
> > have for motion pictures are animated kids' films. Cat in the Hat has
> > only mild animation, but in the end, it's still a live-action film.
>
> But still, essentially, a kid's story.
No one argued against it. You brought in a rebuttal that I mentioned a kids'
story, when I said that the whole of the motion picture category were
ANIMATED kids' stories. Animated films or (but not and) kids' films would
have been better, to have had a mix of options. When they're all the same
genre, you get people like yourself who say that's all we have for motion
pictures.
You were incorrect. You tried to dodge it. Stop trying.
> > > My 'opinion' is that none of the films (with the single exception
of CAT IN THE HAT) is
> > > in any way eligible.
> >
> > And that's your opinion. The awards are not based on one person's
> > opinion. Sorry to disappoint you.
> >
> > Underworld should definitely have been represented if Cerulean Sins had
> > been.
>
> Then a lot more people should have nominated it.
And the problem isn't that more people should have nominated it, it's that
far few people *care*.
I'm arguing points in hopes of fixing the awards. You're blaming others for
any of these, but that the awards are just fine.
You have no facts to back this up, only ignoring statistics and history.
"Give them time" is based on nothing, as well.
> > >>The Awards people should not be determining what they think should win
> > >>the awards.
> > >
> > > Now, -that's- YOUR opinion. I see nothing of the sort going on.
> >
> > Fifty-two of 119 entries made it to the final ballot, only three weren't
> > on the list, and there are thousands of eligible items throughout the
> > year to correspond to the categories.
>
> I contest 'thousands'. That's an inconceivably huge exaggeration.
And even if there were,
> there can only be a limited number that will win through to the finalists.
They didn't make it on
> the finalist ballot? Cream rises.
The Furry list on Belfry lists over 700 comic strips alone. How many
published illustrations were there last year? How many furry comic books?
How many published short stories?
No, thousands is a good estimate. Like I've suggested, get out of your small
group of friends and really see what's out there in furry fandom. You'd be
amazed.
And I'm not saying they all deserve to be on the ballots. What I'm saying is
that your statement that it's easy or possible for anything furry-related to
be nominated is bullshit. 52 of 119 on the RRL, 3 of THOUSANDS... No, I'm
certain that there's a very harsh bias that's presented with the recommended
reading.
I don't know what it will take for you to see through your ignorance that
it's happening, except my test above. There's no basis to thinking that
there's NOT a bias. There's no basis to blaming people for not nominating
what they prefer. The awards are causing the apathy and the lack of non-RRL
titles.
> > I'd say that the point's there. Just open your mind and admit that just
> > maybe it's true. So far, really, you're the only person who's arguing
> > that this isn't the case.
>
> So far as I can see, you're the only one actively arguing the other
point here. At the
> moment, it's just you and me here.
You must not listen to 2 Sense. Jakebe, just out of the blue, mentioned the
Ursa Majors, and 2 and he poked fun of the press release's wording. Then he
immediately mentioned my criticism of them, and that I had good points,
nothing negative about what I said. I don't know Jakebe, and only met 2 a
couple of times. He wouldn't even remember me.
So, there's one unbiased account with much more publicity than what UMA has
shown. Flayrah posted a link to my blog, which is even more amazing. Nothing
negative, nothing positive, but when has Flayrah EVER posted a link to
someone's blog, especially since I have, what, four or five posts on it?
Guess what, Charles. There's enough there to suggest that just maybe, my
points ARE valid, and that there ARE people who feel that the UMAs are
broken and need fixed.
> > Gold Digger. Rowsby's commercials. I'm sure Samantha can list a few more
> > from what she's seen.
>
> What's a Rowsby? And how is Gold Digger a multi-media work?
He's been an artist for a considerable time, and his website's been around
for years. He did a werebear transformation animation for Wizards for a d20
release (dunno what happened with it), but recently he worked on the
Trim-A-Bear (I think it is?) Light Klondike Bars commercials. You know, the
one with the scarf-wearing polar-bear trying to exercise, and instead
relaxing while eating a Light Klondike Ice Cream Bar. Samples are on his
website, http://www.rowsby.com/
And Gold Digger's had TWO direct-to-video short movies. I'd say that
animation with sound and music constitutes multimedia, don't you? They've
been out for a while (Vol. 2 last summer) and they're heavily promoted in
AP's section in PREVIEWS.
> > I've pointed out why they weren't nominated. You choose to assume that
> > since three made it on which weren't on the RRL, that it's possible that
> > ANYTHING can do it. I'd say the stats are far against anything making it
> > to a ballot that isn't on the RRL.
>
> I say you're interpreting the stats to mean what you want them to
mean. All I've seen you
> prove to me is that there's stuff out there not getting nominated because
(generally speaking) no
> one knows about them, no one's reccomended them, or else no one's thought
them to be worthy of
> notice.
And you're interpreting them to mean that people just didn't think anything
much off the list was worth nominating. Based on absolutely nothing but
taking in the faith that the RRL just happens to be the cream of the crop.
I don't believe it is. iBuck doesn't believe it is. Anyone else want to
chime in about it?
> > Exactly. The Awards Board should not be recommending ANYTHING. That's
> > been my whole point. You think it's something great. Well, you just
> > admitted that it can't be, because it can't encompass everything that's
> > good, only what they've seen and think are good.
>
> And no one anywhere else is recommending anything else to their
friends? There's no word of
> mouth outside of the RRL? Friends aren't suggesting things to their
friends, showing them books,
> telling them of films, sending them to websites? I find that a bit
incredible, to say the least.
They could. But they don't need to nominate for the UMAs in order to
recommend. People just don't feel like participating in the UMAs. I've
listed many reasons why. Your reason seems to be simply that they're still
young.
> > Since GD is one of AP's biggest productions, and there's a third one on
> > the way, I'd say it's still going strong. Who knows whether anyone
> > nominated it, but the OAV was just not on the RRL.
>
> There's a Gold Digger OAV? Where was it shown?
OAV = original animated video. I.E. It's on direct-to-video production, not
in theaters, not on television.
I brought over a dozen to Anthrocon last year to sell, sold them out before
we closed on Saturday. They're popular.
> > You've already told us you hang with people who have no money and only
> > go to conventions to gather with each other.
>
> Never said that. I said that I know people like that, and that I'm
one of them. But I hang
> -- when I hang at all -- with a fairly cosmopolitan group. And I've said
that the general
> interest of folks who go to furry cons is to gather with other furry fans.
The general interest of folks I know who go to furry cons is to go to furry
cons. Many of them already gather with each other away from the con, but
they go for the workshops, the dealers' room, the art show, the auction,
just to get away, and other such events.
Many of them just don't associate with other fans as much. They're there for
the con, not the fans.
> > I'd say that your word of mouth capabilities would be extremely limited
> > compared to others who go out and find stuff, have a larger array of
> > contacts, and otherwise enjoy things IN the fandom, rather than just
> > something they can get quickly from big budget commercial enterprises.
>
> Probably, but that's not -my- limitation.
It is when you argue that there's nothing else interesting for people to
nominate.
> > > And I've pointed out above that your conclusion is in error.
> >
> > Except you were in error in your own conclusion.
>
> Not at all. I was only mistaken in the number of non-RRL entries.
But the inclusion of even
> one proves that the RRL does not dictate the final choices.
No, the inclusion of one does not disprove that the RRL dictates the final
choices. Even three does not. The history of constantly having over 90% of
the final ballots on the RRL in the first place should be evidence that the
RRL influences the choices. You seem to feel that any stray is proof that
there is NO influence.
ANY influence by the awards' body on the outcome of the awards takes away
all the prestige and unbiased worth of the awards, that are supposed to be
voted on by the fandom.
> > But you still only
> > argue that Fred's a nice guy, so he can be unbiased about the ballots
> > when his name appears on them.
>
> Actually, I haven't argued anything about Fred's niceness -- though I
admit he -is- a nice
> guy. I argue his professionality and his long experience, not only in
furry fandom -- of which he
> has been a member since the very beginning -- but of fandoms in general,
including SF and Comics,
> of which he has been actively involved in since at least the Sixties. I
say his tenure and
> experience gives him the maturity and credibilty that is required, and
thusly earns our trust.
> He's got mine.
Again, no one's disputing what Fred is capable of or how great and honest he
is. He could be a saint and never would commit a crime. The simple fact is,
not everyone knows Fred, and having his name on the awards' body and in the
nominees causes people to perceive an impropriety. You have an opinion, only
an opinion, that this is not true. I have many awards that have been around
for years where this is a RULE, because of the need to show that there are
no improprieties.
He does not earn our trust just because a few people trust him now. He must
earn it through everyone he wants to trust him. This means everyone who is
going to nominate or vote or even put value to the awards. That's a lot of
people to constantly keep earning trust.
It's just much easier and wiser to recuse or drop off the awards' team.
> > This isn't going to happen to those who view it from outside the
> > circle-of-those-who-know-Fred.
>
> I think you'll find it's a -very- large circle.
I don't know Fred. I don't know anyone personally who knows Fred. I know a
large amount of people.
Fred could be a very nice guy. I certainly have nothing against him. But I
keep reiterating because you keep forming the same biased opinion, that
there's the possibility of impropriety, and that viewpoint jeopardizes the
validity and unbiasedness of the awards, simply because of his ties with the
awards' body.
There's no way to defend this with "HE IS A NICE GUY!" Doesn't matter. He
shouldn't be nominated if he's on the body for an open voting award, or he
shouldn't be on the body if he wants to try to win.
> > I'm basing my question over whether the RRL is truly helping or
> > hindering the nominations because iBuck publicly stated he voted outside
> > the list, and not one of his nominations made it. How many others do
this?
> >
> > There's only three outside the RRL on the final ballot. So hardly
> > anyone's choices, apparently.
>
> Or, what you seem reluctant to consider, the two lists coincide
because those making the
> nominations were in agreement with the RRL, that those items on the
list -were- the best choices.
I considered it. Then I realized that it's bullshit.
There are so many different possible candidates, that it is NOT coincidence
how close the lists were. Underworld had a bigger presence than most of the
movies, yet it wasn't on either list. Sorry, that alone makes me question
how much the RRL influenced the vote.
Why didn't Get Fuzzy get nominated? It's a GREAT, funny, and very well done
comic strip in syndication, online, and merchandised. How can this not be a
furry comic strip if Brother Bear or Finding Nemo are furry motion pictures?
Because the RRL lists only internet-based comics (except one that was in
Yarf!), and these translated over to the nomination list (all except Jack).
People don't know about this comic? Hardly, it's one of the most popular in
syndication right now. People don't think it's worthy of an award? Again,
that's crap, as it wins other awards.
So, the Get Fuzzy aspect, how does that favor into the RRL doesn't influence
the votes, only reflects a like-mindset?
> > Except that only the games on the RRL got nominated. Look for yourself.
>
> But that doesn't mean that they were nominated simply because they
were on the RRL.
Instead of rebutting the point with just the statement, give some insightful
reasons, please.
Why doesn't it mean that they were nominated simply because they were on the
RRL? What, the Killer Bunnies expansion just wasn't any good? The new lines
from the War Gods miniatures just weren't known enough to make a single
nomination? That the TMNT show gets nominated for TV Show but the games
don't get nominated for game?
Sorry, it's clear that your argument is falling apart, that the RRL does not
influence anything.
> > Except that the four linked illustrations on the final ballot are all
> > hosted on UMA's site? They're not direct linked. Check again.
>
> Oops! You're right. I hadn't noticed that. In which case, I expect
the images -were- loaned
> to the site.
Right. So why aren't the other two? If they aren't, why link the other four?
It gives an unfair advantage, whether or not those four agreed and the other
two didn't. The awards need to be as unbiased as possible.
> > No, you're saying that people should be out there trying to win the
> > awards. Why should they bother? If the awards aren't going to bother to
> > fix their obvious problems (obvious to most everyone else, I should
> > say), why should people spend their time and money trying to win them?
> > Especially if putting the award next to their name or on their resume
> > will just have people asking, "The whats?"
>
> Maybe you should start with actually -checking- with some of the
nominees and -asking- THEM
> their opinions on this, and finding out whether or not they're excited
about it, rather than
> making assumptions?
Has Stan Sakai ever made mention of his wins? He's won twice, after all, and
he's up for a third. Dark Natasha? Brock Hoagland? XianJaguar? Brenda just
redid her site, and I couldn't find one mention of her being nominated or
even winning the award. So I googled it. The only mention outside the UMA
site is the fanzine's page on that issue of Fur Visions that she won, and
congratulated her. Brenda doesn't seem to consider it worth any space on her
site.
In retrospect, check out these people and how they feel about the awards
they were given:
http://www.sfwriter.com/ <<< Rob's EXTREMELY proud of his Hugo award.
http://www.vanbelkom.com/ <<< Edo's first line of text is that he's won
awards.
http://www.hatrack.com/osc/about.shtml <<< OSC mentions up front that he's
done something no one else has, won the Hugo and Nebula awards for best
novel two years in a row.
http://www.bobeggleton.com/mainframe1.html <<< Bob Eggleton's bio near the
bottom of the Who's Bob page (after all the info on the change in webmaster
and his upcoming works) states the awards he's won.
Should I continue? DarkNatasha, Brock, Xian, Stan, and many others who have
won or been nominated really don't care. Yet when it's a Hugo, Nebula, Bram
Stoker, Arthur Ellis or Chelsey award, these professionals make sure people
know about it up front.
Hardly anyone CARES about the UMA. It's fairly obvious. I believe I've
pointed out why. You disagree. You don't want to see my points, and I can't
concede just opinions as facts or simplifications that have no facts. Sorry.
I guess we'll never agree.
> > I'm trying to showcase how to fix them. Others have pointed out with a
> > good valid response why some ideas aren't that great. I've concurred.
> > With yours, though, I see no valid points that I haven't already
conceded.
>
> Funny, I was thinking the same in regards to -your- arguments...
But you base this on your opinion or generalization. YOU don't see it that
way. How many others agree? Look at 2 Sense for at least one major
publicized account of where someone agrees with my arguments.
> > No one's interested in the UMAs as a whole. Not the fans, not the
> > publishers, not the movie makers or show makers, and not the writers and
> > artists and editors.
>
> Hey! I'm an artist. And a writer. And an editor. And a fan. And I
know publishers. I can
> speak better for what their interests are than you can! (I can't speak so
well for the movie
> makers, though.) Don't be telling -me- if I'm excited or not about being
nominated. I know a few
> of the other nominees who feel the same way. Don't be putting words in
our mouths.
Uh, what? I'm a writer. I agent for artists. I edit. I'm a fan AND a
business. I know publishers and I publish. I know award-winning writers.
I've *been* published professionally. I make money off story commissions as
well, as high as six-cents-per-word for short stories. For furry-based
stories, that's incredibly good.
However, not one of the artists, writers, publishers, artists, etc., I know
in the furry fandom is really concerned about whether or not they received a
nomination or win from the UMAs. Now, give any of them notice that they've
received a nomination for the Nebula, and you'd see them become extremely
interested.
Nebulas are far superior, yes. But the point of the matter is, the UMA
really isn't all that important, it's not really worth anything to most
anyone in the fandom, including, obviously, most of its winners and
nominees. You're different, fine. But you definitely can't speak for a
majority.
> > The only people who seem to think the UMAs are
> > worth something are the awards people and you...
>
> Me. An artist. And a writer. And a fan. Etc. Fancy -my- being
excited, eh?
Me. A writer, publisher, editor, fan, dealer, agent and site producer. I'm
currently not eligible for the UMA this year because I had nothing furry
published or finished in 2003. Even so, if I were to get nominated, I don't
see myself as being interested in the least bit. Why? No one will care who
matters.
I can't take a UMA to an agent, to a publisher, or attach it to my resume,
and make anything better. I will just get asked what it is, since there's a
pretty good chance they won't know.
So why should I be excited? Because it's an award? They're a dime a dozen.
When it becomes prestigious, call me.
> > Refinement is a sign of something broken.
>
> No, it's a sign of streamlining and polish.
That's what you do with something of age or size. The UMA are neither.
They're fairly new and VERY small. You can't streamline and polish something
that small and narrow. You can only change it.
> > Again, find better people to hang out with, then, or just a larger
group.
>
> Why? You think they'll lend me more money?
So you can see that there are people indeed who spend more than $40 at a
show, or will introduce you to even more people, or you can have more fun at
shows.
> > If you and everyone you hang out with stay within their group at
> > cons, have very little money to spend, and haven't heard of too much
> > outside the immediate RRL, then you have no valid points, only opinions,
> > on arguing that there's nothing else.
>
> I'm sorry, but my duties at the con compell me to interact with pretty
much everybody there; I
> don't get much time to hang with -any- one particular crowd. My
lightweight wallet doesn't
> prevent me from getting around; it just precludes me from making a lot of
purchases.
True, but my point is that people do spend the money. Yours was that the
average fan cannot. I see otherwise. Hence my suggestion to get away from
those people and be with those who aren't YOUR average furry, but mine, at
these cons.
iBuck
them
without being on the RRL, or probably, if they -had- known of them, weren't
overly impressed
with them. >>
Which beg the question weather this is a award for quality, or for being well
known in the fandom. ,
<< If nobody else seconded his nomination... >>
Hypotheetically it shouldn't matter how many people nominate a peice, once
it's in, the judges should do the research and pick the 5 -best- works, not the
most nominated ones.
If that means the judges have to do some more work, then so be it otherwise
there's no real point in having a nominating process, just pick the most voted
for in each catagory and hand out the award.
<You even say yourself that you haven't played them; how, then, can you judge
whether or not they were worthy enough of being on -either- list, >
It works both ways, can you honestly judge and say that they -wern't?- worthy
of being on either list.. I think in the end, with the games the diffrence
comes down to being able to find them on the shelves in Wal-Mart, rather than
having to huntthem down in a local comic/gaming shop, I just wonder if anybody
even -tried- to see where they came in on quality..
iBuck
Rowsby's a professional animator by trade, and his work often includes anthro
characters, he I belive has his stuff on YNA..
Gold Digger is a multi media work because Fred Perry has put in the time and
effort to animate not just one but two 1/2 hour OVA..
I hate to say it, but it seems you're getting a little hung up on equating the
number of people nominating a work with a measure of it's qualilty. It's quite
possibele to have -good- works that nobody has heard of, as your own ignorance
of Rowsby and the Golddigger OAV's demonstrates...
Samantha Ann Patterson
I guess it was a bit overly dramatic. Like I said. Wounded ego and all
of that. I recognize that I actually am not a fantastic animator yet
and that Ghost Warrior is quite a lot better than everythign I've done.
You have to understand though, that from the perspective of a wounded
ego, one tends to see only the 'shortcuts and fanservice' stuff. (How many
Matrix camera twirls do we need? How about that soft lighting?)
On the other hand, totally skipping all the other work out there is kind
of savage. I've put probably 1000 hours into my current film and it still
likely has another 500 hours to go at least. I guess I feel justified to
be at least a little indignant. I suspect other artists might feel a bit
injured as well.
Probably wrong to place the blame squarely on you though. It'd be more
proper to certain people who see AFF as nothing but a place to spew
unintelligent political agenda (including myself at times) instead of a
place to share news and information about the fandom.
So. Sorry if I seemed shrill, I just needed to be the sensative artist
for a moment.
-Samantha
XianJaguar
randomly clicking. So I guess it's meant to be that I respond, since my name
was mentioned.
<<Subject: Re: Ursa Major Award Nominees are chosen, and it's not a good sign
From: "PlanetFur" cb...@dragonmagic.net
Has Stan Sakai ever made mention of his wins? He's won twice, after all, andf
he's up for a third. Dark Natasha? Brock Hoagland? XianJaguar? Brenda just
redid her site, and I couldn't find one mention of her being nominated or even
winning the award. So I googled it. The only mention outside the UMA site is
the fanzine's page on that issue of Fur Visions that she won, and congratulated
her. Brenda doesn't seem to consider it worth any space on her site.>>
<snip>
<<Should I continue? DarkNatasha, Brock, Xian, Stan, and many others who have
won or been nominated really don't care. <snip>Hardly anyone CARES about the
UMA. It's fairly obvious. I believe I've pointed out why. You disagree. You
don't want to see my points, and I can't concede just opinions as facts or
simplifications that have no facts. Sorry. I guess we'll never agree.>>
Well, yes, I won an Ursa Major award.
Now, to answer questions.
Q) Do I Care?
A) Well, yes, I do. I was very happy to get it, and I showed it to my parents,
and for once, they were actually proud of my "furry" art.
Q) Why don't I treat it like the Hugo Awards?
A) Furry Fandom is such a small niche. Winning a (newly created) award in
fandom is almost akin to winning the school science fair. Yes, it makes the
person who won feel honored, but it's essentially like winning the class
spelling bee. It's among your friends and peers, for crying out loud. Maybe 200
people at most notice, and none of them, except for your closest friends and
family, care. You get a nice plaque to hang up (mine is on top of the living
room bookcase) but it's not like it comes with same prestige or sponsor-backed
rewards as winning the Hugo, or anything similiar. In other words, you won't
find your face on the Wheaties box because you won Ursa Major.
Q) Do I appreciate Ursa Major?
A) Yes! It's a nice gesture. It makes the people who won feel good. And it was
very sweet and kind of Darrell and the rest of the folks to create it. But it's
just not at the stage where it's taken seriously at all. That comes with time.
Or with better backing. There just aren't enough "name brands" who sponsor the
Ursas yet. There's no backing. It might as well be Joe Shmoe handing them out.
Or the AnthroCon art show awards. They're spiffy, but no one touts them.
Q) Why isn't the Ursa Major Award on your site?
A) You know, I never thought of it. I don't usually like to toot my own horn.
The plaque is in my living room, but it's not like I take it out and whish it
around the room for all to see when folks come visit. I don't wear it around my
neck, though, I DO appreciate it in my heart.
And to be frank, I don't feel I should have won. To be fair, look who I was
competing against! DARK NATASHA, for crying out loud! And Mike Raabe! Mike's
illo was on a REAL RPG book, with a glossy cover, and his art looks like a
freakin' pro, because he IS ONE. My art *paled* in both skill and reproduction
to both Mike and Natasha. So something tells me right there that the voting for
the Ursa Majors couldn't possibly be fair. Natasha has been GOH at Cons
already...no one has ever asked me. Mike is well known and a pro. I'm not. And
yet...I won? Yes, I feel good, but...I was still suspicious. I'm just not that
good yet to win an award. Give me a few years. =)
--XianJaguar
Visit my all new site! http://www.furnation.com/XianJaguar/
PlanetFur
> I found this thread by sheer whimsy...just by looking through the posts and
> randomly clicking. So I guess it's meant to be that I respond, since my name
> was mentioned.
Thank you for responding. I accept that you do care, from your own
words, but you hit the nail right on the head. The Ursas really are just
like any other award that can pop up at any time. There's no true
organization or company or prestige to back them up. As such, they're
pretty much meaningless in a professional sense.
You hung yours up, but you don't show it off. I've been to Rob Sawyer's
penthouse. He has a lighted glass-shelf bookcase for most of his major
awards (the Hugo is in the center just under eye level for easy
viewing), and his numerous Auroras are on a corner shelving unit in his
office. The "uglier" awards, or lesser ones, usually go on the bottom
shelves.
In his main hallway, he's got the framed certificates of his wins, of
his congratulations, etc. He's extremely proud to show his achievements off.
His website proudly shows off his Hugo Award. I'm glad he won, because
he was against some major competition for years.
You don't believe you deserve an award. I believe you're at a level
where you can win secondary art and fantasy awards. Maybe not a Hugo or
Nebula yet, but you've got enough talent.
But yes, the Ursas have major problems. They have no prestige, they have
almost no meaning, and it adds to the apathy that people have shown it.
You don't believe you should have won against Dark Natasha. Perhaps
others believe this now and have given up hope for a decent award since.
I don't know. But thank you for your response.
Kay Shapero
nos...@nospam.planetfur.com says...
> Samantha Ann Patterson wrote:
>
> > Ghost Warrior is a short.
> > My short 'Free as a Bird' ran at FC2004.
> > So did a short by Smudge at Backbreaker Studio.
> > I also know at least 3 other furry community animators that have produced
> > shorts,
> > And that's WITHOUT counting all the nifty Korean and Japanese
> > flash animation featuring cat and bunny characters.
>
> Right. There _are_ furries working on multimedia works, but don't have
> the budgets for full feature-length motion pictures, nor to make
> television series. This is why my suggestion was just to have a
> multimedia award, so that furries COULD be eligible and we'd stop having
> to look outside the fandom to award achievements IN the fandom.
Suggest them for the Recommended List.
Nominate them.
Vote for them.
--
Prrrrrp!
Kay Shapero
reply address munged - use earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~kayshapero/
PlanetFur
> Suggest them for the Recommended List.
For what? It's Motion Picture and TV Series. How would someone's
two-minute short posted online fit into these? Face it, the categories
are biased toward big corporations and not to the furries for which it
is designed.
It also defeats the purpose of eliminating the Recommended List. It
needs to go.
> Nominate them.
iBuck mentioned that he nominated some things. They didn't make it. How
many people nominate and then don't get their nominees on the ballot? As
I pointed out, 52 of 55 nominations on this year's ballot came from the
Recommended List, of which there were 119 entries. Not looking good for
people to bother nominating off that list.
> Vote for them.
There's only a couple entries this year that I would vote for. But since
it's just a glorified web-award, I have no desire. When it starts
improving and becoming for the furries by the furries, then maybe I'd
take more interest. Until then, I hope they listen to what others have
been saying.
Kay Shapero
nos...@nospam.planetfur.com says...
> Kay Shapero wrote:
>
> > Suggest them for the Recommended List.
>
> For what? It's Motion Picture and TV Series. How would someone's
> two-minute short posted online fit into these?
Motion Picture.
Or maybe "Other Literary" should be broadened to "Other", in
which case anything that doesn't seem to fit anywhere else could
go there. This solution would also keep the number of awards
from growing - and the list is really a mite too long as it is.
>
> It also defeats the purpose of eliminating the Recommended List. It
> needs to go.
(note on how awful the List is snipped to save room)
Oho - I think I see the problem...
The Recommended List is NOT the creation of the committee, handed
down from Roscoe On High. As the title suggests, it's the
recommendations of any fan who wishes to send in a suggestion.
Any fan. You, for example. It shouldn't be a surprise that many
nominees are seen there first - the whole point is to list as
many interesting creations of the year as possible as a guide to
what's out there for those who complained they couldn't think of
anything. But no one person, or even a handful of them can find
everything. You can and *should* send additions to the
recommended list! There's an email link to Fred on the web page
where you can send them, or you can snailmail them to the address
given there. Or send 'em to me to forward to Fred for the hard
copy list - I maintain the on-line version so will be the one to
actually post them there.
Indeed, I'd say the List is rather more important than the awards
themselves. Even if Fred dropped the whole thing, I'd probably
take over the List myself.
Now, are you interested in further discussion in a spirit of
constructive criticism? If so, I'd like to talk to you some
more, either in here or via email (kayshapero |at| earthlink
|dot| net).
Tamar
years is validated or something. I've only been aware of the award for the
past too years (not being one to get to the west coast where I think they
originated). Being one of the few artists who singlely does a comic on a
(granted, lately) semi-regularly bases, I'd love to win. Of course beating
out Mr. Saki, now that's a dream.
I'd post about it and put it on the cover if I won one.
--
Shawntae Howard
www.extinctioners.com
"XianJaguar" <xianj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040406233045...@mb-m03.aol.com...
Tamar
know about them the more popular they become. Frankly though, lately there
doesn't seem to be enough being produced to support some of the categories
in the pure way of "furry" you talk about. Unlike the 90s when I first
discovered furry,t here were a lot of furry comics out there. Now, there are
maybe less than a hand full of consistant series out there. There aren't
many fanzines anymore, and I'm not sure about novels.
And even cartoons today are becoming less and less animal related and going
more Japanese import.
But It hink the award is still a neat idea, one I'd like to work towards
someday winning. Hey, you take what you can get in recognition. Every little
bit counts in my book.
--
Shawntae Howard
www.extinctioners.com
"PlanetFur" <nos...@nospam.planetfur.com> wrote in message
news:c4vteg$21gb$1...@velox.critter.net...
Tamar
UMAs, who has won them in the past and just how long has it been going on?
--
Shawntae Howard
www.extinctioners.com
"PlanetFur" <nos...@nospam.planetfur.com> wrote in message
news:c4sqr9$1hbs$1...@velox.critter.net...
Kay Shapero
says...
> Heck, I'd LOVE to win one. It would make me feel my work the past couple of
> years is validated or something. I've only been aware of the award for the
> past too years (not being one to get to the west coast where I think they
> originated). Being one of the few artists who singlely does a comic on a
It's only been around for the past two years - this upcoming one
is the third ever awarded.
BTW - as has been pointed out while at the moment the Recommended
List isn't intended as some sort of "prenominating form", having
something listed on it does seem to help in getting it actually
nominated. And the way to get something onto the recommended
list is (what else) to write in to the address given and
recommend it. :-> Now I can understand not wanting to blow your
own horn, but when someone congratulates you on something
done within the year for which it would be eligible, suggest they
recommend it!
Kay Shapero
says...
> Well, I am curious, as this tread hs made me much more aware about the
> UMAs, who has won them in the past and just how long has it been going on?
See the website at http://www.ursamajorawards.org/ and all will
be revealed to you. :-> Most of what you're looking for can be
accessed from the toc in the sidebar; the links to the earlier
recommended lists are embedded in the current one - If you don't
want to hunt for them try:
http://www.ursamajorawards.org/RL2001.htm
and
http://www.ursamajorawards.org/RL2002.htm
And whoops - didn't notice who you were when I replied to that
first message - not only did Extinctioners make the list twice, I
see it's gotten nominated this year. Good luck!!
Felyne32k
> > _Cat in the Hat_?
>
> Not worthy. If anything, it deserves a Razzie. Not only is it a KID'S MOVIE, but
> a desecration of the book. Frankly, I'd've been horrified if it had been nominated.
>
http://www.razzies.com/asp/24thAwards.htm?cmd=view&articleid=185
--
-Felyne32k, supposed "English Major"
mouse
news:MPG.1ae620daf...@news.west.earthlink.net:
> In article <c5ebdf$24ph$1...@velox.critter.net>, how...@erie.net
> says...
>> Well, I am curious, as this tread hs made me much more aware about
>> the UMAs, who has won them in the past and just how long has it been
>> going on?
>
> See the website at http://www.ursamajorawards.org/ and all will
> be revealed to you. :-> Most of what you're looking for can be
> accessed from the toc in the sidebar; the links to the earlier
> recommended lists are embedded in the current one - If you don't
> want to hunt for them try:
>
> http://www.ursamajorawards.org/RL2001.htm
> and
> http://www.ursamajorawards.org/RL2002.htm
>
> And whoops - didn't notice who you were when I replied to that
> first message - not only did Extinctioners make the list twice, I
> see it's gotten nominated this year. Good luck!!
Do these awards mean anything though? Who is mainly for, furry fans or
people who work on these projects?
Do they have any prestige at all? I think that would be the best area to
work on with the Ursa Major awards. Especially since often it seems non-
furry fans are winning them. Is this something they are even made aware of,
that theyve won? If take it there is no gift, like a plaque or anything?
But if there is, is it be something that someone who is a professional in
some capacity would be proud to win, or would they blow it off because its
just some furries award?
seriously, in the presentations: is chris sanders in the picture there with
his award...is that his red pathfinder? And more importantly, how soon
after this pic was taken was he in the door as vehicle screeched off?
Kay Shapero
mo...@blackvault.com says...
>
> Do these awards mean anything though? Who is mainly for, furry fans or
> people who work on these projects?
The award is for furry fans to decide which item in the various
categories they like the most, regardless of who made it, and
then to express this opinion to the maker of the item.
> Do they have any prestige at all? I think that would be the best area to
> work on with the Ursa Major awards. Especially since often it seems non-
> furry fans are winning them. Is this something they are even made aware of,
> that theyve won? If take it there is no gift, like a plaque or anything?
> But if there is, is it be something that someone who is a professional in
> some capacity would be proud to win, or would they blow it off because its
> just some furries award?
Most of this will be decided as the awards continue - remember,
they're only a few years old currently. There IS a trophy
involved - currently a framed certificate, though starting next
year there will likely be an engraved plastic or glass trophy
instead.
--
Kay Shapero
reply address munged - use earthlink.net