Just checking in with the discussion mailing list. I'm fooz, I write
stuff, I'm generally interested in furry lit, and I'm interested in
how the Ursa Majors go.
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:05:17 -0500
To: discussion@ursamajorawards.org
From: marmelmm@comcast.net
Subject: [UMA-discussion] The Ursas are in trouble.
Some criticism:
http://michaelmink.livejournal.com/276142.html
http://michaelmink.livejournal.com/276452.html
I know of at least one author who has decided against submitting
anything else to the Ursas because, as things stand, he doesn't stand
even the slightest chance of a win.
Changes need to be made, or the UMs are going to slide even further
into obscurity...
Changes need to be made, or the UMs are going to slide even further
into obscurity...
And the committee is currently discussing those changes. Rather
loudly I might add.
At 7:46 PM -0700 3/18/09, Rodney Stansfield wrote:
Changes need to be made, or the UMs are going to slide even further
into obscurity...
And the committee is currently discussing those changes. Rather loudly I
might add.
Ooo! What changes? I have suggestions...
-MMM-
I just feel the need to question--"slide even further into
obscurity"? Are voter totals going down?
Nice to see changes coming around, though. I remember first
suggesting changes back in 2005... remember the nominees that year?
I was told at the time "that's the way the votes came out." Nobody
else made a peep about it, not that I heard.
I think that actually the amount of discussion around the Ursas this
year is a *good* sign. A lot of people are taking notice, people who
didn't give a crap three years ago, people who didn't KNOW about the
Ursas three years ago. Far from "sliding into obscurity," anything
that generates this much discussion is actually gaining in
popularity.
Which doesn't mean changes don't need to be made. I look forward to
hearing some of the suggestions.
1. The public forum needs to happen. Use YaBB or something like it.
2. We need transparency in the nominating and voting procedures. Exact
numbers of votes for each nomination, exact number of votes for each award.
If there's only a couple dozen votes total, we need to know that so we can
step up efforts to get more folks involved.
3. Nomination limits: No author or publication should be nominated for more
than one story or so per category. Ya wanna put additional stories on the
Recommended Reading list, that's fine, but they're strictly on an exhibition
basis to give nominators a better idea of your chops.
4. Award limits: No author or publication should win a category more than
one year running. Any winners should recuse themselves from competition for
at least a year to give others a fair shot.
5. Voting: Wanna make the Ursas like the Hugos? Then do voting like the
Hugos, i.e. the attendees at the con do the final voting. Builds awareness
and participation amongst the population, and precludes ballotbox stuffing.
At 8:08 PM -0700 3/18/09, Tim Susman wrote:
I just feel the need to question--"slide even further into obscurity"? Are
voter totals going down?
Dunno. All I know is that I see virtually no mention of the Ursas
anywhere...
Nice to see changes coming around, though. I remember first suggesting
changes back in 2005... remember the nominees that year?
Heh. Also known as the year I shot myself in the foot.
I was told at the time "that's the way the votes came out." Nobody else made
a peep about it, not that I heard.
Oh, I had words with Chakat about it in private. He said that I actually got
MORE votes, cumulatively, but they got split up amongst the stories. Hence,
shooting myself in the foot.
'Course, I DID produce a lotta good stuff in '05.
I think that actually the amount of discussion around the Ursas this year is
a *good* sign. A lot of people are taking notice, people who didn't give a
crap three years ago, people who didn't KNOW about the Ursas three years
ago. Far from "sliding into obscurity," anything that generates this much
discussion is actually gaining in popularity.
Ummm...three emails? That's part of the problem.
Which doesn't mean changes don't need to be made. I look forward to hearing
some of the suggestions.
Surely! Here ya go.
1. The public forum needs to happen. Use YaBB or something like it.
2. We need transparency in the nominating and voting procedures. Exact
numbers of votes for each nomination, exact number of votes for each award.
If there's only a couple dozen votes total, we need to know that so we can
step up efforts to get more folks involved.
3. Nomination limits: No author or publication should be nominated for more
than one story or so per category. Ya wanna put additional stories on the
Recommended Reading list, that's fine, but they're strictly on an exhibition
basis to give nominators a better idea of your chops.
4. Award limits: No author or publication should win a category more than
one year running. Any winners should recuse themselves from competition for
at least a year to give others a fair shot.
5. Voting: Wanna make the Ursas like the Hugos? Then do voting like the
Hugos, i.e. the attendees at the con do the final voting. Builds awareness
and participation amongst the population, and precludes ballotbox stuffing.
Thoughts?
-MMM-
Dear Everyone;
1. Isn't this what the discussion@ursamajorawards.org is for?
2. I argued in favor of this years ago. I was outvoted. I still
like the idea.
3 & 4. I still like having the awards open to the fans to
nominate/vote. It will be hard to enforce limits. "Dear Sir, Three
of your stories have received nominations. Which two do you want to
withdraw?" What if the author does not want to cooperate?
5. Unworkable. Which con? What if the members don't bother to vote?
203 last year. From all over the planet.
Brings me back to 1). What ARE the vote counts anyway?
M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:
203 last year. From all over the planet.
Brings me back to 1). What ARE the vote counts anyway?
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:36:06 -0500
To: discussion@ursamajorawards.org
From: marmelmm@comcast.net
Subject: [UMA-discussion] Vote Counts
At 12:52 PM -0700 3/19/09, Kay Shapero wrote:
M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:
203 last year. From all over the planet.
Brings me back to 1). What ARE the vote counts anyway?
o_O
O_o
O_O
All I'm gonna say is:
a) My top 24 FurAffinity images have over 300 pageviews EACH.
b) At the Sugar Creek Model Railroad Show in Bentonville, AR in late
February, me and my buddies from the National Railway Historical
Society handed out 281 "Model Railroad Engineer" certificates to kids
who came up and ran our LGB trains (and my Lionel trolleys).
I reiterate, the Ursas are in TROUBLE.
-MMM-
You might think, until you note that that was a GROWTH of several
dozen voters from the previous year -- and that has been the
trending. Yes, we're small, but we're growing, and that's the right
direction to move in. And last year, we were nearly four times the
size of the group that awards the Golden Globe Awards, so there! ^^
At 12:52 PM -0700 3/19/09, Kay Shapero wrote:
M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:
203 last year. From all over the planet.
Brings me back to 1). What ARE the vote counts anyway?
o_O
O_o
O_O
All I'm gonna say is:
a) My top 24 FurAffinity images have over 300 pageviews EACH.
b) At the Sugar Creek Model Railroad Show in Bentonville, AR in late
February, me and my buddies from the National Railway Historical Society
handed out 281 "Model Railroad Engineer" certificates to kids who came up and
ran our LGB trains (and my Lionel trolleys).
I reiterate, the Ursas are in TROUBLE.
M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:
At 12:52 PM -0700 3/19/09, Kay Shapero wrote:
M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:o_O
203 last year. From all over the planet.
Brings me back to 1). What ARE the vote counts anyway?
O_o
O_O
All I'm gonna say is:
a) My top 24 FurAffinity images have over 300 pageviews EACH.
b) At the Sugar Creek Model Railroad Show in Bentonville, AR in late
February, me and my buddies from the National Railway Historical Society
handed out 281 "Model Railroad Engineer" certificates to kids who came up
and ran our LGB trains (and my Lionel trolleys).
I reiterate, the Ursas are in TROUBLE.
I fail to see the relevance of your statistics. I have logs of click-through
on the Fur Affinity advertisement that shows several hundred there alone. I
have dozens of people who read my LiveJournal and website who go there. Many
other sites point to it. But it's the old adage - you can lead a horse to
water, but you can't make him drink. Getting people to vote is always
difficult. Pageviews are easy. Getting people to make an effort takes a lot
more. It's growing, slowly admittedly but definitely.
--
Chakat Goldfur
The Chakat's Den, Australia - http://www.chakatsden.com/chakat/
South Fur Lands magazine - http://www.chakatsden.com/sfl/
My LiveJournal - http://goldfur.livejournal.com/
I agree. Doubly so for getting someone to read several stories before voting.
At 12:51 PM -0700 3/20/09, Bennie Tiger wrote:
I agree. Doubly so for getting someone to read several stories before
voting.
That's a good point, which sorta dovetails into an idea I have to make it
easier to vote...
Why not implement a radio button interface to nominate and vote, rather than
have to type into a form and email in?
For stories, at least, it could look something like this, with the button,
title, author, publication, and URL, followed by the first paragraph or two:
*****
(radio button) "One Yiffy Evening" by I.M. Hopeless, Gayfur Magazine, June,
www.fanboner.com
Bob and Doug were two Metropolitan Policemen with a difference.
"Say,Doug," Bob asked, "does your tobacco taste different lately?"
*****
Now, of course, this would skew the competition towards authors like me, who
are dynamite at coming up with opening lines, but that can't be helped. O:-)
Why not implement a radio button interface to nominate and vote,
rather than have to type into a form and email in?
Nominations - impossible.
Voting however is not only an excellent idea, but one that was going
to be implemented this year... but the person who was going to write
the scripts let us down, so it was back to the copy and paste at the
last moment. Believe me, I'm thoroughly disgusted with that
situation.
Now, of course, this would skew the competition towards authors
like me, who are dynamite at coming up with opening lines, but that
can't be helped. O:-)
So you're proposing that the Best Story categories should be judged
on whoever can write the best opening line? Yeah, sure.
At 12:13 AM +1100 3/22/09, Chakat Goldfur wrote:
Why not implement a radio button interface to nominate and vote, rather
than have to type into a form and email in?
Nominations - impossible.
Oh? Howcome? Seems to me one could put nominating buttons on the RR list,
along with a "Fill in the blank" with button for such.
Voting however is not only an excellent idea, but one that was going to be
implemented this year... but the person who was going to write the scripts
let us down, so it was back to the copy and paste at the last moment.
Believe me, I'm thoroughly disgusted with that situation.
Tch. Want me to beat the bushes a bit, see if I can find a coder? I can put
a "help wanted-no pay but lots of glory" advert in my FA journal... :)
At 12:13 AM +1100 3/22/09, Chakat Goldfur wrote:
Why not implement a radio button interface to nominate and vote, rather than
have to type into a form and email in?
Nominations - impossible.
Oh? Howcome? Seems to me one could put nominating buttons on the RR list,
along with a "Fill in the blank" with button for such.
Voting however is not only an excellent idea, but one that was going to be
implemented this year... but the person who was going to write the scripts
let us down, so it was back to the copy and paste at the last moment. Believe
me, I'm thoroughly disgusted with that situation.
Tch. Want me to beat the bushes a bit, see if I can find a coder? I can put
a "help wanted-no pay but lots of glory" advert in my FA journal... :)
Now, of course, this would skew the competition towards authors like me, who
are dynamite at coming up with opening lines, but that can't be helped.
O:-)
So you're proposing that the Best Story categories should be judged on
whoever can write the best opening line? Yeah, sure.
Why not? It works for Bulwer-Lytton. Oh, wait, that's WORST opening
line... >:-}
-MMM-
M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:
At 12:52 PM -0700 3/19/09, Kay Shapero wrote:
M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:
Brings me back to 1). What ARE the vote counts anyway?203 last year. From all over the planet.
All I'm gonna say is: <snip>
I reiterate, the Ursas are in TROUBLE.
I fail to see the relevance of your statistics. I have logs of click-through
on the Fur Affinity advertisement that shows several hundred there alone. I
have dozens of people who read my LiveJournal and website who go there. Many
other sites point to it. But it's the old adage - you can lead a horse to
water, but you can't make him drink. Getting people to vote is always
difficult. Pageviews are easy. Getting people to make an effort takes a lot
more. It's growing, slowly admittedly but definitely.
I reiterate, the Ursas are in TROUBLE.
I fail to see the relevance of your statistics.
I have logs of click-through on the Fur Affinity advertisement that
shows several hundred there alone. I have dozens of people who read
my LiveJournal and website who go there. Many other sites point to
it. But it's the old adage - you can lead a horse to water, but you
can't make him drink. Getting people to vote is always difficult.
Pageviews are easy. Getting people to make an effort takes a lot
more.
It's growing, slowly admittedly but definitely.
2. I argued in favor of this years ago. I was outvoted. I still like the
idea.
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:25:39 -0700You're right. Maybe when all is said and done, we need to write up a
From: taipan@clearwire.net
To: discussion@ursamajorawards.org
Subject: Re: [UMA-discussion] Mitch Marmel's suggestions
The problem has been with the awards coordinated by a very small number
of volunteers literally scattered around the world, it's very hard to
remember to do things that aren't directly related to the actual voting.
The problem has been with the awards coordinated by a very small numberYou're right. Maybe when all is said and done, we need to write up
of volunteers literally scattered around the world, it's very hard to
remember to do things that aren't directly related to the actual voting.
a 'checklist' or a 'manual' for all of this...?
The problem has been with the awards coordinated by a very small
number of volunteers literally scattered around the world, it's very
hard to remember to do things that aren't directly related to the
actual voting.
At 8:08 PM -0700 3/18/09, Tim Susman wrote:I see a ton more this year than I have in years past, actually.
I just feel the need to question--"slide even further into obscurity"? Are
voter totals going down?
Dunno. All I know is that I see virtually no mention of the Ursas
anywhere...
So I guess I'd ask, given that you did write a lot of good stuff, would youI was told at the time "that's the way the votes came out." Nobody else made
a peep about it, not that I heard.
Oh, I had words with Chakat about it in private. He said that I actually got
MORE votes, cumulatively, but they got split up amongst the stories. Hence,
shooting myself in the foot.
'Course, I DID produce a lotta good stuff in '05.
I think that actually the amount of discussion around the Ursas this year isI've seen several discussions now, on LJ and FA.
a *good* sign. A lot of people are taking notice, people who didn't give a
crap three years ago, people who didn't KNOW about the Ursas three years ago.
Far from "sliding into obscurity," anything that generates this much
discussion is actually gaining in popularity.
Ummm...three emails? That's part of the problem.
Surely! Here ya go.Definitely agree here.
1. The public forum needs to happen. Use YaBB or something like it.
2. We need transparency in the nominating and voting procedures. ExactI've been asking for this one for years. :) Also it is nice for the other
numbers of votes for each nomination, exact number of votes for each award.
If there's only a couple dozen votes total, we need to know that so we can
step up efforts to get more folks involved.
3. Nomination limits: No author or publication should be nominated for moreExcept that it doesn't mean anything to have your work on the RRL. I could
than one story or so per category. Ya wanna put additional stories on the
Recommended Reading list, that's fine, but they're strictly on an exhibition
basis to give nominators a better idea of your chops.
Well, here I think you're getting into a sticky area. I mean, that is a
4. Award limits: No author or publication should win a category more than
one year running. Any winners should recuse themselves from competition for
at least a year to give others a fair shot.
5. Voting: Wanna make the Ursas like the Hugos? Then do voting like theI like this, except that furry fandom doesn't have a single central con. The
Hugos, i.e. the attendees at the con do the final voting. Builds awareness
and participation amongst the population, and precludes ballotbox stuffing.
A few years back I floated the idea of an Ursa Major "Hall of Fame"
award. The idea is that if someone wins in a certain category for a
pre-determined number of years running, they are automatically put
into the Hall of Fame -- and then, no longer eligible for
competition in THAT category. It's an idea I got from several music
magazines, who created a "Hall of Fame" award to keep their readers
from voting for the same "Best Guitarist" in readers' polls, year
after year after year, simply because someone was hot.
At the time, the idea was shot down.
Dunno. All I know is that I see virtually no mention of the UrsasI see a ton more this year than I have in years past, actually.
anywhere...
So I guess I'd ask, given that you did write a lot of good stuff,
would you philosophically want to have restricted your nominations
to one story? I mean, you're in a unique position to evaluate that
case, in retrospect.
Ummm...three emails? That's part of the problem.I've seen several discussions now, on LJ and FA.
3. Nomination limits: No author or publication should be nominatedExcept that it doesn't mean anything to have your work on the RRL.
for more than one story or so per category. Ya wanna put
additional stories on the Recommended Reading list, that's fine,
but they're strictly on an exhibition basis to give nominators a
better idea of your chops.
I could write a ten-line piece of nonsense, title it, and put it on
the list.
Well, here I think you're getting into a sticky area. I mean, that
is a philosophical change in the award. It's no longer "what was the
most popular in the fandom this year," it's "what was most popular
in the fandom this year by someone who didn't win last year." And
that is leading us down a road that I, personally, like, which is
that you want to give everyone who does something worthwhile a
chance to be recognized. So if that's the case, then why recognize a
"winner" at all? Why not emulate the Newbery committee and designate
the top 5 (or 10, or 7) works (by different authors) as "Ursa Major
Honor" winners?
One of the things I've struggled with this year is that I know of
four or five stories that I thought were pretty good, and I can't
choose between them. I'm sure there are others I haven't read. Why
not recommend that people read all of them? The Recommended Reading
list doesn't serve this function, I'm afraid. It's too open, it
becomes clogged and crowded. I mean, seriously. We're a small,
close-knit community. Why not encourage anyone who's writing good
fiction?
(To the comment about authors recusing themselves, as an author, my
philosophical problem with that is this: I'm constantly trying to
write better work. If I win one year, I should be trying to write
better stories the following year. But the fact that I'm now
ineligible kind of sours the awards for me at all.
And authors voluntarily recusing themselves smacks of arrogance,
like when Bill Cosby removed his show from Emmy consideration; it
says, "Hey, I know I'm gonna totally dominate, so I'll let one of
you people have an award.")
I think Fred's comment cuts to the heart of it, though. Get more
people to vote. I have said before that these things are all a
product of a small sample size.
If we had thousands of voters, I *guarantee* you would not see more
than two nominations for a single author, organically. People would
not be able to mobilize enough of a fan base to sway votes without
backing it up with some pretty good work. It's also the job of the
publishers to get their publications out there, noticed, and read,
and as a founding member of Sofawolf, that's what we've been doing.
So to some extent, I feel like we did a lot of work to build up a
fan base, and now there are a lot of people out there who feel it's
unfair that we have the fan base.
Look: we are not giving out free Blotch porn in exchange for votes.
We do the best we can to put out quality material, and we tell our
authors and creators to tell their fans about the Ursa Majors. It's
not rocket science. If everyone started to do that, we'd see changes
organically in a couple years.
I believe that part of the issue is that a lot of people just
became aware of the awards this year, or recently. So it seems like
Sofawolf just has this fan base and it's impossible to overcome.
Again: I remember when we couldn't sniff a nomination. We decided to
change that. It took time and effort. *It is not something that is
heretofore impossible to do.* If people want to discredit the Ursas
because of it, well, that's their prerogative. But all that does is
remove competition, which I frankly am not in favor of.
I like this, except that furry fandom doesn't have a single central
con. The voting would have to be ideally spread among all the cons
between FC and AC, and that's too late. SF fandom has had the
WorldCon for many years, and that is THE convention to go to. I
don't think people would go out of their way to go to FC just to
vote in the Ursas, so what you'd do is reduce voting participation.
I would argue the need to make the Ursas like the Hugos. Like I
said above, I think we're a different community. We're smaller and
more tightly knit than the SF fandom, and so why can't we do
something radical and say "we produce SEVERAL good works"? Why can't
we say, hey, there were eight authors this year who produced
outstanding short stories: you should read all of these. Hey, this
author has consistently produced good stories year after year after
year. There were three good novels produced this year by the fandom.
Failing that, I would make one change to the Ursas: I would
separate out the erotica and non-erotica. Not because one is
inferior to the other, but because erotica has a much different
draw. If an erotica author wants to prove his chops, as you say, let
him or her write something non-erotic.
The problem with that is that it makes it much easier for people to
dismiss the erotica out of hand, and as the past few years have
proven, that's not really representative of the fandom. (If
anything, actually, it's *harder* to write really popular erotica
because it is so charged and so personal for people.)
Anyway. I'm tired, and rambling, but I appreciate the discussion. :)
Several problems with this argument: 1) you don't choose to enter theI believe that part of the issue is that a lot of people just became aware
of the awards this year, or recently. So it seems like Sofawolf just has
this fan base and it's impossible to overcome. Again: I remember when we
couldn't sniff a nomination. We decided to change that. It took time and
effort. *It is not something that is heretofore impossible to do.* If people
want to discredit the Ursas because of it, well, that's their prerogative.
But all that does is remove competition, which I frankly am not in favor of.
And if the same guys win year after year with no hope of anyone else winning,
the competition eventually gives up and leaves, which also removes
competition. So, how do you handle that?
Which a rather large number of fans DON'T attend.I like this, except that furry fandom doesn't have a single central con.
The voting would have to be ideally spread among all the cons between FC and
AC, and that's too late. SF fandom has had the WorldCon for many years, and
that is THE convention to go to. I don't think people would go out of their
way to go to FC just to vote in the Ursas, so what you'd do is reduce voting
participation.
Well, right now FC and AC are the main two cons, so...
2) I've never won for any of my writing, yet here I am, still writing andAmen.
publishing stories. When I sit down to write, I never ask myself "Gee, I
wonder if this will win an award?" That's not what makes me write, and so far
as I know doesn't motivate any artists to draw, et cetera;
A couple of us have proposed some kind of system where there's some sort ofOne of the things I was pondering about the HoF thing (and would we then have
"Hall of Fame" award, but even then, I would argue that it should, at most,
mean your work isn't eligible in that category for one year, because in
theory artists and writers should be getting better over time, and it would
be a shame to exclude a truly awesome piece of work because so-and-so won
three times in a row a decade ago.
And if the same guys win year after year with no hope of anyoneSeveral problems with this argument: 1) you don't choose to enter
else winning, the competition eventually gives up and leaves, which
also removes competition. So, how do you handle that?
the competition. Nominations come in from the public, so the only
way to give up is to stop putting out material at all;
2) I've never won for any of my writing, yet here I am, still
writing and publishing stories.
When I sit down to write, I never ask myself "Gee, I wonder if this
will win an award?" That's not what makes me write, and so far as I
know doesn't motivate any artists to draw, et cetera;
3) elsewhere you seem to make the point that no one even knows the
awards exist, if that's true, then how many writers/artists/other
creators even care about whether or not they win?
Every few years this particular objection has been raised. Several
times in different categories one particular publication or
continuing work won again and again. And then, suddenly, they
didn't. I think it does take care of itself eventually.
A couple of us have proposed some kind of system where there's some
sort of "Hall of Fame" award, but even then, I would argue that it
should, at most, mean your work isn't eligible in that category for
one year, because in theory artists and writers should be getting
better over time, and it would be a shame to exclude a truly awesome
piece of work because so-and-so won three times in a row a decade
ago.
Well, right now FC and AC are the main two cons, so...Which a rather large number of fans DON'T attend.
Attempts have been made to get convention attendees to participate.
Frankly, if you've ever been on the staff for a con, you know it's
impossible to get most of them to fill out their registration form
correctly in one go (maybe I've worked at too many convention
registration departments; it gives own a rather jaundiced view);
getting them to fill out a ballot? Less likely.
Way back when I was on staff for the now-defunct Conifur was one of
the years the awards tried to get the attendees of a bunch of the
conventions to participate more fully in the Ursas, and you know
what I heard from staff and attendees alike? "Why are you taking up
my time asking me to vote in this award that isn't being given out
here at the convention? Why is the con wasting resources I'm helping
to provide participating in an award that isn't exclusively this
convention's?"
Reps from other conventions reported back similar objections, or
simply said they didn't have the time or resources to do more than
mention the awards.
Actually, things that did not make the list have indeed been nominated, and atproblems with this argument: 1) you don't choose to enter the competition.
Nominations come in from the public, so the only way to give up is to stop
putting out material at all;
Oh, pull the other one, please. I, for one, nominate my own material for the
Recommended Reading list, and so do the other authors I know of. And if it
don't make the RR list, it don't get nominated. Period.
We won twice in the category of fanzine. One short story we published has won2) I've never won for any of my writing, yet here I am, still writing and
publishing stories.
And how many Ursas has Tai-Pan walked away with in general? Hmmm? Call it
sour grapes if you will, but you boys have gotten your share of glory, meagre
though it may be.
Yes, I seem to be.When I sit down to write, I never ask myself "Gee, I wonder if this will win
an award?" That's not what makes me write, and so far as I know doesn't
motivate any artists to draw, et cetera;
Then you're running with a different crowd than I do.
See below.3) elsewhere you seem to make the point that no one even knows the awards
exist, if that's true, then how many writers/artists/other creators even
care about whether or not they win?
Damned good question, especially in light of the meager number of votes it
actually takes to win an Ursa, apparently.
Possibly, but then again that will be true no matter what form ofEvery few years this particular objection has been raised. Several times in
different categories one particular publication or continuing work won again
and again. And then, suddenly, they didn't. I think it does take care of
itself eventually.
And in the meantime, you get disgusted bridesmaids saying "Fuck it" and
giving up...
I maintain the sucker. a) many, probably most, recommendations are by thoseSeveral problems with this argument: 1) you don't choose to enter the
competition. Nominations come in from the public, so the only way to give up
is to stop putting out material at all;
Oh, pull the other one, please. I, for one, nominate my own material for the
Recommended Reading list, and so do the other authors I know of. And if it
don't make the RR list, it don't get nominated. Period.
Again, am I looking in the wrong places, then? This is why a public
forum on the website proper is needed. :)
M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:
Again, am I looking in the wrong places, then? This is why a public
forum on the website proper is needed. :)
I currently host the UMA domain and website. I have also written
mail2blog software <http://svn.sericyb.com.au/mail2blog/> which takes an
email discussion list and presents it as a web discussion forum. Each
message thread becomes a separate web page with a static URL. An RSS
feed is also generated automatically.
Example here: http://glasswings.com.au/blog/
Let me know if that would be useful for this list.
Want to be on the UMA committee? We are being cooked to a turn at the
moment. This year is a killer!
M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:
Again, am I looking in the wrong places, then? This is why a public
forum on the website proper is needed. :)
I currently host the UMA domain and website. I have also written
mail2blog software <http://svn.sericyb.com.au/mail2blog/> which takes an
email discussion list and presents it as a web discussion forum. Each
message thread becomes a separate web page with a static URL. An RSS
feed is also generated automatically.
Example here: http://glasswings.com.au/blog/
Let me know if that would be useful for this list.
I'm going through a job change right now, but after I settle in I'll
consider asking to join the committee. I deliberately didn't even
bother posting any of my stories on Spontoon for Ursa nomination
last year because I knew I wouldn't win. Hell, I figured I could
write a furry version of "War and Peace" and it'd likely never even
be voted on.
Bad attitude? Maybe, or maybe it's just my perception of the system.
I currently host the UMA domain and website. I have also written
mail2blog software <http://svn.sericyb.com.au/mail2blog/> which takes an
email discussion list and presents it as a web discussion forum. Each
message thread becomes a separate web page with a static URL. An RSS
feed is also generated automatically.
Example here: http://glasswings.com.au/blog/
Interesting! Can replies be made on the site as well?
2. We need transparency in the nominating and voting procedures. Exact
numbers of votes for each nomination, exact number of votes for each award.
If there's only a couple dozen votes total, we need to know that so we can
step up efforts to get more folks involved.
Anybody can make recommendations; it's not necessarily, or even USUALLY the
3. Nomination limits: No author or publication should be nominated for more
than one story or so per category. Ya wanna put additional stories on the
Recommended Reading list, that's fine, but they're strictly on an exhibition
basis to give nominators a better idea of your chops.
Two or three maybe - it's not the author, it's the creation. We discussed this
4. Award limits: No author or publication should win a category more than
one year running. Any winners should recuse themselves from competition for
at least a year to give others a fair shot.
The Hugos have the advantage of always being awarded at the same convention,
5. Voting: Wanna make the Ursas like the Hugos? Then do voting like the
Hugos, i.e. the attendees at the con do the final voting. Builds awareness
and participation amongst the population, and precludes ballotbox stuffing.
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:53:37 -0700The Hugos do, in fact, let people know the vote tallies after the voting is
From: kay@kayshapero.net
To: discussion@ursamajorawards.org
Subject: Re: [UMA-discussion] The Ursas are in trouble.
M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:
2. We need transparency in the nominating and voting procedures.
Exact numbers of votes for each nomination, exact number of votes for
each award. If there's only a couple dozen votes total, we need to
know that so we can step up efforts to get more folks involved.
The Hugos do, in fact, let people know the vote tallies after the
voting is done and the awards are given out, in fact. But note that
Oscars, the Tony's, the Emmy's, and the Annie's do not.
There's been controversy in ASIFA, for as long as I can remember,
over the fact that the Annie Award nomination are created by
mysterious 'committees', none of which seem to have anyone that
anyone knows on them.
Sounds fair to me. To be honest the first few had a small enough
pool that we really didn't want to tell the whole world how easy it
would be to stuff the ballot box. It's a lot better now, but as the
start of the current discussion shows it's still possible for
something a lot of people object to to take enough nominations to be
nominated anyway. This in itself should tell you that getting more
folks to contribute nominations is a good idea.
Anybody can make recommendations; it's not necessarily, or even
USUALLY the writer who does so. Nominations, even more so -
everybody who wants to and follows the instructions on the website
may do so, and the top five or so (more in case of a tie) nomination
recipients become the nominees. This is NOT a juried award; this is
a popular vote award.
Two or three maybe - it's not the author, it's the creation. We
discussed this a LOT back when Usagi Yojimbo kept winning the Comic
Book award (one big reason Comic Strips were split off, in fact),
but finally decided when the voting pool got big enough the problem
would take care of itself and it did.
Furthermore, the year i.s.o won, it actually beat UY, rather than
simply made it to the top when the big entry was eliminated for
other reasons. BTW - if you'll check the current Recommended List
you'll find we've changed "Comic Book" to "Graphic Story" so as to
put the on-line version in the category as well. But I digress.
The Hugos have the advantage of always being awarded at the same
convention, and that a large one. Thus, as soon as the winning bid
is announced, everybody knows where the awards will be presented,
and also how to buy a voting membership even if they don't attend.
The Ursas are not the "property" of any one convention, and where
they are presented circulates amongst various cons for precisely
this reason. One year we might have thousands of voters, the next
maybe a few hundred. And it's not known nearly as far in advance
where they will be presented. Also, charging a fee to vote takes
away from the intended role of the Ursas as the voice of furry
fandom en masse.
Which brings me back to wondering about a juried award (see above)...
#1) Multi-nomination rule
#2) Multi-winning rule
#3) Co-Author Rule
The two rules above apply whether an author has written a work on their
own, or has co-authored a work.
#4) Threshold Disclosure Rule
Commentary: this gives some transparency, without hurting the feelings
of those not nominated, a point raised.
(C) I do not know if it is practical for enquiries to be answered as to
how many nomination votes a particular entry got - I suspect not.
Hey, to take a breather from rule changes for a moment... what about an Ursa
Major for Best Furry Podcast? There have been a number of them coming on the
scene in the last couple years, and more and more it's becoming a popular
art/performance form. Something else creative that furries are doing, and
they are popular enough that (here comes the kicker) they would attract a
bunch more voters to the Ursas. I specifically remember Clawcast mentioning
the Ursas last year and saying, half-jokingly, "Is there a podcast award? No?
Then screw 'em, they don't matter."
This is along the lines of me arguing years ago for a Fursuit award
(logistical problems heartily acknowledged), which would bring in tons of
voters because Fursuit Popularity rivals Artist Popularity these days. I
think Podcast is a more easily accommodated award--maybe put some minimum on
the number of episodes needed in a year to qualify, but otherwise it's a way
to get another segment of the fandom involved.
Hey, to take a breather from rule changes for a moment... what about an Ursa
Major for Best Furry Podcast? There have been a number of them coming on the
scene in the last couple years, and more and more it's becoming a popular
art/performance form. Something else creative that furries are doing, and
they are popular enough that (here comes the kicker) they would attract a
bunch more voters to the Ursas. I specifically remember Clawcast mentioning
the Ursas last year and saying, half-jokingly, "Is there a podcast award? No?
Then screw 'em, they don't matter."
This is along the lines of me arguing years ago for a Fursuit award
(logistical problems heartily acknowledged), which would bring in tons of
voters because Fursuit Popularity rivals Artist Popularity these days. I
think Podcast is a more easily accommodated award--maybe put some minimum on
the number of episodes needed in a year to qualify, but otherwise it's a way
to get another segment of the fandom involved.
Be it noted that a recommended fursuit OR podcast is, right now, eligible for
Going back to your fursuit award, we could try having a stab at it starting
at the Recommended List level. Perhaps we could require a link to a
professional quality set of photographs that gives a thorough overview of the
fursuit. After all, if people are serious about wanting an Award for their
creation, asking for some good quality photos is not a harsh requirement. I
know that there is still the problem of "First shown in year 20xx", but
perhaps a sworn statement from the provider of the photographs, with the
understanding that it can and will be removed if found to be false, with the
creator being disqualified for all other creations for that year, and perhaps
the next too, will act as a deterrent. Any other suggestions?
Chakat Goldfur wrote:I think you would need to add someone in the community at least to consult on
Going back to your fursuit award, we could try having a stab at it starting
at the Recommended List level. Perhaps we could require a link to a
professional quality set of photographs that gives a thorough overview of
the fursuit. After all, if people are serious about wanting an Award for
their creation, asking for some good quality photos is not a harsh
requirement. I know that there is still the problem of "First shown in year
20xx", but perhaps a sworn statement from the provider of the photographs,
with the understanding that it can and will be removed if found to be false,
with the creator being disqualified for all other creations for that year,
and perhaps the next too, will act as a deterrent. Any other suggestions?
I think you would need to add someone in the community at least to consult
on a fursuit award--at the very least, to scan the submissions and vet the
photos and info.
Another idea we might wanna kick around is based on the Masquerades held atSounds like a good way to handle your juried award; maybe a group of 3 experts
SF cons, to wit:
Novice: Never won an award at a major convention.
Journeyman: Has won at least one award.
Craftsman: Has won at least three awards in the Journeyman class.
Master: Has won at least three awards in the Craftsman class.
Tim Susman wrote:
I think you would need to add someone in the community at least to consult
on a fursuit award--at the very least, to scan the submissions and vet the
photos and info.
Agreed. Any suggestions as to whom?
Thanks for the list of stuff!
Hey, to take a breather from rule changes for a moment... what about
an Ursa Major for Best Furry Podcast?
Hey, to take a breather from rule changes for a moment... what about
an Ursa Major for Best Furry Podcast? There have been a number of
them coming on the scene in the last couple years, and more and more
it's becoming a popular art/performance form. Something else
creative that furries are doing, and they are popular enough that
(here comes the kicker) they would attract a bunch more voters to
the Ursas. I specifically remember Clawcast mentioning the Ursas
last year and saying, half-jokingly, "Is there a podcast award? No?
Then screw 'em, they don't matter."
In general our guideline for considering a new category has been to see ifBecause they don't realize they're eligible, and/or they're not aware of the
noticeably similar items start to collect in "Miscellany" or other categories
in the Recommended List. That's how the comic strip category got separated
from graphic story (nee comic book), as they were recognized as substantially
different formats.
Since the Miscellany category currently seems top-heavy with web sites,
that's likely to be up for consideration soon. Why aren't people recommending
podcasts or fursuits?
One consideration with both web sites and podcasts is that there areIt's a good question, and one I thought about while compiling the list. A
distinctly different sub-forms. How would one choose between WiFur and Fur
Affinity? They're both good, in different ways. Similarly, there are podcasts
which are basically "three guys bullsh*tting for an hour and a half,"
original individual performances such as 2 the Ranting Gryphon, and audio
fiction magazines like Will Sanborn's Anthro Dreams.
As to the Fur Suit award, let me just through this in: Neither the HugoA fair point, but I'll also point out that neither the Hugo nor the Nebula
Awards (which are fan-based) nor the Nebula Awards (which are industry-based)
have a costume award. They leave that up to CostumeCon.
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:18:59 -0700True, true, true. I just eventually start to have 'biting off more than we can
From: vulpes@earthlink.net
To: discussion@ursamajorawards.org
Subject: Re: [UMA-discussion] On another topic: New Award Proposal
Rodney Stansfield wrote:
As to the Fur Suit award, let me just through this in: Neither the HugoA fair point, but I'll also point out that neither the Hugo nor the
Awards (which are fan-based) nor the Nebula Awards (which are
industry-based) have a costume award. They leave that up to CostumeCon.
Nebula awards specifically serve the furry community. Show me a SF con
where 20% of the attendees have a costume of some sort (as was the case
at Furry Fiesta recently). There currently is not a central con like
CostumeCon that gives out awards for fursuits.
The Hugos also do not have a comic strip award nor a comic book award;
they leave that up to the Eisners. They also do not have a website award.
--
M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:
Which brings me back to wondering about a juried award (see above)...
If you want to open that particular can of worms, I will be
delighted to cheer you on (from a safe distance). I've got enough
gakh on my plate right now. :)
Heh. I hear ya. At the moment, I'm engineering this particular bit of
madness for the East Penn Traction Club meet in late May:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2089024
1. The public forum needs to happen. Use YaBB or something like it.
On 3/18/09, M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:
1. The public forum needs to happen. Use YaBB or something like it.
Unfortunately we barely have time to manage the web site as it is. As an
interim measure, I'm creating a LiveJournal community for the Ursa Major
Awards, <http://community.livejournal.com/ursamajorawards/>. At the
moment it's closed, but give us a few days to get things organized for
the initial postings and we'll open it up.
On 3/18/09, M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:
1. The public forum needs to happen. Use YaBB or something like it.
Unfortunately we barely have time to manage the web site as it is.
As an interim measure, I'm creating a LiveJournal community for the
Ursa Major Awards,
<http://community.livejournal.com/ursamajorawards/>. At the moment
it's closed, but give us a few days to get things organized for the
initial postings and we'll open it up.
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:08:13 -0700
From: vulpes@earthlink.net
To: discussion@ursamajorawards.org
Subject: Re: [UMA-discussion] The Ursas are in trouble.
I just feel the need to question--"slide even further into obscurity"?
Are voter totals going down?
Now there's the funny thing. Though there's not a lot of discussion
about the UMA's -- other than here, and some grousing out on the
LJ's, the fact remains that, according to what Chakat tells us,
people are coming out in droves to VOTE.
At 10:24 PM -0700 3/18/09, Rodney Stansfield wrote:
Now there's the funny thing. Though there's not a lot of discussion about
the UMA's -- other than here, and some grousing out on the LJ's, the fact
remains that, according to what Chakat tells us, people are coming out in
droves to VOTE.
Cool beans. Now, Chakat, how about showing us the numbers to back that up?
;D
Some criticism:
http://michaelmink.livejournal.com/276142.html
http://michaelmink.livejournal.com/276452.html
I know of at least one author who has decided against submitting anything
else to the Ursas because, as things stand, he doesn't stand even the
slightest chance of a win.
Changes need to be made, or the UMs are going to slide even further into
obscurity...
-MMM-
Dear Everyone;
It is not up to an author to submit his works to the Ursas. It is
up to the number of nominations that they get. I nominated "Shriek,
Memory" myself, and am disappointed that it did not get enough other
nominations to make the final ballot.
As long as the Ursas are open to the highest number of voters, and
the Sofawolf and Softpaw editors are successful at getting their
readers to nominate them, they may dominate the awards. Get more
people to nominate and vote for what they like to reduce the
influence of cliques.
From: fredpatten@earthlink.netWhat he said. Loudly.
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:04:51 -0700
To: discussion@ursamajorawards.org
Subject: Re: [UMA-discussion] The Ursas are in trouble.
Dear Everyone;
It is not up to an author to submit his works to the Ursas. It is up
to the number of nominations that they get. I nominated "Shriek,
Memory" myself, and am disappointed that it did not get enough other
nominations to make the final ballot. As long as the Ursas are open
to the highest number of voters, and the Sofawolf and Softpaw editors
are successful at getting their readers to nominate them, they may
dominate the awards. Get more people to nominate and vote for what
they like to reduce the influence of cliques.
Best wishes;
Fred
Some criticism:
http://michaelmink.livejournal.com/276142.html
http://michaelmink.livejournal.com/276452.html
I know of at least one author who has decided against submitting anything
else to the Ursas because, as things stand, he doesn't stand even the
slightest chance of a win.
Actually I think this reflects a failing on the part of many
authors. How can you possibly win if you do not promote yourself
enough to make people aware of your stories? How can you win if you
turn you back on the process? The old adage about the squeaky wheel
getting the oil is still very true.
Of course you still have to write a good story! ;)
The Hugos are awards for excellence, and those who vote are paying forInterestingly, the Hugos have many of the same issues. John Scalzi, nominated
membership in the organization which organizes the vote. It's not public,
hence a work cannot easily mobilize their fans to vote it up. People who
shell out fifty dollars for the right to vote in the Hugos are, probably,
paying attention to what they're voting for.
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:00:30 -0700
From: vulpes@earthlink.net
To: discussion@ursamajorawards.org
Subject: Re: [UMA-discussion] The Ursas are in trouble.
foozzzball wrote:
The Hugos are awards for excellence, and those who vote are paying forInterestingly, the Hugos have many of the same issues. John Scalzi,
membership in the organization which organizes the vote. It's not public,
hence a work cannot easily mobilize their fans to vote it up. People who
shell out fifty dollars for the right to vote in the Hugos are, probably,
paying attention to what they're voting for.
nominated for Best Novel this year, has been dealing with griping from
fans that authors with a large Internet presence are more able to
collect fans and sway the voting. He, Neil Gaiman, and Cory Doctorow are
all nominated this year, and all of them are well-known web
personalities. He pooh-poohs any correlation, but I think there's at
least a little something there--if you're entertaining online, more
people will follow you regularly. If more people follow you regularly,
they'll be more inclined to try your book when it comes out. If more
people are trying your book, and you write something good, that's more
votes than the guy who cranks out his equally good work on a manual
typewriter and builds fans only through his work. It's worth noting,
though, that Neal Stephenson, who doesn't really have much of an
Internet presence, is among the nominees as well. But hey, that's
marketing. Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle wrote in "Inferno" from the
POV of a nameless science fiction writer who started going to
conventions specifically to shmooze fans so he could win a Hugo. So this
has been around a lot longer than the Internet.
: Malin