Dear Everyone;
Our press release about the starting of the voting for the 2012 Ursa
Major Awards has just been posted on Flayrah, with weblinks by
Flayrah's GreenReaper to all of the finalists.
http://www.flayrah.com/4658/2012-ursa-major-awards-voting-now-open
Even without Kyell Gold, we're still getting one category loaded up with just
one author? We're not even choosing the winner anymore -- just which story
she'll get the award for.
I don't have a problem with Mary Lowd getting some nominations -- she
deserves them -- but if it comes to this many in one category, then something
is off-kilter. There needs to be a rule or a tweak or something to limit the
number of nominations within a category, to offset the push from a dedicated
bloc of fans and to keep the line a bit more fair.
-Chuck Melville
Dear Everyone;
Looking at it another way, there are obviously a few authors and cartoonists
who are doing very good jobs of advertising on their websites, "I WANT TO WIN
A URSA MAJOR AWARD! PLEASE NOMINATE AND VOTE FOR ME!" Since we are actively
trying to increase the number of nominators and voters, it is not necessarily
a bad thing when one creator gets all of his/her readers to block-nominate
and -vote for a title.
To me the solution is to get more people to nominate and vote, across the
board. The Ursa Major Awards are supposed to be for determining the most
popular titles each year. We already have one artificial limitation in
creators who have withdrawn their works -- some very popular works -- from
consideration. I would not want to see further limitations in restricting
the number of nominations or finalists that a creator is allowed to have.
Best wishes;
Fred
On Mar 16, 2013, at 8:13 PM, cpam@zipcon.com wrote:
Even without Kyell Gold, we're still getting one category loaded up with
just one author? We're not even choosing the winner anymore -- just which
story she'll get the award for.
I don't have a problem with Mary Lowd getting some nominations -- she
deserves them -- but if it comes to this many in one category, then
something is off-kilter. There needs to be a rule or a tweak or something
to limit the number of nominations within a category, to offset the push
from a dedicated bloc of fans and to keep the line a bit more fair.
-Chuck Melville
I would add that the loudest and most consistent complaints that the
ALAA gets is when they impose a rule - *any* rule no matter how
justified - on what or who qualifies.
There were something like four dozen nominations in that category,
and usually it's hard to narrow it down to just five or six
finalists. However this year there were some clear contenders.
That they were mostly from one author just shows that her stories
are popular,
and at the end of the day, the Ursa Major Awards are a popular vote.
Imposing artificial limits is a direct contradiction of this, and
the ALAA would rightfully be castigated for trying to do so. And
just to be clear, there's a big difference between an author
withdrawing voluntarily from contention, and the ALAA invalidating a
nomination.
At 3:46 PM +1100 3/17/13, Goldfur wrote:
I would add that the loudest and most consistent complaints that the ALAA
gets is when they impose a rule - *any* rule no matter how justified - on
what or who qualifies.
Tough. You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. (Not you,
Fred. The other Fred.) ;)
There were something like four dozen nominations in that category, and
usually it's hard to narrow it down to just five or six finalists. However
this year there were some clear contenders. That they were mostly from one
author just shows that her stories are popular,
Oh, so? How come the first time I heard of her was from the nominating
ballot?
and at the end of the day, the Ursa Major Awards are a popular vote.
Yeah, with how many votes a year? 100? 200?
Imposing artificial limits is a direct contradiction of this, and the ALAA
would rightfully be castigated for trying to do so. And just to be clear,
there's a big difference between an author withdrawing voluntarily from
contention, and the ALAA invalidating a nomination.
Ya gotta do something, boychik. As it sits, the only reason the Ursas have
any cachet left is that it's the only game in town...
-MMM-
Actually, no, I had no idea that I would be butting my head against
so many brick walls when I accepted Fred's invitation to join the
committee. That there's now a hole in that brick wall is a
testament to my persistence. I could do without the headaches
though.
Oh, so? How come the first time I heard of her was from the
nominating ballot?
She had no less than three stories in contention on last year's
ballot. She is hardly a newcomer.
1782 ballots were cast last year - almost 30% more than the previous
year. Every year there's always someone pointing out that they've
never heard of the Ursa Majors before, but that will /always/ be
true. Voter turnout increases every year with those newcomers.
We /are/ doing something, and that's mostly sticking to our
principles despite people wanting us to things /their/ way. And
perhaps the reason the Ursa Majors are the only ones of its type is
because the ALAA is doing what the majority of the fans wants, or at
least doing the best we can in this diverse fandom.
At 1:21 AM +1100 3/18/13, Goldfur wrote:
Actually, no, I had no idea that I would be butting my head against so many
brick walls when I accepted Fred's invitation to join the committee. That
there's now a hole in that brick wall is a testament to my persistence. I
could do without the headaches though.
Pesky, ain't they?
Oh, so? How come the first time I heard of her was from the nominating
ballot?
She had no less than three stories in contention on last year's ballot. She
is hardly a newcomer.
H'm. Musta slipped under my radar what with the fuss over Gold. Mea culpa.
1782 ballots were cast last year - almost 30% more than the previous year.
Every year there's always someone pointing out that they've never heard of
the Ursa Majors before, but that will / always/ be true. Voter turnout
increases every year with those newcomers.
Ah! Now THAT is good tidings indeed.
We /are/ doing something, and that's mostly sticking to our principles
despite people wanting us to things /their/ way. And perhaps the reason the
Ursa Majors are the only ones of its type is because the ALAA is doing what
the majority of the fans wants, or at least doing the best we can in this
diverse fandom.
Mmmh...
(goes and does a little research on the Hugos, to get a numbers basis for
comparison in order to make a snarky remark on the subject)
(gets royally gobsmacked)
http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2012HugoVotingReport.pdf
Holy Mackerel. The 2012 Hugos had 1922 ballots? Only 140 more?
(more research, more gobsmackery)
http://www.nesfa.org/fanzines/votehist.html
The best the Hugos managed between '71 and '99 was 1595 ballots?
E-freakin-gads.
American Idol this ain't, indeed. Sheesh.
-MMM-
Dear Everyone;
One extremely important difference between the Hugo and the Ursa
Major Awards is that the UMA voting is free to anyone who requests a
ballot.
It is a LOT cheaper to vote for the Ursa Major Awards!
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 01:21:16 +1100
From: goldfur@gmail.com
To: discussion@ursamajorawards.org
Subject: Re: [UMA-discussion] Re: Our press release about the 2012 UMA voting
On 17/03/2013 6:05 PM, M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:
At 3:46 PM +1100 3/17/13, Goldfur wrote:
I would add that the loudest and most consistent complaints that the
ALAA gets is when they impose a rule - *any* rule no matter how
justified - on what or who qualifies.
Tough. You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. (Not
you, Fred. The other Fred.) ;)
Actually, no, I had no idea that I would be butting my head against so
many brick walls when I accepted Fred's invitation to join the
committee. That there's now a hole in that brick wall is a testament to
my persistence. I could do without the headaches though.
There were something like four dozen nominations in that category,
and usually it's hard to narrow it down to just five or six
finalists. However this year there were some clear contenders. That
they were mostly from one author just shows that her stories are
popular,
Oh, so? How come the first time I heard of her was from the
nominating ballot?
She had no less than three stories in contention on last year's ballot.
She is hardly a newcomer.
and at the end of the day, the Ursa Major Awards are a popular vote.
Yeah, with how many votes a year? 100? 200?
1782 ballots were cast last year - almost 30% more than the previous
year. Every year there's always someone pointing out that they've never
heard of the Ursa Majors before, but that will /always/ be true. Voter
turnout increases every year with those newcomers.
Imposing artificial limits is a direct contradiction of this, and the
ALAA would rightfully be castigated for trying to do so. And just to
be clear, there's a big difference between an author withdrawing
voluntarily from contention, and the ALAA invalidating a nomination.
Ya gotta do something, boychik. As it sits, the only reason the Ursas
have any cachet left is that it's the only game in town...
-MMM-
We /are/ doing something, and that's mostly sticking to our principles
despite people wanting us to things /their/ way. And perhaps the reason
the Ursa Majors are the only ones of its type is because the ALAA is
doing what the majority of the fans wants, or at least doing the best we
can in this diverse fandom.
Bernard "Goldfur" Doove
At 3:46 PM +1100 3/17/13, Goldfur wrote:
I would add that the loudest and most consistent complaints that the ALAA
gets is when they impose a rule - *any* rule no matter how justified - on
what or who qualifies.
Tough. You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. (Not you,
Fred. The other Fred.) ;)
There were something like four dozen nominations in that category, and
usually it's hard to narrow it down to just five or six finalists. However
this year there were some clear contenders. That they were mostly from one
author just shows that her stories are popular,
Oh, so? How come the first time I heard of her was from the nominating
ballot?
and at the end of the day, the Ursa Major Awards are a popular vote.
Yeah, with how many votes a year? 100? 200?
Imposing artificial limits is a direct contradiction of this, and the ALAA
would rightfully be castigated for trying to do so. And just to be clear,
there's a big difference between an author withdrawing voluntarily from
contention, and the ALAA invalidating a nomination.
Ya gotta do something, boychik. As it sits, the only reason the Ursas have
any cachet left is that it's the only game in town...
-MMM-
The other Fred: Not exactly. There are now
the Cóyotl Awards, although they are open for
voting to members of the Furry Writers' Guild
only. But if the Ursas were really unpopular,
you'd expect there to be attempts to set up
rival awards "done right" instead of some
isolated kvetchings. There haven't been any
that I know of.
At 8:25 AM -0700 3/17/13, Fred Patten wrote:
The other Fred: Not exactly. There are now the Cóyotl Awards, although
they are open for voting to members of the Furry Writers' Guild only. But
if the Ursas were really unpopular, you'd expect there to be attempts to set
up rival awards "done right" instead of some isolated kvetchings. There
haven't been any that I know of.
In other words, if I'm so smart, why ain't I setting up a rival?
Simple. One word. Integrity.
I want to win awards. I can't go winning awards if I'm the guy giving out
the awards. Doesn't matter how much 'vox populei, vox dei' you invoke, if
someone who's running the game wins a prize in the game, there's a stink of
dishonesty there (no matter how undeserved).
Selah.
-MMM-
Mitch, if you have a viable idea for a different award that has
safeguards against what you perceive as flaws, if it is popular
enough you ought to be able to recruit other fans to run its
organizational committee, so you can compete for its trophies
without any conflict of interest problems.
The other Fred: Not exactly. There are now the Cóyotl Awards, although
they are open for voting to members of the Furry Writers' Guild only. But if
the Ursas were really unpopular, you'd expect there to be attempts to set up
rival awards "done right" instead of some isolated kvetchings. There haven't
been any that I know of.
Excuse me for butting in, but I haven't actually seen you do
anything on these lists in the years I've been following them other
than slag off Kyell Gold, the awards organizers, and (now) Mary E.
Lowd. I genuinely expected you to be making snide little comments
about me, not Mary, since Dangerous Jade is erotica, and as I'm damn
sure I've seen you imply previously, 'sex sells, and artistic
integrity doesn't.'
... However I had no idea you were actually attempting to say you
have a dog in this race.
Mitch, I hate to ask you this, but have you considered submitting
writing to furry anthologies/publishers/etc, rather than
consistently wax lyrical about how fucked up the awards are that you
(apparently) want to win? I have never, ever, been made aware of any
of your writing, and I keep enough of an eye on what Furplanet and
Sofawolf release to be aware of who's presently writing.
My main objection to Mary is quantity, not quality. At Chuck Melville's
suggestion, I sampled "One Night In Nocturnia" and was quite favorably
impressed by what I read.
The problem with the quantity argument is this: simply put, the
*very small* number of writers in furry fandom who are serious
enough about their writing to treat it professionally are going to
swamp those of us who, if we're honest, don't. And they're going to
swamp us in both quantity *and* quality. Because while we're lucky
if we get two or three stories out a year, they're getting a dozen
stories and a novel written a year, and through sheer practice and
perseverance they're likely to be pretty damn good.
Look, I understand the bitching. I'm sympathetic to it. I've been
writing furry stuff for a quarter-century, there is at least *some*
argument to be made that I'm not bad at it,
and I don't think I've ever even been nominated for a bleepin' Ursa Major.
But even so, the question "Hey, why do the handful of authors who
write more than most of the rest of us put together, get their work
in front of people constantly, travel around the country going to
conventions and meeting fans, and who are good enough writers that
they're making sales to professional non-furry markets and getting
nominations for non-furry awards and reading lists keep getting all
the Ursa nominations" kind of hints at its own answer, doesn't it?
M. Mitchell Marmel:
My main objection to Mary is quantity, not quality.
Watts:
I've been writing furry stuff for a quarter-century, there is at least
*some* argument to be made that I'm not bad at it, and I don't think
I've ever even been nominated for a bleepin' Ursa Major.
Fred:
Looking at it another way, there are obviously a few authors and cartoonists
who are doing very good jobs of advertising on their websites, "I WANT TO WIN
A URSA MAJOR AWARD!
PLEASE NOMINATE AND VOTE FOR ME!"
[...] thank you for going in to such depth with your response! Providing
facts, citations, etc! [...]
And really, thank you for being so direct. So far, I've really only
got replies that are like, "Oh, I'm not even so sure I should win!
I can't really say!" You give specific, legitimate reasons why
you should win, and I like that!
It is a LOT cheaper to vote for the Ursa Major Awards!
PeterCat:
A couple of years ago I did post the Ursa Major announcements
to the FA Forums. The resulting comments led me to believe that
doing so wasn't worth the effort -- anyone truly interested will get
the news from Flayrah or some other less-noisy outlet.
We're now able to accept donations on our web site, which
not only go to the costs of making the physical Awards,
but also for promotional materials.
A few random thoughts in-line . . .
M. Mitchell Marmel:
My main objection to Mary is quantity, not quality.
Well, you could turn some of those awards around and make them based on
authors, rather than works, and then have them select one work or use the
most-nominated work. Of course, if they come out with two great works, you
have a problem (and they'll probably still win, but it might get more
visbility for other authors).
Watts:
I've been writing furry stuff for a quarter-century, there is at least
*some* argument to be made that I'm not bad at it, and I don't think
I've ever even been nominated for a bleepin' Ursa Major.
As it happens . . .
http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/2005_Ursa_Major_Awards
Best Anthropomorphic Other Literary Work - "Why Coytes Howl"
http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Why_Coyotes_Howl
Fred:
Looking at it another way, there are obviously a few authors and cartoonists
who are doing very good jobs of advertising on their websites, "I WANT TO
WIN A URSA MAJOR AWARD!
PLEASE NOMINATE AND VOTE FOR ME!"
Or any job, really. I've seen very little mention of the UMAs. Part of this
may be that it's not seen as a big thing (Weasel Wordsmith snarkily titled
its 2010 announcement "Voting For the Fandom’s Only Most Prestigious Awards
are Open"). This is a circular issue, because if it's mostly seen as a big
thing because people promote the awards.
Of those who did bother to mention it, many got on the list:
http://www.sinisbeautiful.com/?p=320 (also, read a little further down...)
http://www.flayrah.com/4589/flayrahs-top-stories-2012
https://www.sofurry.com/view/489185
http://www.sdamned.com/2013/01/ursa-major-award-nominations/ (and others in
http://raizy.deviantart.com/journal/ )
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/4291654/ (didn't get in)
https://www.sofurry.com/view/498677 (didn't get in)
I imagine those nominated who ask for the votes are likely to win, too.
There seems to be a lack of confidence (or excessive modesty) on the part of
those nominated. Isiah Jacobs asked me last year why people should vote for
Flayrah/WikiFur/Inkbunny and I gave him a list of reasons. Apparently, this
was more than most nominees gave him (see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG7_5CNJQu4#t =44s ):
----
[...] thank you for going in to such depth with your response! Providing
facts, citations, etc! [...]
And really, thank you for being so direct. So far, I've really only
got replies that are like, "Oh, I'm not even so sure I should win!
I can't really say!" You give specific, legitimate reasons why
you should win, and I like that!
As a fellow fan journalist, I understand what you're trying to do; you need
specifics. I also want us to win, and the best way to do that is to give
clear reasons for people to vote for us. After all, if you're not confident
that you've done something great, why should anyone else think you have?
I suspect many artists and writers don't want to appear as if they're saying
that their work is better than someone else's. We're all friends here, after
all. However, making your effort and achievements clear doesn't have to
diminish those of others. (Indeed, both WikiFur and Flayrah are very much
team efforts, but someone has to stand up and speak for them...)
----
Turnout at events suggests a general lack of interest among fans. At Califur
it was hardly the fault of the convention, who gave it the main stage area.
Of course, Anthrocon is almost ten times larger, and if we got that many
more, we'd definitely fill a moderate-sized room (e.g. the one in the Westin
where they served the staff dinner).
It is a LOT cheaper to vote for the Ursa Major Awards!
Indeed, and I imagine the voting will continue to grow. Though there is
plenty that could be done. For example, you know who sent you a nomination,
they gave you an address - why not tell them that voting has started? Could
still be done for this year!
PeterCat:
A couple of years ago I did post the Ursa Major announcements
to the FA Forums. The resulting comments led me to believe that
doing so wasn't worth the effort -- anyone truly interested will get
the news from Flayrah or some other less-noisy outlet.
Heh. Yeah, I remember that. It's the FA forums. Don't let it get you down -
they hate everything. Perhaps not to the level of Vivisector, but with more
volume. ;-)
We're now able to accept donations on our web site, which
not only go to the costs of making the physical Awards,
but also for promotional materials.
A tip jar at the convention might be worth trying, too. A furry convention
may be the only time furries are almost guaranteed to have _some_ cash on
them . . .
And randomly - a competing UMA, run by a national women's fraternity!
http://www.alphaphi.org/events/convention/ursamajor
Wonder how they feel about our version . . . looks like they're a little
better funded.
--
Laurence "GreenReaper" Parry
http://greenreaper.co.uk - http://wikifur.com - http://flayrah.com
"Eternity lies ahead of us, and behind. Have you drunk your fill?"
From: fredpatten@earthlink.net
To: discussion@ursamajorawards.org
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 08:25:36 -0700
Subject: Re: [UMA-discussion] Re: Our press release about the 2012 UMA voting
At 3:46 PM +1100 3/17/13, Goldfur wrote:
I would add that the loudest and most consistent complaints that the
ALAA gets is when they impose a rule - *any* rule no matter how
justified - on what or who qualifies.
Tough. You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. (Not
you, Fred. The other Fred.) ;)
The other Fred: Yep. That includes ignoring loud voices that
demand unworkable solutions, such as those that would restrict popular
nominees.
There were something like four dozen nominations in that category,
and usually it's hard to narrow it down to just five or six
finalists. However this year there were some clear contenders. That
they were mostly from one author just shows that her stories are
popular,
Oh, so? How come the first time I heard of her was from the
nominating ballot?
The other Fred: Maybe you haven’t been listening. She has had
stories in both volumes of Allasso, both volumes of RainFurrest’s
anthology, and other Furry places. Her 2010 novel e-novel ‘Otters in
Space’, which was not an Ursa Major finalist, sold so well that
FurPlanet Productions bought it to publish a trade paperback reprint,
that has also sold well.
and at the end of the day, the Ursa Major Awards are a popular vote.
Yeah, with how many votes a year? 100? 200?
The other Fred: Goldfur, who tallies all the votes, reported that
the Ursa Majors got almost 1,800 ballots last year, with admittedly
not all voters voting in every category. Voting has risen
considerably since we started accepting online voting instead of only
sending registrants paper ballots. I think that we announced the
voting total somewhere.
Imposing artificial limits is a direct contradiction of this, and
the ALAA would rightfully be castigated for trying to do so. And just
to be clear, there's a big difference between an author withdrawing
voluntarily from contention, and the ALAA invalidating a nomination.
Ya gotta do something, boychik. As it sits, the only reason the
Ursas have any cachet left is that it's the only game in town...
The other Fred: Not exactly. There are now the Cóyotl Awards,
although they are open for voting to members of the Furry Writers’
Guild only. But if the Ursas were really unpopular, you’d expect
there to be attempts to set up rival awards “done right” instead of
some isolated kvetchings. There haven’t been any that I know of.
-MMM-
On Mar 17, 2013, at 12:05 AM, M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:
At 3:46 PM +1100 3/17/13, Goldfur wrote:
I would add that the loudest and most consistent complaints that
the ALAA gets is when they impose a rule - *any* rule no matter how
justified - on what or who qualifies.
Tough. You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. (Not
you, Fred. The other Fred.) ;)
There were something like four dozen nominations in that category,
and usually it's hard to narrow it down to just five or six
finalists. However this year there were some clear contenders.
That they were mostly from one author just shows that her stories
are popular,
Oh, so? How come the first time I heard of her was from the
nominating ballot?
and at the end of the day, the Ursa Major Awards are a popular vote.
Yeah, with how many votes a year? 100? 200?
Imposing artificial limits is a direct contradiction of this, and
the ALAA would rightfully be castigated for trying to do so. And
just to be clear, there's a big difference between an author
withdrawing voluntarily from contention, and the ALAA invalidating
a nomination.
Ya gotta do something, boychik. As it sits, the only reason the
Ursas have any cachet left is that it's the only game in town...
-MMM-
Dear Everyone;
Looking at it another way, there are obviously a few authors and
cartoonists who are doing very good jobs of advertising on their
websites, "I WANT TO WIN A URSA MAJOR AWARD! PLEASE NOMINATE AND VOTE
FOR ME!" Since we are actively trying to increase the number of
nominators and voters, it is not necessarily a bad thing when one
creator gets all of his/her readers to block-nominate and -vote for a
title.
To me the solution is to get more people to nominate and vote, across
the board. The Ursa Major Awards are supposed to be for determining
the most popular titles each year. We already have one artificial
limitation in creators who have withdrawn their works -- some very
popular works -- from consideration. I would not want to see further
limitations in restricting the number of nominations or finalists that
a creator is allowed to have.
Best wishes;
Fred
Fred Patten wrote:
To me the solution is to get more people to nominate and vote, across the
board. The Ursa Major Awards are supposed to be for determining the most
popular titles each year. We already have one artificial limitation in
creators who have withdrawn their works -- some very popular works -- from
consideration. I would not want to see further limitations in restricting the
number of nominations or finalists that a creator is allowed to have.
Then the problem of perceived unfairness is bound to remain.
Two reactions to a recent blog post ran like this: one person wasn't aware
that the UMA even existed, and the other couldn't recall seeing any ballots at
any furry cons. This indicates a lack of information getting out to the
general fan populace, certainly a lack of understanding how the nomination
process works, and that, perhaps, word needs to get out through means other
than relying entirely upon the Internet. (Perhaps there's not enough channels
being pursued? I never see anything posted at the FA Forums.) I know we're
not going to be doing ballots at the cons, but is there enough of a presence
there, passing out information materials?
Dear Everyone;
Looking at it another way, there are obviously a few authors and
cartoonists who are doing very good jobs of advertising on their
websites, "I WANT TO WIN A URSA MAJOR AWARD! PLEASE NOMINATE AND VOTE
FOR ME!" Since we are actively trying to increase the number of
nominators and voters, it is not necessarily a bad thing when one
creator gets all of his/her readers to block-nominate and -vote for a
title.
To me the solution is to get more people to nominate and vote, across
the board. The Ursa Major Awards are supposed to be for determining
the most popular titles each year. We already have one artificial
limitation in creators who have withdrawn their works -- some very
popular works -- from consideration. I would not want to see further
limitations in restricting the number of nominations or finalists that
a creator is allowed to have.
Best wishes;
Fred
Then the problem of perceived unfairness is bound to remain.
Two reactions to a recent blog post ran like this: one person wasn't aware
that the UMA even existed, and the other couldn't recall seeing any ballots
at any furry cons. This indicates a lack of information getting out to the
general fan populace, certainly a lack of understanding how the nomination
process works, and that, perhaps, word needs to get out through means other
than relying entirely upon the Internet. (Perhaps there's not enough
channels being pursued? I never see anything posted at the FA Forums.) I
know we're not going to be doing ballots at the cons, but is there enough of
a presence there, passing out information materials?
-Chuck Melville
Dear Everyone;
Regarding not seeing any UMA ballots at Furry cons, the ALAA has
been trying to encourage the Furry con committees to publicize that
its attendees should take the trouble to go online and vote, from
the con if possible. Last year the voting was extended to enable
Morphicon attendees to vote. Hopefully the new UMA ribbons at
conventions will raise attendees' awareness of the awards. It would
probably help to have "please vote" flyers at cons, too.
From: fredpatten@earthlink.net
To: discussion@ursamajorawards.org
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 20:33:17 -0700
Subject: Re: [UMA-discussion] Re: Our press release about the 2012 UMA voting
Dear Everyone;
Looking at it another way, there are obviously a few authors and
cartoonists who are doing very good jobs of advertising on their
websites, "I WANT TO WIN A URSA MAJOR AWARD! PLEASE NOMINATE AND VOTE
FOR ME!" Since we are actively trying to increase the number of
nominators and voters, it is not necessarily a bad thing when one
creator gets all of his/her readers to block-nominate and -vote for a
title.
To me the solution is to get more people to nominate and vote, across
the board. The Ursa Major Awards are supposed to be for determining
the most popular titles each year. We already have one artificial
limitation in creators who have withdrawn their works -- some very
popular works -- from consideration. I would not want to see further
limitations in restricting the number of nominations or finalists that
a creator is allowed to have.
Best wishes;
Fred
I completely agree. If someone gets lots of nominations, it's
because they have lots of fans. Period.
At 10:29 AM -0700 3/16/13, Fred Patten wrote:Them's how the nominations came in. Just reporting the results. If nothing up
Dear Everyone;
Our press release about the starting of the voting for the 2012 Ursa Major
Awards has just been posted on Flayrah, with weblinks by Flayrah's
GreenReaper to all of the finalists.
http://www.flayrah.com/4658/2012-ursa-major-awards-voting-now-open
Best Short Fiction
Stories less than 40,000 words, poetry, and other short Written works.
Dangerous Jade, by Malcolm Cross (FurPlanet Productions, January 12)
[Mature Audiences; review]
Hot Chocolate for the Unicorn, by Mary E. Lowd (in Untied Shoelaces of
the Mind, issue 6)
Magtwilla and the Mouse, by Mary E. Lowd (in Allasso, volume 2: Saudade
[review], April 29)
One Night in Nocturnia, by Mary E. Lowd (in Tails of a Clockwork World: A
Rainfurrest Anthology [review], September)
Shreddy and the Christmas Ghost, by Mary E. Lowd (in Anthropomorphic
Dreams Podcast, episode 049, December)
St. Kalwain and the Lady Uta, by Mary E. Lowd (in ROAR 4 [review], June
14)
....you really couldn't find more than TWO author nominees? Christ on a
crutch, even at my worst I never had more than two stories competing in any
given year.
Them's how the nominations came in. Just reporting the results. If
nothing up there is what you nominated, you may want to pester more
people into sending in nominations for your favorites, of course.
At 12:14 AM -0700 3/17/13, kayshapero wrote:The day the ALAA /learns/ that it is necessary to tweak or outright fake the
Them's how the nominations came in. Just reporting the results. If nothing
up there is what you nominated, you may want to pester more people into
sending in nominations for your favorites, of course.
Naw, I'm used to my nominations not making the final cut; it's...didn't the
ALAA learn ANYTHING from l'affaire Gold? (sigh)
Naw, I'm used to my nominations not making the final cut;The day the ALAA /learns/ that it is necessary to tweak or outright
it's...didn't the ALAA learn ANYTHING from l'affaire Gold? (sigh)
fake the nominations and cheat the nominators rather than let
anybody get upset over the results is the day I quit. Noisily, and
probably musically.
Thing is, the award is not Best Writer, it's Best Short Fiction.
Each and every one of those nominations is for a different piece of
Short Fiction, and no one piece is more worthy than another just
because of who wrote it.
BTW - I've read most of the stories nominated, mostly because I
update the Recommended List. Read the Recommended List and you'll
spot stuff like that. Contribute to the Recommended List (and yes,
it is legitimate to contribute a recommendation for your own work),
and more of us will find out about your work as well. I'd like to -
don't think I've seen anything of yours in quite awhile.
At 6:02 PM -0700 3/17/13, kayshapero wrote: The day the ALAA /learns/ that itHeh...
is necessary to tweak or outright fake the nominations and cheat the
nominators rather than let anybody get upset over the results is the day I
quit. Noisily, and probably musically.
And you're just the person to do it! :)
I mind, tho, the year I shot myself in the foot by getting two pieces
nominated. Wound up splitting the vote and neither won. :D
Happened to Babylon 5 and the Hugo one year, so the lot of us on
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated collaborated to chose ONE episode
to nominate the next year and sho nuf, it won. You can see the Hugo
on Susan Ivanova's desk in the last episode, "Sleeping in Light"
iirc.
Thing is, the award is not Best Writer, it's Best Short Fiction.
Thing is, the award is not Best Writer, it's Best Short Fiction.
I'm no happier with the situation, but I think, after some consideration,
that's the best and most sensible argument I've seen.
Okay. Settled.
Let me address a different though similar point: the nominations for comic
strip and graphic stories.
Again, a lot of really good stuff is getting left in the dust in favor of the
same old and (generally) weaker stuff (in my opinion). It just seems criminal
that Blacksad and Grandville get passed over in favor of Slightly Damned, or
that Doc Rat is ignored for Sandra And Woo. I know this comes around, again,
to fan choice, but in this instance I wonder if it isn't also due to a
limitation of categories? Is it possible to open them up more?
Split Best Graphic Story into Best Dramatic Graphic Story and Best Humorous
Dramatic Story... split Best Comic Strip into Best Dramatic Comic Strip and
Best Humorous Comic Strip?
The way it is now is analogous to comedies never winning the Oscar or
animated features being largely ignored until they created a separate
category for it. New categories can't be that difficult to add, surely...
and would still allow for the results to remain the choice of the fans.
Dear Everyone (but mostly Chuck);
Yeah; this is a major reason why the ALAA's Choice Award was created last
year -- so the ALAA administrators can honor creators we see getting
ignored for popular favorites.
A lot of people already complain that there are too many categories. Last
year the ALAA committee discussed breaking Best Anthropomorphic Short
Subject or Series into two categories, so individual short films would not
have to compete with TV series. We decided that theoretically it was a
good idea, but the number of people in favor of it would be outnumbered by
the "too many categories!" complainers.
Best wishes;
Fred
On Mar 18, 2013, at 5:34 AM, cpam@zipcon.com wrote:
Thing is, the award is not Best Writer, it's Best Short Fiction.
I'm no happier with the situation, but I think, after some consideration,
that's the best and most sensible argument I've seen.
Okay. Settled.
Let me address a different though similar point: the nominations for
comic strip and graphic stories.
Again, a lot of really good stuff is getting left in the dust in favor of
the same old and (generally) weaker stuff (in my opinion). It just seems
criminal that Blacksad and Grandville get passed over in favor of Slightly
Damned, or that Doc Rat is ignored for Sandra And Woo. I know this comes
around, again, to fan choice, but in this instance I wonder if it isn't
also due to a limitation of categories? Is it possible to open them up
more?
Split Best Graphic Story into Best Dramatic Graphic Story and Best
Humorous Dramatic Story... split Best Comic Strip into Best Dramatic Comic
Strip and Best Humorous Comic Strip?
The way it is now is analogous to comedies never winning the Oscar or
animated features being largely ignored until they created a separate
category for it. New categories can't be that difficult to add, surely...
and would still allow for the results to remain the choice of the fans.
Despite my defence of our current rules, I think that it's probably a good
idea to review them after each Award is run to ensure that we are doing the
very best that we can. What may have been true last year may have swung in
another direction this year. We cannot afford to be moribund in an
evolving fandom.
At 8:49 AM +1100 3/19/13, Chakat Goldfur wrote:
Despite my defence of our current rules, I think that it's probably a good
idea to review them after each Award is run to ensure that we are doing the
very best that we can. What may have been true last year may have swung in
another direction this year. We cannot afford to be moribund in an
evolving fandom.
Hear hear! Lemme know if you need any help editing. Are the rules available
online?
(Rules is one thing I'm good at. My original rules for the Albany Anthrocon
Dealer's Room have apparently become something of a template, as I've seen
bits used in at least two-three other conventions...)
-MMM-
Dear Everyone (but mostly Chuck);
Yeah; this is a major reason why the ALAA's Choice Award was created
last year -- so the ALAA administrators can honor creators we see
getting ignored for popular favorites.
A lot of people already complain that there are too many categories.
Last year the ALAA committee discussed breaking Best Anthropomorphic
Short Subject or Series into two categories, so individual short
films would not have to compete with TV series. We decided that
theoretically it was a good idea, but the number of people in favor
of it would be outnumbered by the "too many categories!" complainers.
From: fredpatten@earthlink.netMuch to my chagrin :P
To: discussion@ursamajorawards.org
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 09:36:56 -0700
Subject: Re: [UMA-discussion] Re: Our press release about the 2012 UMA voting
Dear Everyone (but mostly Chuck);
Yeah; this is a major reason why the ALAA's Choice Award was created
last year -- so the ALAA administrators can honor creators we see
getting ignored for popular favorites.
A lot of people already complain that there are too many categories.
Last year the ALAA committee discussed breaking Best Anthropomorphic
Short Subject or Series into two categories, so individual short films
would not have to compete with TV series. We decided that
theoretically it was a good idea, but the number of people in favor of
it would be outnumbered by the "too many categories!" complainers.
The way it is now is analogous to comedies never winning the Oscar
or animated features being largely ignored until they created a
separate category for it. New categories can't be that difficult to
add, surely... and would still allow for the results to remain the
choice of the fans.
The day the ALAA /learns/ that it is necessary to tweak or outright fake the
nominations and cheat the nominators rather than let anybody get upset over
the results is the day I quit. Noisily, and probably musically. Thing is,
the award is not Best Writer, it's Best Short Fiction. Each and every one of
those nominations is for a different piece of Short Fiction, and no one piece
is more worthy than another just because of who wrote it.
From: gene.breshears@me.comLiiiiiiike... what?
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:46:47 -0700
To: discussion@ursamajorawards.org
Subject: Re: [UMA-discussion] Re: Our press release about the 2012 UMA voting
Put another way, if there really isn't enough variety and excellence to
choose from outside of two or three creators in a given category, is that
category worth keeping? I happen to think best short fiction is worth
keeping. And that means it is worth seeing if maybe there isn't a slightly
smarter way we could be running the nomination process.
From: gene.breshears@me.comLiiiiiiike... what?
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:46:47 -0700
To: discussion@ursamajorawards.org
Subject: Re: [UMA-discussion] Re: Our press release about the 2012 UMA
voting
Put another way, if there really isn't enough variety and excellence to
choose from outside of two or three creators in a given category, is that
category worth keeping? I happen to think best short fiction is worth
keeping. And that means it is worth seeing if maybe there isn't a slightly
smarter way we could be running the nomination process.
ROR