I'm just amazed they are having the awards at all this year.

What's amazing about that?

That they haven't completley imploded yet?

Yep. :)

This year I'm allowing my vote to lie fallow, in the hopes that next year the whole thing won't seem so ill-tended and played-out.

You know, that's very self-sufficient of you.

A lot of other people will actual cast votes, then let others decide whether they lie fallow.

I wouldn't even know about the WCCA anymore were it not for you. I still can't find the strength to give a rat's ass about the awards.

That's a great idea! I'm going to create an award where I give out rat's asses.

:P :)

Wait, wait, wait, I thought I nominated for Fetus-X as best Romance comic last year as a protest vote because having genre awards in an area that excels most often when/because it has no need to fit into a genre is really, really trite!

The genre categories were dumb. The awards have slimmed down and are getting back to basics, chopping out stupid things.

"So, true to their voting bylaws, they declared third place the winner."

That's really disappointing to read from you, Eric. No, duh, the voting was just part of the reason. They weren't asking people in that vote for their opinion on whether to KEEP genres, they were asking for NEW ones, but so many people disliked them they WROTE IT IN, despite that NOT being the instructions.

If Mickey Mouse or Ralph Wiggum came in third in the presidential race, that'd be insignificant, wouldn't it?

I also like how you kept referring to them as "Keenspot's". Because Keenspot has SO much to do with them. And let's bar people who work/have worked with Keenspot from being on the committee because we don't treat people as individuals, only as members of a group!

I am really fucking disappointed in you.

And not because I like the awards. I still think they're dumb, but I don't begrudge the people who like them participating in them.

Hey Meaghan, what's up?

OK, let's see if we can handle these one by one.

Last year, while asking people to vote, ads promoting Keenspot comics (and Keenspot only comics) were being run on the WCCA page.

And maybe I'm wrong, but I believe this "K" logo is for Keenspot?



If not, what is it for?

K is for Kangaroo, mothafucka.

You never watched sesame street?

It was the 70s, man. Those were some crazy drug-fueled times. I don't remember much.

You never watched Sesame Street on drugs?

You poor, poor neglected thing.

I can neither confirm nor deny. I have no recollection. Usually halfway through Mr. Rogers, the buzz kicked in pretty hard.

It's hosted on there. Has been for a while since they figured out they needed some good hosting for the traffic and they can't pay for it. It's staffed by volunteers, what do you want? Offer free hosting next year, please.

I've thought that maybe it needs to be an academy type thing. Only due-paying members vote, dues go to hosting the website. Would be nice, but the guys running it are kind of idealistic, which is one good reason why keenspot being in any way affiliated with the awards except for offering free hosting is laughable.

Next point, bring it on. Nice disabling of comments on your recent post. Trying to get me to respond here?

OK, sure. The only role that Keensp* plays is that they provide free hosting. It's not that they've run ads on the WCCA site promoting their own comics, or that about half of their "Executive Committee" is made up of Keenspot cartoonists or founders, or that their discussion board is on comicgenesis (formerly known as Keenspace).

But OK, sure, you asked for it, I'M OFFERING FREE HOSTING.

Next Point: "That's really disappointing to read from you, Eric. No, duh, the voting was just part of the reason."

And that's the problem I have with this: That the voting is always just part of the reason.

If this is the "Webcartoonists' Choice," then the voting ought to be the entire reason. But, you're right, it's not. Instead there's a little group of admittedly uninformed self-proclaimed "activists" that decides to throw votes out when they don't get the results that they want.

If, for example, they don't like the first or second place result, then they just go with who's on third. Or if they don't like a comic they don't understand being nominated in a category they don't understand, then they disqualify it.

But if they really want to be the "Webcartoonists' Choice," then they should just count the votes. "The voting" shouldn't ever be "just part of the reason" -- it should be the only reason.

Oops, you offered them free hosting! Now they're the Eric M. Awards!

No, I don't like the Keenspot ads on there, myself, but calling them the Keenspot awards because of it is a little disingenuous. I'd already mentioned how many of the people working on them are affiliated with Keenspot, but it's not like you can bar them from creating awards that try to be universal just because they used to be with/are with Keenspot. It's not as if the nominees are heavily Keen. There are certainly a lot of Comicspace voters, but they're a large part of people creating comics and talking to each other.

Next point:

I see. You're criticizing the HOW of the awards and not the actual methodology. Pardon me for being really tired of this, since I remember the time before and the first few years of the awards being all about how much of a popular contest it should be vs. juried and guided by committee. What we have now is a balance between the two that they're still figuring out, hence the confusion last year over whether they should or even could disqualify a comic (yours) for not fitting into the designed purpose of the genre. Some people would prefer to leave the categories entirely open to interpretation by the voters, others wanted definitions for the categories, as they considered many voters not terribly informed in the differences between "best layout" and, say, "infinite canvas". I have my own opinion, but all I really care about is that they pick a format and stick with it, because otherwise it IS confusing and creates a mess that doesn't do anything for anybody.

To do as you suggest - just count the votes, they would have to get people to vote on which categories stay, what the wording should be for each category, whether their should be definitions, who should present the awards, how the awards should be presented, how to host the website, HOW to tally the votes, who designs the website, who is allowed to promote the awards on TV (like Mark Mekkes is), etc. I could really go on. There are a lot of decisions the committee makes that would take forever for voters to decide on and frankly, very few would care enough to vote. And if "designed by committee" is a joke, "designed by popular vote exclusively" is a 12 season sitcom. Seriously, it's not just "which category would you like to add?", about 75% of your ballot would be administrative questions, which would require more follow up questions that merely a runoff, because of ideas like "No genre categories" being suggested so strongly.

I think, in regards to last year's romance vote, that if most people hadn't regarded the nomination as a joke, Fetus-X would have been left in. There is a huge populist bent on the committee, thus why there aren't definitions for categories (people are free to make their own interpretations). But also there is a focus on keeping the awards from being a joke.

... the confusion last year over whether they should or even could disqualify a comic (yours) for not fitting into the designed purpose of the genre. Some people would prefer to leave the categories entirely open to interpretation by the voters, others wanted definitions for the categories, as they considered many voters not terribly informed in the differences between "best layout" and, say, "infinite canvas".

"not terribly informed"? After talking to the WCCA "executive committee" member (Terence Campbell) leading the charge to disqualify Fetus-X, it became extremely clear that he and the rest of the committee were "not terribly informed" on a level that probably surpasses the majority of their despised uninformed voters.

1) They were "not terribly informed" about the comics they sought to disqualify. They thought, for example, that the person with the long blonde hair referred to in the first person in my autobiographical comics was FETUS-X's MOM. I shit you not. Terence Campbell and others thought the "core premise" of Fetus-X was "a woman ... trying to find her unborn child." That would be so "not terribly informed" on a level of terrible that makes a certain Russian czar seem like Ivan the Cuddly by comparison. One might think they'd try to get at least somewhat informed about a comic before doing something as drastic as disqualifying it. Like, I don't know, read the cast page if they cant figure it out for themselves?

2) They were "not terribly informed" about the romance genre. They described stories in the romance genre as where "the relationship between the two leads qualifies as a romantic one." Which of course ridiculously ignores stories where the romance is between a recurring lead and single-appearance secondary character, or classic love triangle stories which involve three leads, or any stories with large ensemble casts of more than two characters, switching from lead to secondary as they are falling in and out of love with each other.

So, what we end up with is a secret committee of self-proclaimed romance comics experts deciding to disqualify comics they don't understand from winning awards for genres they don't understand. And the worst part is that they do it, as you describe, with full confidence that they are so much very smartester than those stupid "not terribly informed" voters that keep trying to prevent the committee from giving out the awards the committee wants to give.

They'd be better off just counting the votes rather than throwing them away. Maybe then they could seriously call it the "Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards" rather than the "Web Cartoonists' Choice Unless We Don't Like It Awards."


Edited at 2008-01-27 09:02 pm (UTC)

OK, you've definitely got a different perspective on last year.
What I saw was:
-your LJ post about the genre categories not covering your work, which I agreed with because I think the genre categories are dumb, restrictive, and give undue highlight to things that fit within them. You suggest ROMANCE, since it's the closet thing to NECROMANCY. Which is fabulous.

-many people think it's fabulous, and nominate Fetus-X.

-Committee sees this and goes "?". Most are unfamiliar with the comic, but what they see still makes them go "?". Frank reads it all the way through and still doesn't see it as anything but a joke, especially since what they do all see is the LJ entry soliciting the nomination.

-Frank still mispells the comic name. But though he wasn;t "Terribly well informed" to start, he did read the entire thing before he reccommended treating the nomination as a joke. I have no idea about the others on the comm, but I do remember that they really didn't get it.

-That's why the romance genre is dumb in the first place. If it's only for comics that are mainly romance, whether it's leads or not (and honestly, if the main thrust of the story is romance, it doesn't matter who's having it, their definition was really dumb too), it gets very difficult to draw the line between a comic with romance and a ROMANCE!!! comic.

So my conclusion was that genres are dumb, hard to define, and better off done away with. I would have thought from last year's post on the awards you thought the same, but since all you're concerned about is how you were treated by the committee, that your comic was disqualified, and how unfair the awards are - THIS is why I'm disappointed. Maybe I misunderstood you last year entirely. Instead of pointing out flaws in the awards, you were merely angling for an award! You see it as a secret Keenspot agenda because your comic, not hosted on Keenspot, was kicked out by this secretive little group! They don't know what your comic is, boo hoo.

How fucking petty. You're just another jerk wanting more recognition for himself and his work. Or at least that seems to be where you're pushing me to see you. You seem to not be "terribly well informed" about my position, or even about what I've responded to your criticisms. I'm not doing this to defend the awards, I'm writing this because I'm quite frankly shocked to see such a petty, whiny position taken by you.

This is where you laugh and tell me you were just fucking around with me, and you're just trying to point out hypocrisy within the awards, not changing your apparent position on things because you just want to criticize them because you didn't get one.

I'm quite frankly shocked to see such a petty, whiny position taken by you

My position is that in a "cartoonists' choice award" votes ought to be counted, not discounted, and especially not discounted by a committe of self-described "activists" with little understanding of the genres and comics they are discounting votes for.

What's so petty about wanting people's votes counted? If "none of the above" came in third place, what's so petty about thinking it shouldn't be declared the winner?

not changing your apparent position on things

Seeing some of the inner workings of the voting process certainly opened my eyes to a lot of things and definitely changed some of my attitudes about these awards.

But I don't think that's what you're suggesting. What position do you think I've changed? That my position on this thing hasn't been that democracy rules and that whatever people want to vote for is cool?

I feel like I forgot to write something, but no, I look up and it's there.

If it's entirely people's choice, where do you begin and end it? Do you get them to vote on everything? I wrote about that earlier and no response on those issues from you. You have to have some structure, and a committee that anyone can join and vote on the rules, yes, even you!, is hardly undemocratic.

Sorry for the caps and bold, but WHAT PART OF "SUGGESTIONS" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?. The quote you start off from Mark you are willfully misunderstanding. They were asking for SUGGESTIONS. Nowhere did anything say that suggestions would definitely be incorporated. A strong response of a protest write-in vote that deliberately WAS NOT WHAT WAS BEING ASKED in my opinion, and in many people's opinion, was much stronger than an answer that was exactly what they asked for. My above analogy with a presidential vote was incorrect. A better analogy would be if 3rd place in the voting was "We should abolish the presidency." I think that getting a sizable percentage would shake things up considerably.

I agree totally with your stated position : "That my position on this thing hasn't been that democracy rules and that whatever people want to vote for is cool?"

But I do think there needs to be some base structure and some people running the thing. Do you? I think there's plenty of argument on where you draw that line - between structure and populism. But I'd rather have it about where you draw the line, not make up stupid accusations about how the awards are run based on how interpret their goals, instead of just realizing maybe you don't actually HAVE the same goals.

Yes, for a good version of this I think there would need to be a committee of people that counts votes. And works on getting out the vote. And is committed to honoring the wishes of voters.

As far as whether "you get them [voters] to vote on everything," yes, they [voters] ought to vote on most everything. Which comics are nominated should definitely be voted on at large and not decided by a committee of self-described activists with a self-described shaky understanding of the comics nominated. Also, something major like whether a third of the categories are killed ought to be voted on at large.

I disgree with your presidential analogy. I don't think third place finishers really shake things up the way you suggest.

But OK, sure, you asked for it, I'M OFFERING FREE HOSTING.

Also, I can't believe I got you so badly there. This is the kind of trap YOU'D set. That's why I said "fucking disappointed", Eric, because you're so fucking smart and being so dumb about these awards.

You asked for free hosting, I've offered it.

When do you want me to start moving the site?

Um... I have absolutely no affiliation or control or anything with the awards. You know that, right? I just like to discuss them, being as how I see awards, and pretty much all awards, best use for everyone who doesn't get one as a method of conversation and debate over merits of whatever's being awarded.

And you've missed my point again - if you host them, they're the Eric M. Awards. Ta da, etc.

And you've missed my point again - if you host them, they're the Eric M. Awards

Really? That's your position? That's all it would take?

I'd think they'd turn into the Eric M awards if:

1) I hosted the awards
2) I ran ads promoting my comics on the call for nomination pages
3) I put my little favicon logo next to the name in the browser window
4) I hosted their message board on another one of my sites
5) I had half the "executive committee" filled with people who worked for me

But you think #1 alone would do it?

Yes, yes, that's obviously what I believe and also I love these awards sooo much and will defend everything about them.

God damn, don't be an idiot. I feel like I'm talking to a child.

Does your hosting automatically display a favicon if no individual one is put into the code?

Does your hosting automatically display ads you have selected for your entire webhost that would be difficult to filter so that certain ones don't display?

Would you take the time to set up an entirely different message board when you're still working on a voting system for the website so people don't have to email in their votes?

AND I'VE ALREADY ASKED - Would you bar people from being on the committee just because they publish under Keenspot (quit the "work for", you KNOW that's bullshit)? When they specifically do not vote in the awards and automatically have their comics barred from being nominated? When none of them have exclusive contracts with Keenspot or are involved in the management of Keenspot?

So yeah, I guess if your website is analogous to Keenspot, then yes, all it takes is #1.

And yes, please continue to ignore all my rebuttals and continue bringing forth new complaints as I settle your old ones. Because of that list, half is new, and one I preemtively took care of in my first reply yet you STILL put on your list.

And continue to define my position for me while steadfastly keeping yours undefined. It really helps keep me from knowing what the hell your point is other than you're bitter about getting dropped last year. Which I don't think you're entirely wrong about. But we differ from there - because I'd be bitter about them weaseling around with the nomination instead of realizing their genres were stupid. And then they do realize the genres are stupid - so it sort of boggles me that you're complaining they're gone!

But no, please forget I said that and continue to characterize me as being on the committee and agreeing with everything they say.

I won't be able to respond, though, since I'm off on a trip, so maybe make up some replies for me!

I thought this could be an interesting, informative discussion but you seem intent on turning it into some kind of trolling flame fest.

For what it's worth, there's actually nothing in that list of five things that I hadn't pointed out before, so I'm not sure where you "of that list, half is new" is coming from.

Have fun on your trip.

"I thought this could be an interesting, informative discussion but you seem intent on turning it into some kind of trolling flame fest."

Funny, that's exactly what I was going to say 4 responses ago. I thought you were trolling your own LJ because of how I felt you were pinning me in the "pro" category and your lack of actual responses to me, while I felt I was trying my darndest to actually tackle everything you brought up.

I think I've responded to plenty of your questions and comments; if you want others addressed just reiterate what you said and/or ask for some clarification rather then jump on the flame train.

The "webcomics Community" seems to have shifted it's focus away from the "webcomics" and more on the "Community."

If you're not part of the "popular" groups online and post on the popular forums, you don't exist, no matter how good your art is.

I stopped caring bout the awards and about my comic's popularity and started caring more about the quality of my comics. Maybe that's growing up, I don't know...

But even megs can't deny that a lot of the voting IS Keen heavy.

-glych

Who's fault is it that it's keen heavy? The voters. Who are the voters? People who pay attention to the awards. How do they know about the awards? This year, mostly word of mouth. Comixpedia (except it's got a new name). There's no advertising for it because A) no budget, and B) they didn't want to heavily advertise it when it's not a solid operation, which they probably should have worked on initially years ago, instead of hyping it and not working on the foundations.

And yes, it's a popularity contest. Most awards voted by a population are. There's no escaping that. Critics and readers are for finding gems.

You are exactly right about caring about your comic and not awards. It's depressing how many people wanted the genre categories to stay JUST because they wanted another chance for their comic to win an award. The more categories, the better their chances. The more specific the category, the better their chances, etc. I really don't like that kind of thinking. Despite being disappointed in Eric, there's no way I'd mistake his rant here as him wishing the romance category were there just so his comic would have a better chance to nab an award. And I'd never think of you as someone who cares about awards except as any other type of recognition - you've always done your own thing and people who love it have found it - not enough people, but sometimes the best stuff is the hardest to find. They'll find you - and they don't need you to win an award to find you.

Oops, sorry about that Mike. I got mixed up because your e-mail came to me with "Mark Mekkes" in the from field.

Mark had to:

Set up the WCCA Gmail account since I don't have a cell phone, so everything's in his name... :)

Mike

I must admit _I_ was disappointed there were no genres or categories. In fact, half the categories I didn't vote in because I quite frankly didn't care. By reducing it down to best writer, best artist, best web design, etc. it made me vote for a very few.
And it's the nature of the beast. If you ask me who's the best writer in literature, I'd give conventional answers like Shakespeare, Robertson Davies, etc. But if you break it down by GENRES---then I can mention people like Dashiel Hammett or Raymond Chandler in mystery, Ursula K. Leguin or Cordwinaer Smith in science fiction, Mervyn Peake or Tolkien in fantasy. People worthy of mention, but by no means the best writers of all---just the best writers in the genre.
Similarly, best artist--you think of Da Vinci, or Picasso. But if you break it down by genre, you get a chance to mention people as diverse as Sime or Kirby or Kelly Freas.
Since the Internet is, if anything, BROADER in scope than mainstream publishing, if anything, you would think it would need MORE genres not less.
Eric's comic would probably never win best artist or best writing for any webcomic overall. It's good, but it's not THAT good, and there's too much competition. But best absurdist/avant-garde comic, for instance? He'd have a real shot at that...and those LOOKING for those type of comics might have found a real treasure.
Example from previous years in a totally different genre: THE GREEN AVENGER won for best superhero/action comic in previous years. Again,it would have had no chance of winning if it was just for best webcomic---something like SOMETHING POSITIVE (in writing) or DRESDEN CODAK (in art) would have eclipsed it. But it was a solid, interesting comic, and a fun example of the superhero genre...and as a result of that win, more people were drawn to that comic and tried it out.
I understand that this is an experiment this year, in cutting out genres. I understand this is a huge headache to manage. But I also feel that this is a failed experiment, that will end up satisfying nobody---especially those who use these awards to find new treasures they've never seen before.
I've interviewed Eric in the past, and enjoy his comic---one of the first to be in print simultaneously with being on the web---and feel its deserving of a shot at an award. Part of an awards show is to highlight deserving effort in the field. With thousands of webcomics out there, some sort of guide is needed, to separate the good stuff from the huge slush pile of wannabe cartoonists that is the Internet.
I think by eliminating the genres---you have unintentionally made things TOO unfocused--- and defeated the purpose.

The thing:

I'm thinking of proposing once we get through with this year and start talking about next year is separating the genre awards into their own program: coming up with, say, 10 or 12 genres and having folks nominate their three favorites in each of them. Maybe during the summer.

I can already think of plenty of objections to doing such a thing as well as some pluses, but, well, that's why they call such things "proposals," I'm led to understand... :)

Mike

I am happy to announce that there were no real issues
this time around -- the only two "maybes" were as
follows:

1) In Single Panel, XKCD was voted as a finalist, but
the comic is not a "pure" single-panel comic. However,
since the current definition does not state a "minimum
requirement" (e.g., 20% of archives, etc.), and since
XKCD does in fact produce the occasional single-panel
comic, it has been decided that it is a valid nominee,
and thus is eligible to remain as a finalist.

2) In Black & White, Lackadaisy was voted as a
finalist, but the comic is rendered in a sepiatone
rather than a pure "black and white". However, since
the definition describes black, white, and grayscale
as acceptable (i.e., a total of two possible colours
with the corresponding gammut of tones), and since the
comic only uses two colours (sepia and white, but not
black), AND since the definition does not clearly
state that a monochrome comic does not qualify, the
nomination stands, and Lackadaisy will remain as a
finalist.

So, without further ado, and arranged in Alphabetical
order, here is the list of finalists for the 2008 WCCA
awards!

********************************

OUTSTANDING COMIC
Achewood
Girl Genius
Gunnerkrigg Court
Perry Bible Fellowship
The Phoenix Requiem

************ ********* ****

NEWCOMER
Bear and Kitten
Octopus Pie
Pictures for Sad Children
The Dreamer
The Phoenix Requiem

************ ********* ****
ARTIST

Aaron S Diaz (Dresden Codak)
Dylan Meconis (Family Man, Project Kooky)
Nicolas Gurewich (Perry Bible Fellowship)
Phil Foglio (Girl Genius)
Sarah Ellerton (The Phoenix Requiem, Inverloch)
Tracy Butler (Lackadaisy)

************ ********* ****
WRITER

Chris Onstaad (Achewood)
Kaja and Phil Foglio (Girl Genius)
Sarah Ellerton (The Phoenix Requiem, Inverloch)
Spike (Templar, Arizona)
Tom Siddell (Gunnerkrigg Court)

************ ********* ****
CHARACTER WRITING

Achewood
Girl Genius
Lackadaisy
Questionable Content
Templar, Arizona
The Phonenix Requiem

************ ********* ****
LONG FORM

Girl Genius
Gunnerkrigg Court
Templar, Arizona
The Order of the Stick
The Phoenix Requiem

************ ********* ****
SHORT FORM

Penny Arcade
Perry Bible Fellowship
Sinfest
Three Panel Soul
XKCD

************ ********* ****
SINGLE-PANEL

Book of Biff
Bunny
Saturday Monrning Breakfast Cereal
Savage Chickens
XKCD

************ ********* ****
COMEDIC

Beaver and Steve
Dinosaur Comics
Penny Arcade
The Order of the Stick
XKCD

************ ********* ****
DRAMATIC

Crowfeathers
Gunnerkrigg Court
The Phoenix Requiem

************ ********* ****
LAYOUT

Copper
Dresden Codak
Gunnerkrigg Court
Realm of Atland
The Phoenix Requiem

************ ********* ****
COLOUR

Dresden Codak
Girl Genius
Gunnerkrigg Court
Penny Arcade
Perry Bible Fellowship
The Phoenix Requiem

************ ********* ****
BLACK & WHITE

Crowfeathers
Digger
Dr. McNinja
Lackadaisy
Octopus Pie
Three Panel Soul

************ ********* ****
PHOTO

Alien Loves Predator
A Softer World
Dark Red
Legostar Galactica
Twisted Kaiju Theater

************ ********* ****
CHARACTER RENDERING

Gunnerkrigg Court
Lackadaisy
Scary Go Round
The Dreamland Chronicles
The Phoenix Requiem

************ ********* ****
ENVIRONMENT

Dresden Codak
Girl Genius
Gunnerkrigg Court
Realm of Atland
The Phoenix Requiem

************ ********* ****
WEBSITE

Lackadaisy
Octopus Pie
PvP
Realm of Atland

************ ********* ****
MEDIUM

Diesel Sweeties
Dresden Codak
The Dreamland Chronicles
VG Cats
XKCD

*******************************************