TWCL
Forums for The Webcomic List
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
TWCL Forum Index
->
TWCL Awards
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
View more Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Font size
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
[quote="jynksie"]When you look at national awards like the Emmys, Oscars, Academy Awards, People Choice Awards ... and the list goes on... they don't omit past winners from being nominated again the following year for winning the previous. It's like saying "Hey Greys Anatomy, you won once, your done now, but keep on making those shows we'll no longer consider for nomination!" What could be more promising for anyone than to have multiple wins? These awards are designed to give accolades to the best of the best and if the best happens to win more than once, then it's obviously deserved. The more something wins, the harder it is for it continue that trend because judging panels will compare previous years work to current work and it is the creators who have to keep kicking it up a notch to get that next win.[/quote]
Options
HTML is
OFF
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Jump to:
Select a forum
The Webcomic List
----------------
How To...
General Ramblings
Webcomic Gubbins
The Dogpile
The "Check out my comic" forum!
Jams and competitions
Webcomics and Real Life
TWCL Awards
Site Problems / Broken Comics
Scraps
Topic review
Author
Message
wendyw
Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:34 pm
Post subject:
Ah, sorry.
I just realised it's been over two weeks.
I posted the thread in the Committee Room forum and the results came back with a unanimous decision not to rule out previous winners this year, but there is still an option of putting in a limit on how many times a comic can win.
As the limit isn't going to be just once then it won't effect anything this year so it's something that will continued to be discussed later on and will be included in the feedback form that will be posted on the awards site after the ceremony goes live. That's a subject for another thread though.
rcmonroe
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:27 am
Post subject:
Dutch wrote:
Things like the Oscars, etc, are awarded to finished products, so a person can easily (if they're Meryl Streep) be nominated year after year, because they're being nominated for separate, complete pieces of work, each one different and stand alone (generally). The same webcomic being nominated and (maybe) winning year after year means they're getting several awards of the same kind for the same piece of work which isn't finished yet.
Couldn't have said it better myself (if I could have, I would have!)
Dutch wrote:
Like RC (I think), I don't mind either way which way these awards decide to go. I probably won't pay much attention to them anyway
Indeed. I've already moved on to my next fruitless pursuit.
Dutch
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:18 am
Post subject:
rcmonroe wrote:
Dutch wrote:
Other reasonable people may think I'm a complete dill for thinking this though, and fair enough! Some of you may think along the lines 'I've got it once, I'm gonna go for THREE IN A ROW!
I just... don't think it's necessary. You won. You've been recognised. Someone else will be recognised next year because yours doesn't need to be any more. You've climbed that pinnacle. Time to find another mountain.
You mean you’re
not
an insecure, attention-whoring egomaniac? Then what are you doing drawing webcomics?
Quietly having fun pretending I'm drawing something worthy of, first, my time and effort, and the attention of like minded people! Sorry for not taking webcomics as seriously as we're supposed to
rcmonroe wrote:
Dutch wrote:
You lot like the qords and idea of 'disqualification', eh?
Disqualifying means they've done something wrong or outside the rules. These comics who's been given these pats on the back have clearly won, so they couldn't have done anything wrong or broken any rules to be disqualified. It's not disqualifying. It's recognising they've reached that level of success already.
Exactly. Well, one convert is probably more than I could have reasonably hoped for. Thanks, Dutch.
Heh. I'm not a convert, I just agree with you.
Things like the Oscars, etc, are awarded to finished products, so a person can easily (if they're Meryl Streep) be nominated year after year, because they're being nominated for separate, complete pieces of work, each one different and stand alone (generally). The same webcomic being nominated and (maybe) winning year after year means they're getting several awards of the same kind for the same piece of work which isn't finished yet.
Like RC (I think), I don't mind either way which way these awards decide to go. I probably won't pay much attention to them anyway (cos I'm an equal opportunity sort of bloke as far as awards go, so it's only fair I'm generally indifferent to all of them!
). I guess that just underlines my response to RC at the top of this post again, eh?
rcmonroe
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 8:32 pm
Post subject:
Dutch wrote:
Other reasonable people may think I'm a complete dill for thinking this though, and fair enough! Some of you may think along the lines 'I've got it once, I'm gonna go for THREE IN A ROW!
I just... don't think it's necessary. You won. You've been recognised. Someone else will be recognised next year because yours doesn't need to be any more. You've climbed that pinnacle. Time to find another mountain.
You mean you’re
not
an insecure, attention-whoring egomaniac? Then what are you doing drawing webcomics?
NekoMusume wrote:
I really don't see how disqualifying a prior winner is required or for that matter, fair, if we were to do this, we would be one of a very small list of awards that do.
Dutch wrote:
You lot like the qords and idea of 'disqualification', eh?
Disqualifying means they've done something wrong or outside the rules. These comics who's been given these pats on the back have clearly won, so they couldn't have done anything wrong or broken any rules to be disqualified. It's not disqualifying. It's recognising they've reached that level of success already.
Exactly. Well, one convert is probably more than I could have reasonably hoped for. Thanks, Dutch.
I’m wondering if what I’m asking people to do here is to think too much outside the box. There seems to be a mindset that there can only be one legitimate type of award—the kind that rewards performance solely within a given year—and that any other definition of an award is somehow a perversion of the One True Way.
The Nobel Prizes, people—probably the most famous and prestigious awards
in the world
. It’s not like I had to look to the arcane and obscure to come up with an example.
Chilari wrote:
Allowing comics to be nominated again after they win means that, if that comic remains the best, it wins again. If it is no longer the best, it will not win again. Simple. If another comic surpasses it during that year, then, quite simply, it wins instead of last year's winner.
You make it sound like it’s not even a subjective judgment.
Novil wrote:
Moreover, the winner is determined by a jury that will contain at least one or two different judges each year. I don’t see the problem.
The judges don’t make the nominations. They can only choose among what the nominating public gives them. If it’s the same comics every year,
that’s
the problem.
Look, I don’t enjoy howling into the wind. It’s clear that what I’m expressing is the minority view, to say the least. If you want to stick to what you feel is a more standard definition of an award, it really is okay, nobody’s getting hurt. Let’s move on.
Novil
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 4:51 pm
Post subject:
Even fanboys are usually getting tired after the third win in a row and vote for another comic they like the next year.
Moreover, the winner is determined by a jury that will contain at least one or two different judges each year.
So I don’t see a problem.
Chilari
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:57 pm
Post subject:
Allowing comics to be nominated again after they win means that, if that comic remains the best, it wins again. If it is no longer the best, it will not win again. Simple. If another comic surpasses it during that year, then, quite simply, it wins instead of last year's winner. But if last year's winner is still the best, but not allowed to be nominated because it's already won, then the second best will get an award which proclaims that it's the best, when it isn't, which I don't think is fair on the comic that really is the best and the creators of that comic. Repeated wins would demonstrate that a comic is continuing to be good, even that it is improving if other comics also nominated are very good too.
Dutch
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 2:50 pm
Post subject:
You lot like the qords and idea of 'disqualification', eh?
Disqualifying means they've done something wrong or outside the rules. These comics who's been given these pats on the back have clearly won, so they couldn't have done anything wrong or broken any rules to be disqualified. It's not disqualifying. It's recognising they've reached that level of success already.
NekoMusume
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 2:30 pm
Post subject:
I really don't see how disqualifying a prior winner is required or for that matter, fair, if we were to do this, we would be one of a very small list of awards that do.
If a comic is the the best of the bunch, then so be it regardless of if the comic was the best last year too.
Dutch
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 1:39 pm
Post subject:
For what it's worth, I'm actually with RC on this one. True, I agree that if a project is allowed to be nominated after winning, and gets voted as the best again in whatever category it's nominated in, then fair enough. It won because it probably deserved it (I could talk about Morgan Freeman being ignored for pulling off a fantastic and important representation of Nelson Mandela because they decided to give the best actor Oscar to some German bloke for playing... well... some other German bloke... but I won't
).
But... and shoot me down if this isn't what most other reasonable people would think... surely if 'your' webcomic won this award (or something like it), then you wouldn't really feel the need to have it win again and again, would you?
Personally, I'd be very appreciative of my quiet, humble little readership if they nominated me for something and people gave it a shot and thought 'you know what, this isn't what we're used to seeing being churned out in your regular webcomics, I reckon this one deserves my vote' and made it a winner. I'd be absolutely bloody stoked, to be honest.
But... well... I wouldn't see the point of it getting nominated again the next year (or the one after (or five years after that when it's still going and approaching 2000 strips... gawd...)). It's been recognised. Anyone can click back through that link 'past winners' and find it, because, surely, if it's a past winner, then it's worthy of following the link and giving it a shot.
Move on to another award from some other joint, eh?
Other reasonable people may think I'm a complete dill for thinking this though, and fair enough!
Some of you may think along the lines 'I've got it once, I'm gonna go for THREE IN A ROW!
I just... don't think it's necessary. You won. You've been recognised. Someone else will be recognised next year because yours doesn't need to be any more. You've climbed that pinnacle. Time to find another mountain.
I saw last year's nominations when last year's awards were under way. I looked at them and generally thought 'oh, more of the same' and didn't bother going back to vote or even see who won.
Dutch
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 1:23 pm
Post subject:
rcmonroe wrote:
Dutch wrote:
No, RC, I agree. There's plenty of work out there that's good enough to win things like this but get drowned out by the static of the thousands of others around them. I'd like to think I'm one of them, to be honest.
Then step up and be heard! Speak up for defining an award you
could
win!
Heh. Tried that last year here. Wasn't heard.
wendyw
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:56 pm
Post subject:
I am still not convinced that this is a rule we should include, but the issue has been put to the committee and they have the ability to overrule me on it. A committee decision will be announced in this thread in two weeks from now.
In the meantime feel free to continue the public discussion going here as well.
rcmonroe
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:27 am
Post subject:
Zoe Robinson wrote:
rcmonroe wrote:
Exactly. They’re disqualified for a valid reason, just as past winners would be disqualified for a valid reason.
I'm not sure it is a valid reason. It feels, to me, like artificial throttling of the nominations.
I don’t see anything artificial about it. Is the Nobel Prize artificial? All I’m suggesting is making it one type of award (a “lifetime achievement” award like the Nobel Prize) rather than another type of award (a “this year’s best” award like the Academy Awards).
Quote:
The response to being prevented from nominating comics people have heard of will not be "oh, I'd better go and find some other comics I like, then". It will be "sod this. If I can't vote for who I want, I'm not voting".
If people can't vote for the comics they've heard of, the awards will not work. Don't ask people to put effort in to voting, they won't do it.
I won’t try to predict what all people will do, but I suspect most people read more than three webcomics, and having seen their favorite win one year, may welcome the opportunity to nominate their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th favorites the next. It's not “Go find some new comics,” it's “What else do you like?” That’s the point of allowing people to vote for three webcomics, isn’t it? To substantiate the diversity of their opinions?
Quote:
You have far more faith in humanity than I do. When I think of restricting the vote, which is what you're arguing for, I think people will not bother. Don't try to tell them they can't vote for their favourites this year because they won last year, it will only piss people off and stop them bothering to vote, or even pay attention.
I think it will only piss off the people who don’t understand what you’re doing and why you’re dong it. You’d make it very clear. You’d have some verbiage on the website (prominently displayed, so no one could miss it without trying real hard) like:
“In the interest of recognizing excellence in webcomics wherever it may exist, the TWCL Awards have adopted the policy of making each Award one-time honor. We feel this will promote recognition of the many worthy webcomics in the field today”
…or something. Make it clear what you’re doing, make it clear why you’re doing it. If people refuse to understand, they refuse to understand. Eliminating the idiot vote seems like a worthy goal to me.
As far as people paying attention to the awards, I think nothing will make people lose interest faster than the same comics winning year in and year out. I suspect that was one of the things that killed the WCCAs.
Zoe Robinson
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:39 am
Post subject:
rcmonroe wrote:
Exactly. They’re disqualified for a valid reason, just as past winners would be disqualified for a valid reason.
I'm not sure it is a valid reason. It feels, to me, like artificial throttling of the nominations.
rcmonroe wrote:
The people have spoken in a clear voice. They’re saying “we’re going to nominate the same comics every year; the ones we’ve
heard
of”
The response to being prevented from nominating comics people have heard of will not be "oh, I'd better go and find some other comics I like, then". It will be "sod this. If I can't vote for who I want, I'm not voting".
If people can't vote for the comics they've heard of, the awards will not work. Don't ask people to put effort in to voting, they won't do it.
rcmonroe wrote:
It’s not like there are only six comics that people like. But if we give them their award and in effect get them out of the way, we give other comics a chance that will otherwise never have one.
You have far more faith in humanity than I do. When I think of restricting the vote, which is what you're arguing for, I think people will not bother. Don't try to tell them they can't vote for their favourites this year because they won last year, it will only piss people off and stop them bothering to vote, or even pay attention.
rcmonroe
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 8:49 am
Post subject:
Well then. I guess this is what is known as "being outnumbered". I'll shoot a few more salvos your way anyway, just to see if anything sticks.
But before I address specific concerns, let me again make one thing extremely clear:
This is not about “fixing” the awards so that obscure comics can win them instead of the far more “deserving” popular comics. It’s merely a matter of
defining
the awards as something you can only win once, because the climate in which webcomics exist makes it
appropriate
to do so.
wendyw wrote:
The problem with banning a comic from winning the same award multiple years is that you essentially are telling the people nominating comics who they can and can't nominate
That is correct. You’re telling them “you can only nominate comics that are eligible to be nominated.” Since there would be a valid
reason
(which would presumably be prominently displayed on the site) that the ineligible comics are ineligible, I don’t see what the problem is.
Quote:
We're already disqualifying some popular comics each year by making anything that the judges for the year have worked on inelligible.
Exactly. They’re disqualified for a valid reason, just as past winners would be disqualified for a valid reason.
Quote:
The fact that the judges for each award will vary from year to year, along with the points based voting system judges use, should go some way to reducing any potential issues.
I'm not against making a rule on the subject at a later date if the committee think it's neccesary, but as much as having the same people win over and over is not ideal, neither in my opinion is putting too many restrictions on who people can nominate, so unless there are signs that the restrictions will be neccesary I'd like to avoid them.
It’s
one more
restriction. As for the “signs that the restrictions will be necessary”, I think all the signs you need can be found in the results of last year’s TWCL Awards and in the previous WCCA’s:
2009 TWCL Finalists “Best Comic”
Girl Genius
Gunnerkrigg Court
Nedroid
Questionable Content
Rival Angels
2008 WCCA Finalists “Outstanding Comic”
Achewood
Girl Genius
Gunnerkrigg Court
The Perry Bible Fellowship
The Phoenix Requiem
2007 WCCA Finalists “Outstanding Comic”
Girl Genius
Gunnerkrigg Court
Narbonic
The Perry Bible Fellowship
Scary Go Round
Templar, Arizona
2006 WCCA Finalists “Outstanding Comic”
Achewood
Girl Genius
Fetus X
Inverloch
Narbonic
The Perry Bible Fellowship
Scary Go Round
And so on, and so on. Girl Genius is in there every year; Gunnerkrigg Court is in there three years in a row; Achewood’s in there twice; Inverloch ended and its creator started The Phoenix Requiem—boom, it gets nominated. The Perry Bible Fellowship, Scary Go Round and Narbonic were nominated multiple times, until they stopped updating; otherwise there’s no reason to believe they wouldn’t have continued to be nominated. I’m not saying “these comics didn’t deserve to be nominated”; I’m saying “Is that
all
?”
The people have spoken in a clear voice. They’re saying “we’re going to nominate the same comics every year; the ones we’ve
heard
of”
jynksie wrote:
When you look at national awards like the Emmys, Oscars, Academy Awards, People Choice Awards ... and the list goes on... they don't omit past winners from being nominated again the following year for winning the previous. It's like saying "Hey Greys Anatomy, you won once, your done now, but keep on making those shows we'll no longer consider for nomination!"
Those awards, and the rules that govern them, are appropriate for those media. Webcomics are different. There are dozens of films released each year; a devoted member of the Academy can make him or herself familiar with all or most of them (and actually, he doesn’t have to, since a movie has to apply to be considered, reducing the number of films the voters have to familiarize themselves with).
But there are
thousands
of webcomics. Nobody, no matter how dedicated they are, can claim to be familiar with all of them, or even anything more than a tiny percentage of them. Essentially what the current structure of the TWCL Awards says is, “you can only be considered if you’re one of a handful of very popular webcomics.”
Quote:
What could be more promising for anyone than to have multiple wins? These awards are designed to give accolades to the best of the best and if the best happens to win more than once, then it's obviously deserved.
Obviously. Note that I didn’t say it wasn’t deserved. In fact, I said it
was
deserved. That’s not the problem; the problem is that only the very, very popular comics have a chance to be nominated, and there are other comics deserving of recognition too.
Dutch wrote:
No, RC, I agree. There's plenty of work out there that's good enough to win things like this but get drowned out by the static of the thousands of others around them. I'd like to think I'm one of them, to be honest.
Then step up and be heard! Speak up for defining an award you
could
win!
Quote:
The thing here is that when these things seem to come up for nomination rounds, it seems it so much easier just to jump on the big ones (or the second tier big ones) and put their name forward again. If you put forward a suggestion that people nominate ones outside of those ranges for work they think is suitable but not so well known, then when you come around to the voting process, you probably have the issue of voters voting for the ones they know because we can't be reading through entire archives of little known strips to make a legitimate decision on each.
That's possibly a little cynical and a lazy view, but I don't doubt the lesser known nominations in these sorts of things are behind the eight ball when it comes to voting because the majority of people won't want to spend their weekends going through all these archives to give a fair opinion. It's easier to vote for the one you know and like and only give passing reference to the others.
I don’t blame the voters, I blame the voting system. I don’t think people vote for the popular comics because they’re lazy or because they don’t do their homework; they vote for them because they like them. But they might like some of the lesser known ones too, if they knew about them.
Quote:
That said... I stopped following these sorts of things years ago... mainly for the reasons I said above. I don't have the time or inclination to read through that many webcomics!
Neither does anyone else. Which is why so few webcomics “break through”. Ever notice that almost
all
of the most popular webcomics are the ones that have been around for seven or eight years or longer? And that except in the rarest of cases, the only exceptions to that are the new creations of previous popular comics (e.g. Inverloch/The Phoenix Requiem)? People are reluctant to pick up on newer webcomics, because there’s just so damn many of them. It’s overwhelming.
Zoe Robinson wrote:
While I agree that there's always the chance that popular comics will win year in, year out, I don't see that changing unless you remove the public vote. Readers like what they like and you can't do anything about that.
Well, under the current voting structure, the public only
nominates
the comics; ideally the fact that you have qualified judges making the final selections allows for the cream to rise to the top. I’m not suggesting saying to the people, “no, you’re wrong, you can’t nominate this again because you have no taste;” I’m suggesting saying “right, we gave that one the award last year; what else you got?” It’s not like there are only six comics that people like. But if we give them their award and in effect get them out of the way, we give other comics a chance that will otherwise never have one.
Quote:
Stopping previous winners from winning again would turn the awards into something else entirely.
Yes, that’s exactly right. It will turn them into something more akin to the Nobel Prize as opposed to the Golden Globes. It will turn them into something that makes sense for
webcomics
, as opposed to making sense for movies or TV shows. There are thousands of webcomics, just as there are thousands of physicists, economists, statesmen, etc. Einstein won
one
Nobel Prize. Is it because he only “deserved” one? No; it’s because the voting structure of the Nobel Prize recognizes the climate of the fields in which they give awards. It recognizes that there are many deserving nominees, and that giving the same person the same award every year accomplishes very little of value.
Quote:
Instead of being what the readers and judges both think is the best comic this year, it will become "the best of the rest - what we think is great this year, barring everything we've already mentioned in previous years".
Again, It’s not “banning all the good comics so the crappy ones can have a chance too”, it’s a recognition of the fact that the voting structure as it is will not
allow
anything but the most popular comics to be nominated, and that there are other deserving nominees.
This is just a matter of
defining
the awards as a one-time thing. It’s not even a
re
definition, since there’s
no
definition now.
Zoe Robinson
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 8:43 am
Post subject:
While I agree that there's always the chance that popular comics will win year in, year out, I don't see that changing unless you remove the public vote. Readers like what they like and you can't do anything about that.
Stopping previous winners from winning again would turn the awards into something else entirely. Instead of being what the readers and judges both think is the best comic this year, it will become "the best of the rest - what we think is great this year, barring everything we've already mentioned in previous years".
This is "the webcomic list awards" not "now that's what I call webcomics".
Powered by
phpBB
© 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Hosted by
Fluent
The Webcomics List
is operated and owned by
Ash Young
.
Syndicate
the comic updates.