TWCL

[NekoMusume]

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.
_________________
Jessica Ottowell,
Development and Tech Support Staff,
The Webcomic List Awards Site.

My views are not representative of my clients,
Any community that I may be a member of or my employer

[Dutch]

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.
_________________

[Chilari]

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.
_________________
"S*P*Q*R"

[Novil]

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.
_________________

[rcmonroe]

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.
_________________

[Dutch]

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]

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.
_________________

[wendyw]

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.
_________________

Blog