TWCL

Novil · Joined: 01 Sep 2008 Posts: 385

If only comics which have started during the last twelve months (which makes sense) are allowed for “Best new comic”, all comics started in 2008 are out of luck. Because they had no chance of winning a CCA’s “Best new comic” (because there was no CCA this year) and they will also have no chance of winning our “Best new comic” next year.

One can argue that there was the Webcomic Beaky but the nomination round for that award was mainly limited to some suggestions by TWCL community members, so some great strips like “Gill” were never on the ballot. There was also not really much attention towards the Beaky Awards outside this forum.

Of couse I am biased since “Sandra and Woo” is one of those comics without a chance of winning the “Best new comic” award if no exception is made.
_________________

LukeSurl · Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:25 am Post subject:

I don't think we can justify stretching it far enough back to cover everyone the WCCAs missed, that's pretty much two years (nominations for the 2008 awards closed 7th Jan 2008) A two-year-old comic can hardly be called new.

EDIT: I missed out too! (Not that I think I'd have been nominated, but, y'know..)

wendyw · Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:27 am Post subject:

I'm with Luke on this I'm afraid.
_________________

Blog

Dutch · Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:38 am Post subject:

Me too. Limit it to a year at the very most. I'd even go so far as to just say 'New comics in 2009'. I can see your disappointment that your own strip doesn't qualify as it started a little bit earlier - I was in the same boat years back. I was not qualified for such things as New Comic in 2004 (which is when it launched) because my first strips are dated late 2003.

Oh well. Wink

Mind you... I had no idea there were faux awards to be had anyway! Very Happy

_________________

jynksie · Joined: 23 Apr 2008 Posts: 612 Location: New Hampshire USA

I have no real preference on this one. I can accept using 08 or 09 as the cut off point on this one. But if we are going to do an authentic best new comic, it should be 12 months back from say August 30th of this year at minimum, no?
_________________

www.jynksiecomics.com
http://twitter.com/jynksiecomics

Chilari · Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:41 am Post subject:

At the very most, it should be 12 months back from the opening of nominations, whenever that turns out to be, but in general I'd argue for 12 months back from the close of nominations.

Having said that, if a new comic starts in December, and hasn't got enough pages by the close of nominations on December 31st for anyone to nominate them, they won't be eligible the following year for new comic either. So maybe extending it a month or two in order to include those would only be fair. So, in a complete turn around of what I've just said, maybe 12 months back from opening of nominations would work best.
_________________
"S*P*Q*R"

wendyw · Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:41 pm Post subject:

I'm just working out what the various poll options will be on Sunday.
The big question for this category, as far as I can see, is should this category cover comics started in:

- 2009 only
- 2008 and 2009
- the year prior to the start of nominations
- the year prior to the end of nominations

Does anyone have any other suggestions for poll options?
_________________

Blog

Novil · Joined: 01 Sep 2008 Posts: 385

There’s another problem. If the voting starts at 1 January 2010 and only webcomics started in 2009 are eligible, webcomics started in the last three months or so will have practically no chance of winning. There are not enough strips published yet and the comic had no time to establish at least a small fanbase. The starting date of eligible webcomics should therefore be shifted three months to the past, while still covering one year.
_________________

Novil · Joined: 01 Sep 2008 Posts: 385

I think we need two polls:

Exception for the first award: All webcomics started in 2008 can compete additionally:
[] yes
[] no

General rule: Webcomics started between X (including) and Y (including) can compete [assumption: start of nomination phase on 1 January 2010]:
[] July 2008 – June 2009 (6 month shift)
[] August 2008 – July 2009 (5 month shift)
[] September 2008 – August 2009 (4 month shift)
[] October 2008 – September 2009 (3 month shift)
[] November 2008 – October 2009 (2 month shift)
[] Dezember 2008 – November 2009 (1 month shift)
[] January 2009 – Dezember 2009 (no shift)

(The first answer (started from the top) with a sum of more than 50 % wins)
_________________

wendyw · Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:03 am Post subject:

Quote:

[assumption: start of nomination phase on 1 January 2010]

In the original thread we were talking about starting registrations in September and nominations starting around October or November, then in around mid-December we'll close registration and close the nomination phase on the first of January.

That way we have one month between the end of the public vote and the whole thing coming to a close. If we move the start of nomination to January then we're also going to have to move the awards to around about March.

I can add additional options for a year + so many months (although reaching as far as six seems a little too much to me) prior to the start of nominations to the poll, so that it ends up as:

- 2009 only
- the year prior to the start of nominations
- the year prior to the end of nominations
- the year prior to the start of nominations plus one month earlier
- the year prior to the start of nominations plus two months earlier
- the year prior to the start of nominations plus three months earlier
- the year prior to the start of nominations plus four months earlier
- the year prior to the start of nominations plus five months earlier
- the year prior to the start of nominations plus six months earlier

I don't personally think that a second poll is needed though with this one, just the one.

What does everyone else think?
_________________

Blog

Novil · Joined: 01 Sep 2008 Posts: 385

I was using January just as as an example.

The points “2009 only” and “the year prior to the end of nominations” are not very reasonable, that would not even be a full year.
_________________

LukeSurl · Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:16 pm Post subject:

The '2009' only option's validity does depend on when the awards occur. I'm guessing we're proabably looking at about November (?)

Chilari · Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 5:05 pm Post subject:

I think at the moment we're assuming that nominations close January 1st and voting begins a week or so later, and then the award ceremony/announcement is some time in February. So really, 2009 only is the same as 12 months prior to close of nominations in that case.
_________________
"S*P*Q*R"

wendyw · Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 8:11 pm Post subject:

Chilari wrote:

I think at the moment we're assuming that nominations close January 1st and voting begins a week or so later, and then the award ceremony/announcement is some time in February. So really, 2009 only is the same as 12 months prior to close of nominations in that case.

Good point. Why didn't I think of that. I'll combine those two items.

Novil wrote:

The points “2009 only” and “the year prior to the end of nominations” are not very reasonable, that would not even be a full year.

That would work out as exactly a year, but yes it would be likely that people who started at the end of the year wouldn't get through.
_________________

Blog