August has seen a lot of drama, but what drama was the most dramatic?
Posted by crossaffliction (Brendan Kachel) on Mon 24 Aug 2015 - 14:40 — Edited as of Mon 7 Sep 2015 - 14:39
Fur Affinity forum and site mod resignations
50% (10 votes)
Probable inspiration of the "ConFurence ad" story revealed
15% (3 votes)
Furry drama site Furry Drama 2 succumbs to its own drama
10% (2 votes)
Furry HIV chain posted to multiple furry sites
25% (5 votes)
Votes: 20
Tags:
Comments
Sorry to be so dramatic, but here's this week's poll. For those of you are unaware of certain dramatic events listed above, well, first of all, good job, actually, but second of all, here's a couple links so you can still feel like an active part of our polling community: FurAffinity staff resignations, the ConFurence "ad", Furry Drama 2 is kaput and the HIV chain.
In less dramatic poll news, last week's poll saw Sly Cooper best Zootopia for the 2016 most anticipated furry movie with 56% of 43 votes; it was a nail-biter, and the poll is not closed, so that could change!
More drama: Furries for Kids, but those are euro furries so it doesn't count. Kidding. I asked an Austrian furry to help explain.
Edit: these got little write ups - http://dogpatch.press/2015/08/25/sex-drama-explosion/
I was aware of all of these, despite attending a week-long con. I may need help.
As for the vote, it's gotta be FA, but I must admit to a little schadenfreude over FD2.
I only knew of two of these; FA drama (obviously) and I'm guessing the Confurence Ad drama is the conversation that was had here. That hardly struck me as drama though and barely seemed like anything to care about.
As for Furries For Kids, that's why I am opposed to any sort of furry definition based on identifying as a furry. They are furries! They were fursuits, they have it in the name and the people involved go to furry conventions, Eurofurence and Lakeside Furs for example. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
Edit: You can see a bit of the advert for my panel in the schedule on the side of the Furries For Kids article!
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
... barely seemed like anything to care about.
You kind of defined drama there, Rakuen.
Its kind of a blast from the past; for instance, around the time the "Confurence ad" story was the big drama in furry, the only competition was, literally, debate about whether Eric W. Schartz drew porn.
Ummmm... um. Unless it was buried in something else, I missed the "ConFurence Ad" discussion. Being part of the major ConFurence staff, that pricks up my ears. Could someone provide a link?
crossaffliction did in his first comment. Edit: Wait, no, that link doesn't work. I've fixed it. Basically, an informative comment to an old opinion piece that rustled up a lot of other comments.
*sigh* Thought that was it. A lousy and inaccurate article that sparks a lousy and inaccurate discussion.
I'll state it: The "Black Sheets" people never asked our permission or our approval to talk about us. Our reaction? The same as it was for a lot of lousy and inaccurate stuff that came out when we got started: We groaned and pounded our heads on the nearest desk-top.
I think the guy had the best intentions at heart; at worst, self promotion for his comics. I mean, even if his goal was to turn furry into a haven for the gay lifestyle, its not like that was the worse thing to hitch your wagon to.
However, I'd say this was good news for the old ConFurence crowd; while it technically only proves that this guy gave some info to "Black Sheets," it does make it seem a lot less likely that ConFurence or anyone actually involved with the con was also placing ads, and its pretty clear that this was not a concerted effort (verging on conspiracy theory the way some people tell it) to make the fandom go gay all the sudden.
Though it doesn't seem that inaccurate; seems a pretty fair description of furry.
It's lousy coverage but it doesn't seem that inaccurate, not more so than any generalisation that we use. Perhaps there's a lot more that's missing but aside from not being only about comics, what do you think is inaccurate?
Side note, people do not need approval or permission to talk about someone else.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Need? No. But it's polite to get. Some of us old folks still believe in that.
Post new comment