Talk:FurFest Northwest

Controversy section?
The FurFest Northwest community on LiveJournal has been deleted, but I remember reading some discussion there concerning the name similarity to Midwest Furfest; there might be some reference to that elsewhere as well.

A number of other concerns were raised in a post to artists_beware (again, on LiveJournal) last week, with considerable discussion going on in comments. -- Sine 21:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just did some cleanup and added a controversy section. -- Frizzy 09:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: Sine's comment about discussion about the name similarity issue on the FurFest Northwest community - yes, there was a long thread between Rex and Silly_Otter at the beginning of July, where S_O brought up several important legal points about why appropriation of the name might be a bad idea, presented in a calm, helpful manner. Rex pretty much shouted him down on the basis of "you're just some 19 year old kid from thousands of miles away whose opinion doesn't matter." Rex deleted the thread on the afternoon of July 4. DuncanDaHusky(talk) 12:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Link(s) to alternatives?
Does anybody mind if I repost a link to RainFurrest for the Pacific Northwesters? This isn't about being opportunistic since I'm not even from Washington, but I love the area and it'd be nice to help the locals find a con in their region. -- Frizzy 09:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't think a link to RainFurrest is appropriate. There are other ways that a person can find conventions in the Washington area (like maybe looking at the front page of the site) and I don't see any other way for it to be read besides being opportunistic, even if that isn't the original intention. DuncanDaHusky(talk) 12:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okee doke =^_^= -- Frizzy 13:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if there was a category to be linked in to. Cons -> Cons by Region. --Blueroo 09:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Lawsuit threat?
Quoting from the article:
 * culminating in Con Chair Rex Wolf threatening to bring a lawsuit against the person originally bring up concerns about the con.

Can we geta cititation on this? It sounds pretty serious. --Douglas Muth 15:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that is a reference to this post.

Now I have to figure out if I'm willing to go through legal routes to defend FFN. The guy is violating the law and slandering FFN.
 * I seem to recall the threat was mentioned elsewhere as well, though.DuncanDaHusky(talk) 16:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Although Rex deleted the official threat, I still have a copy of the post on the FFNW Bulletin Board where he made the request asking a nebulous "you" if he should pursue legal action. He also made reference to legal action on his livejournal. --Blueroo 23:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good lord. Just who does he think he is?  Oh well, that's good enough for me, thanks for providing the link!  --Douglas Muth 02:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dmuth, don't you know that the internet is SERIOUS BUSINESS? Spaz Kitty 02:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * B-b-b-but... I thought the Internet was COMEDY GOLD? --Douglas Muth 02:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, no, the internet IS A SERIES OF TUBES Spirou 03:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Internet is FOR PORN --GreenReaper(talk) 03:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not quite dead yet
I'm not quite sure to make of this. Is the con still being held or not? There's not going to be a hotel, but there will be "a fursuiting event". Is this worth writing about in the main article? --Douglas Muth 02:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look like the con's going to be held this year, still. Maybe something in spring. Other than that, it seems a rehash of the last paragraph of the text quoted in the article: that people can come, go see the wolves, and fursuit. --DataBank 03:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Rather condescending, isn't he? Also, now he's talking about trying to revive the con next Spring.  That'll be interesting, considering other conventions (possibly) happening in that time frame. :P &mdash; KieferSkunk 22:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Allow me to post a couple links... Rex throwing up his hands and blaming everyone else for his decision to not run the con and More blame game. Teeka 01:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to let the record speak for itself. AFF's first year was a rousing success, with very few problems, and it has received resoundingly positive feedback, both at the con and afterward.  We had nearly three times the number of people we expected to have.  We entertained the vast majority of our attendees.  We only had a couple of relatively minor hiccups (one related to the Art Show and one or two with the hotel), and I think the worst of our feedback had to do with some website issues, nearly all of which have already been addressed.


 * No convention can be expected to turn a profit in its first year. We went into this with the expectation that we would lose quite a bit in our first year, following the guidance of those who have been there before - even the most successful of conventions.  But moreover: We went into this with the expectation that it would be fun and rewarding in other ways, and it was.  It was a learning experience and a wonderful way for us to give back to our community, having all been patrons of fun conventions in the past.


 * Officially, All Fur Fun has nothing against Rex, and wishes him well in any future endeavors he may pursue. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 05:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments from 4.242.144.104
(Context here)
 * (Rex: there was NEVER a THREAT of legal action; there was a request for feedback on whether legal recourse should be considered in an effort to save FurFest Northwest due to the lible by Blueroo in his post on Artist_Beware.)
 * (Rex: This is not true. One attempt was made to contact me directly via an email address no longer used for con business by Wicked Sairah, wife of Blueroo, the one who initiated the lies about FFN planning)
 * (Rex: this is not true either, only ONE post was deleted, which was an attempt by SR Foxley to scare people away from the con by indicating that the hotel had burned to the ground and the con would not take place - totally untrue and thus deletion was justified.)
 * (Rex: The board was made admin only due to spambots and repeated attempts by certain persons to attack FurFest Northwest. Coincidentally, Kieferskunk, one of those attacking the board, was on staff of All Fur Fun also.
 * (Rex: yup, because I was putting out $25/month of my own money to fund it.)
 * (Rex: This was because they were recruited by SR Foxley, who funded Fun Fur All to the tune of $5,000 out of his own pocket, effectively bribing the FFN staff BEFORE FFN was cancelled.)
 * (Rex: Summary: FurFest Northwest was an attempt to replace ConifurNW, which was cancelled 4 months prior to its scheduled time. I made every effort to plan this con to the best of my abilities. It would have been successful had it not been for the collusion between SR Foxley, Blueroo, and Wicked Sairah; who perpetuated untrue rumors about FurFest Northwest. I really enjoy how this article was written without contacting the staff to get the facts.)


 * A whole $25/month? Wow, that's some dedication.


 * Sarcasm aside, you make some pretty serious accusations there, Rex. I see accusations against Blueroo, Wicked Sairah, SR Foxley, Kieferskunk, and "spambots" covering things from libel, bribery and "collusion".


 * I hope that you have some evidence to back these statements up. --Douglas Muth 02:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He doesn't. Rex has a way of making up things and believing them to be true (or rather, greatly enhancing the details of certain events). For instance, SR had made a note on the FFNW board saying there had been a small fire and Rex may want to look into it. Rather than reassuring people and answering that everything was fine, he deleted the message, which of course made people worried and angry (unfortunately we didn't have the foresight to save a copy of that message, or I'd be glad to paste it here. We didn't know the extent of Rex's "management skills.") I could go on. The staff of All Fur Fun has decided to ignore Rex and leave him alone, and yet he continues to slander us in his journal. I apologize if this brings up unnecessary drama, but I wanted to be able to actually say our side of the story in a place that it would not be deleted. I'm tired of keeping my mouth shut on this issue. Teeka 03:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Might I just add that Rex MIGHT have some evidence to back up his claims if he hadn't deleted it from his message board. :P &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * For some actual facts in this, by the way: All Fur Fun was founded by Moorcat, one of Rex's staff, after FFNW had been cancelled. The concept of All Fur Fun had not even been discussed amongst the group of friends that became AFF's staff until well after FFNW was cancelled.  While it is true that SR funded a large portion of the convention out of his own pocket, it was neither a bribe nor an offer of money for anyone else in the group.  Rather, we like to think of it as a case where friends who work well together can actually come together and make something good actually happen. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

More comments from 4.242.144.243, just to be fair
Unless Wikifur wants to be held liable for slander, these comments from Kiefer, Teeka, SR, Blueroo and others need to be deleted.

This is not a threat. This is a promise.


 * It's only slander when it's not true, silly! &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Rex seems to not know the difference between Slander and Libel. Me thinks he took the $5 law class and not the $10 law class!  --Douglas Muth 14:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's probably not terribly important what the difference is between the two - the root of both is defamation of character. And in any case, there's little that will be accomplished by continuing the discussion here. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)