Talk:Furnal Equinox/History

---

When in accord, announce: Consensus has been reached.

---

Stumbling to agreement...

So.

Any suggestions? :D Pyat the Mouse 20:53, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

I suggest making this section extremely brief and placing in only agreed upon, undeniable facts, with a statement like - "Disagreement exists over the role played by Dan Skunk in the foundation of the convention. For more information, refer to the section below."

That's the only suggestion I'm going to make on this. I spoke to Dan Skunk about his feelings on the matter and have not been impressed with his interpretation of events or his admission that he would remove and/or favorably change criticism if Furnal would take him back on the convention committee. Pyat the Mouse 10:36, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

You can't change criticism, you can only change your mind. Equivamp^talk 11:18, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

And socks, surely?

Pyat the Mouse 12:30, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

I'm wondering if "History" should even be used as the title of this section. In an effort to stop the editing war, I made that huge expansion to Origins and Controversy, backing up what both sides had said using as many references as possible in an attempt to sort it out. There was a light snarkiness to it I must admit, and I expected cleanup to happen. To my amazement both Scani and Dan Skunk seemed pretty good with it, added things, cleaned up the wording - and I hoped that would be good enough. But then Dan for some reason edited the History section with his claims of making the hotel arrangements, which belong in the controversy section. In fact most of the con's history before it finally happened is mired in he-said-she-said arguments. The top section should really have very basic, quick-reading information, and leave the heavier, controvertial stuff for the later sections. So maybe "History" is the wrong title to use, or shift it to something like "Non-controvertial history (2010-)", which would look terrible from an aesthetic standpoint, but would at least clearly identify what belongs in that section.24.77.166.82 14:19, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

If it is the history that is agreed upon, then it seems to me that is the only part of the history that should be called the history, at least officially. Of course, I think this should be at Furnal Equinox/History or History of Furnal Equinox (the latter is more in line with WikiFur standard). Equivamp^talk 14:44, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

But if I'm understanding Dan's point of view correctly, what we consider controvertial (the origins of the hotel arrangement), for him, is historical fact. At least that's the only rational explanation I have for why he put it into the history section. Dan, if you're reading this, it would be helpful to understand why you were motivated to do that.24.77.166.82 14:50, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

The "History" section as it currently exists also contains information like Furnal Equinox's mission, how it goes about fulfilling that, and a brief overview of its charitable initiatives. That information isn't really of a historical nature per se, but it does set out the con's continuing reason for existence. So I would say that a more generic term than "History" -- perhaps something like "Overview" or "Background", consistent with some other con wiki pages like Anthrocon -- is appropriate, also considering that the "History" is also encapsulated in the conventions that have happened to date (i.e. the current "Conventions" section). The opening paragraph provides critical context that the Toronto area had been underserved in terms of furry events:

Prior to 2010, there had never been a large, hotel-based furry event hosted in the Toronto area. (Feral! has run continuously since 1998, but takes place at a summer camp three hours from Toronto.)

From there, the natural progression is "How was that addressed?" Based on FE's FAQ page (http://www.furnalequinox.com/FAQ) it cites local community websites as the sources of discussion, and secondary sources have unquestionably identified that forum as Ontario Furries. These facts are undisputed by either side, they should take priority, and as Pyat said, cross-reference down to other sections for more detail.

tl;dr: This section should be structured "What was the need?" (there was no con in Toronto), "How was the need fulfilled?" (people got together on OF and announced an event), "How are they continuing to fulfill that need?" (mission statement and the like). --Scani 15:08, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

Anyone told Dan to look at this page?

192.206.146.240 15:48, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Pyat just told me to look at it.

I think a history section could explain the convention's origins. If those are in dispute, then all sides of the dispute should be addressed.

Including only those facts which are not in dispute enables anyone to have something removed just by disputing it, thusly becoming a tool for anyone to remove anything they don't like whether it be true or not.

I was the first person working on this convention, the first person to announce it was happening, the one who found the hotel, the guest of honour and picked the date, and brought the committee together. I did this over a web site I built over many years of hard work. I wish only to have my contributions to the furry community presented accurately. This convention is one of my contributions. This is my interest in this article.

"have not been impressed with his interpretation of events or his admission that he would remove and/or favorably change criticism if Furnal would take him back on the convention committee."

I didn't say I would remove things, but that the history regarding my involvement would have a favourable ending for everyone. Something like, "They worked out there differences and got back together."

Dan Skunk 22:10, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

You said you would allow the article to "...be edited down to something smaller and more agreeable. I’d support the committee’s decisions on it" and said you would "...delete the inflamitory entries on my LJ for definate sure, and likely make it the official convention of my web site," if they made you the head of programming.

Pyat the Mouse 09:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

I'm quite certain I wrote a response to this earlier, but don't see it now.

I believe the chairman should speak on behalf of the board of directors and they should never contradict each other, which would preclude me speaking for the convention, for example, making statements on wikifur entries. This is something I suggested soon after I got the committee together, but they still have never adopted it, prefering to have 4 directors speaking for the convention and often contradicting each other, which probably also indicates the lack of organization and communication that I complained about before being dismissed is still happening.

It is ironic that there are 3 people on here presuming to tell me what I did and did not do when they were not there nor had involvment in my actions. Most of what Furnal Equinox disputes is the work I did on the convention before I invited anyone else to be involved in the project.

Given my opinion on what the chairman's duty should be, it seems a neglect of responsibilities that he is not involved in this conversation. One should think the voice of the board of directors, itself, should be of some relevance here.

Dan Skunk 21:13, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

Our "Board of Directors" has responsibility for only a couple of things -- namely, making sure the convention's operating company is compliant with laws and regulations for not-for-profit corporations, monitoring its finances, and reporting these to the government as needed. The board on its own only meets for that purpose. All other matters relating to the operation of the convention are the responsibility of concom -- all Board members are concom, but they have no added influence other than what their concom roles might merit. In practice, the Board of Directors is a sub-committee / subset of the full concom that's responsible for governance.

The co-chairs could easily come into this thread to make a statement, but they would probably say the same thing that has been the overall spirit since the beginning: while you have made contributions in the early stages of the convention -- no one denies this -- that does not constitute "founding". This is not a matter of denialism or censorship -- planning a con is a team effort, why should one person use it as an opportunity for self-glorification? In the WikiFur context, we want to develop an article with content that people care about, not bringing up stories that we've heard -- many times -- that people are tired of hearing.

Finally... as concom, one of my roles is publicity, which by definition implies a responsibility to speak for the convention -- while I certainly agree the chair should have a role, it is not confined to him. Overall, I've noticed a trend of "so and so said this, he can't be trusted" and "you don't know what happened", in an attempt to discredit individuals. It's really not helping the process here. --Scani 07:31, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

Sort of how you're calling me a liar and saying I seek self glorification as a means to discredit me. Instead of trying to defame me, and argue that I have selfish motivations, which is never going to produce a consensus, you should stick to arguing facts. What did and did not happen.

Founders are the people that got things started. Considering I was the first person working on the convention, and the critical nature of the contributions I made, I should, but any reasonable definition, be considered if not *the* founder, at least one of the founders.

If you're not trying to deny things, include my name on your web site, say what I contributed, say the name of my web site, where the actually conversations I started that lead to the convention being organized took place and stop trying to get them deleted from wikifur.

"Team effort," is not justification for calling me a liar and refusing to acknowledge my contributions. The convention wouldn't exist at all, or at least you would be unlikely to be involved in it, if it wasn't for what I did. I argued in favour of your involvement and for your present responsibilities.

"Team effort," is all I wanted in the first place. I'd had arguments with you before getting you involved in the convention and knew you were against me on a lot of things, but that didn't stop me from rising above personal differences and giving you an opportunity to be involved. If I were truely interested in self glorification, why would I bring someone with a history of opposing me in? I envisioned we would argue different points, but vote to decide things together, like a mature and professional organization.

On that point, the board of directors of an organization is the governing body, any committee that exists, is appointed by them and granted powers and responsibilities by them. Having a board of directors be a sub committee is backwards and unprofessional, it's not how things were started, and it's what lead to the problems we have with each other today. Saying the board of directors is a sub committee also contradicts your web site and wikifur article where you say, "Furnal Equinox is operated by Anthropomorphic Events of Ontario, a corporation without share-capital (NPO)"--Not Anthropomorphic Events of Ontario is a corporation run by the Furnal Equinox committee. I think you should realize how unprofessional and fraudulent that actually sounds.

206.248.167.49 10:53, 10 November 2011 (EST)

Furnal Equinox is operated by Anthropomorphic Events of Ontario, a corporation without share-capital (NPO)