User talk:Xydexx/Hiroshima Cluehammer

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

> * the fandom has grown by 72%

You cannot draw that conclusion from your graph. For all you know, the 50% increase in cons means that there's more cons proximal to the same home base, and therefore people go to more cons. Take a detailed survey on how many cons people have gone to over the years, and you can account for this one way or the other.

> * furry fans have raised record-breaking amounts for charity

record-breaking among furries, anyway.

> * furry fandom has gotten some of the best press coverage ever

It could only go up!

> * respected artists and illustrators attend furry conventions and have a great time

respected among furrydom, sure. with 99% of furry artists, nobody outside the fandom has ever heard of them. So this is a cyclic argument. You respect them because they're furry artists.

> * furries are defined in the press as "cuddly talking animals" and "cartoon-animal-loving fans"

there's still plenty of lukewarm and "heh, look at these bozos" press out there.

> * furry fandom is on the verge of becoming The Next Big Thing.

DREEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAM ONNNNNNNNNNN, buddy. Soccer is probably the next big thing. Furry fandom is on the verge of... the basic trend it's been on for 30 years.

> The evidence would strongly suggest we're not as doomed as the naysayers like to say we are.

Well, first, you haven't really presented "evidence" of any sort. Saying things does not make them so. However I'm not one to say the fandom is "doomed" by any measure. It will continue to be a fun niche hobby for a fair number of people. But that's all it will ever be... so be happy with that and move on.

I agree that it is specious to directly apply total convention turnout to estimate the size of the fandom, given the increase in conventions. However, I feel it is also quite possible that the fandom has grown 72% in 5 years.
Let's look at some specific figures from AFCIS:
Now, it's important to note that ConFurence and Conifur have both stumbled in that period - both apparently through inability to find a hotel suitable to their/their attendees' needs, not lack of interest from fans - but Califur and FurFest Northwest have sprung up to take their places, along with various smaller cons (Conifur may be back in '07, we'll see . . .). The overall number has gone up from 12 -> 18, or more if you count ones like とらんすふぁ and FranFurence which haven't been picked up by AFCIS yet.
Five years is a long time for ideas to spread, especially given the Internet now connects a huge "target market", and those new conventions wouldn't have setup unless they thought they could attract a crowd. Look around you, and see how many young faces there are. It's not just because the greymuzzles are getting old. ;-)
The point with the quality and tone of press coverage is that it's not going down, or just staying there. And yes, I agree, the "bozo" stuff still exists - but it is being tempered with more moderate coverage - at least in Pittsburgh, where we can provide 2500 people with disposable income for half a week. As for the artists, I believe Xydexx is referring to people like Scott Shaw!, who is definitely notable outside the fandom.
Personally, I'm happy with the fandom as it is, but I'd also be happy to have more people to share it with. I think there is a big potential market for it out there, that could be tapped given the right conditions. I'm willing to keep dreaming until it happens - but meanwhile I'll be doing what I think it takes to help make it happen, too. It's one reason I founded WikiFur. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. As a result I've gathered evidence that supports my claims and will make the revised essay stronger. — Xydexx 13:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Hmmm "There are policies to control exploitive {sic exploitative) media crews, standards of conduct have been enforced, troublemakers have been banned from conventions, and we have panels at the larger furry conventions for the continuing influx of new attendees we've been getting as the fandom grows. " Other than the newbie classes, it sounds like almost everything the Burned Furs were asking for. Glad to see you endorse their agenda and cite it as responsible for the success of the Fandom.

Nice attempt at revisionist history there. I supported policies to control media crews, et al. before Burned Fur even existed. This doesn't sound like anything Burned Fur was asking for—it was never part of their agenda, so you can't give them credit for it—they just wanted to "kick the perverts out." I know waxing eloquent about Burned Fur's imagined victories is all the rage for bitter ex-fen who want to save face, but seriously, Rich, you're really losing it here. —Xydexx 22:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not revisionist history. Sure, the idea was floating around before, in fact, most of their agenda was floating around before (Surely you're familiar with earlier forms of TBOF, right?). But negative media attention was definitely one of their foci, as well as bad public behavior, and they wanted to ban the freaks from the conventions. So I really don't see what you're driving at. Are you denying that they were in favor of any of these things?
Let me know when you find supporting evidence for your claim that included implementing stricter controls on the media, etc., because it never was part of Burned Fur's agenda. Trying to kick out the perverts (thereby counter-productively drawing more attention to them) isn't the same as creating media liaison positions, sending out press releases, and other workable solutions which were implemented without Burned Fur's help.
One key difference between my position and Burned Fur's (and, by extension, yours) is that I'm not in favor of banning the "freaks" (and indeed, to the best of my knowledge Foxwolfie Galen and Ostrich still harmlessly attend furry cons and have a great time)—I'm in favor of banning the troublemakers, i.e., people who actually break the rules. Not the harmless freaks. Not the harmless perverts. Not the harmless lifestylers. Just folks who cause problems for the convention. I think there's a pretty clear dichotomy between that and your scorched-earth policies of scapegoating entire groups of fans simply because you don't like them. That's probably also why other fans solicit my advice on appropriate ways to handle media attention instead of yours.
For all your wild accusations about what a horrible ambassador to the fandom I supposedly am, I must be doing something right. -:) —Xydexx 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Proof that the Burned furs were concerned with the media can be found right here on the entry on them Burned Furs [citation needed]
As far as me having a scorched earth policy, I seem to recall that I personally called for public decorum. I spoke out against the people who publicly linked their freakish (and sometimes illegal) preference to the fandom, and I protested against things like Blowjob in the lobby of the Atrium hotel. I personally stopped a woman from conducting a flogging at CF8 at the registration desk in front of a family who was checking in. And I never claimed to be a member of the Burned Furs.
I'm sorry, I should have clarified: Please provide evidence from Burned Fur's founding documents, not an unsupported claim on a wiki. —Xydexx 02:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Way to move those goalposts. Sorry, I won't play that game.
Nice cop out. The fact of the matter is you can't provide evidence Burned Fur wanted to implement stricter controls on the media because it simply doesn't exist anywhere in their stated goals or agenda. —Xydexx 03:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


This page was an essay - but more than that, it was a salvo in a decade-old argument between two people. This argument had nothing to do with WikiFur per-se, nor would this essay have resolved it. Its effect (and, I suspect, the intent) was not to resolve it, but to fan the flames. I have therefore deleted it. Copies of the page text are available on request. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)