I've decided to stop calling OEL manga "manga" and anything in that nebulous zone is just going to be comics. Why not? I love comics! Besides, I want to promote desegregation between "manga" and "american comics." (Like Scott Pilgrim) From now on, I'm just going to call these things comic books or graphic novels. The things that I will call manga will be the comics that I buy from Kinokuniya that are from Japan, or these same comics translated.
I agree wholeheartedly. I also think it would be would be really nice to see more of these manga kids incorporating more disparate influences, or at least to see fewer American kids drawing comics about Japanese high schools. I totally understand that when you grow up mostly reading manga, your stuff's gonna look like manga, and that's fine. I'd just like to see more stuff that's a natural assimiliation of artistic and cultural influences (like you mentioned, Scott Pilgim is a perfect example -- Corey Lewis' work is another) rather than slavish imitation. But I know a lot of these "OEL" people are pretty young, and the better ones will probably grow out of it.
A 4chan panel, really? Was it just a bunch of memes or something?
No, it was the panelist being an asshat.
---
Also, with regards to checking panel content, I still hold to the opinion that it's a bad suggestion. A panel proposal should be enough, and panelists should give Otakon the respect of presenting solidly-researched, well-spoken panels. Of course, this is sometimes a hard goal to fulfill, especially when Otakon tries to branch out to new panelists. But even for me -- presenting 4 panels at this year's Otakon -- I usually pull together my presentation literally 2 hours before my panel time.
Daryl makes the point in his post, though, that Otakon staff plainly did not pay attention to the panel applications. Scrym mentioned this in one recent podcast, when talking about the descriptions in the online schedule, as if they were just copied and pasted without any critical thought put into the process. Daryl's response was:
While it is true that on the panel applications form I neglected to check Yes for "is this an 18+ event?" there is another section on the application form that stated something to the effect of "is there anything else we need to know regarding the content of your panel?" It was in this field that I stated quite clearly something to the effect of "the content contained within my panel contains strong graphic violence with the possibility of brief nudity, but no graphic sex or hentai beyond that which would be seen in an R-rated movie, and that was the reason why I did not check it as 18+." (Indeed, the offending clip was not from a hentai title at all.) Since my panel was approved as submitted, I took that to mean the staff did not object to my reasoning, as has been the case with all of the other conventions where I've run this in the past. Next stop: Anime Festival Orlando, then Anime Weekend Atlanta (where this panel was last run; at 2 PM on Friday no less).
I can only assume the cause of this stems from the same thing that caused the missing commas and the Kikuko Inoue matter: someone didn't look at the whole thing in detail as the deadlines drew near. If they had, they could have said "well, we disagree with your reasoning because here at Otakon we consider R-rated material the same as 18+ hentai material" quite long ago and designated it accordingly. Had any of the multiple staffers in the room simply informed me of this fact during the 15-20 minutes between the time I addressed the crowd and the time I actually got to the clip in question, I still could have simply not shown that clip, since the panel is mixed together on-the-fly.
A 4chan panel, really? Was it just a bunch of memes or something?
No, it was the panelist being an asshat.
---
Also, with regards to checking panel content, I still hold to the opinion that it's a bad suggestion. A panel proposal should be enough, and panelists should give Otakon the respect of presenting solidly-researched, well-spoken panels. Of course, this is sometimes a hard goal to fulfill, especially when Otakon tries to branch out to new panelists. But even for me -- presenting 4 panels at this year's Otakon -- I usually pull together my presentation literally 2 hours before my panel time.
Daryl makes the point in his post, though, that Otakon staff plainly did not pay attention to the panel applications. Scrym mentioned this in one recent podcast, when talking about the descriptions in the online schedule, as if they were just copied and pasted without any critical thought put into the process. Daryl's response was:
While it is true that on the panel applications form I neglected to check Yes for "is this an 18+ event?" there is another section on the application form that stated something to the effect of "is there anything else we need to know regarding the content of your panel?" It was in this field that I stated quite clearly something to the effect of "the content contained within my panel contains strong graphic violence with the possibility of brief nudity, but no graphic sex or hentai beyond that which would be seen in an R-rated movie, and that was the reason why I did not check it as 18+." (Indeed, the offending clip was not from a hentai title at all.) Since my panel was approved as submitted, I took that to mean the staff did not object to my reasoning, as has been the case with all of the other conventions where I've run this in the past. Next stop: Anime Festival Orlando, then Anime Weekend Atlanta (where this panel was last run; at 2 PM on Friday no less).
I can only assume the cause of this stems from the same thing that caused the missing commas and the Kikuko Inoue matter: someone didn't look at the whole thing in detail as the deadlines drew near. If they had, they could have said "well, we disagree with your reasoning because here at Otakon we consider R-rated material the same as 18+ hentai material" quite long ago and designated it accordingly. Had any of the multiple staffers in the room simply informed me of this fact during the 15-20 minutes between the time I addressed the crowd and the time I actually got to the clip in question, I still could have simply not shown that clip, since the panel is mixed together on-the-fly.
I read his post, and referred to exactly what you pointed out in a previous post. That's why I said it was Otakon failing to read his special comments box. However, I still think it might be helpful for Otakon (or any convention) to have a better way of checking your panel, even if it's right before you go on. I know you could just click something else, but they could find some way to make sure that you show the audience what you just showed them.
What gets me is that they scheduled a panel even just titled "Anime's Craziest Deaths" for 12:30. Yeah, because anime's craziest deaths are old people dying peacefully in hospices after a long illness. They say it was the 50-foot-tall naked woman that did it, but come on. I think the staffer who came up and said that with a straight face at the feedback panel was getting laughed at by most of the room. And it's really disingenuous that they're claiming Daryl tried to deceive them. The guy does five panels for them and this is the thanks he gets.
And it's really disingenuous that they're claiming Daryl tried to deceive them. The guy does five panels for them and this is the thanks he gets.
I really don't think they tried to imply that Daryl was trying to deceive that. Perhaps because he does so many good panels for them that they just ok'd whatever he put forward without even reading it. Seriously I think you guys should take what they said at face value. It should have been an 18+ (fault lies on both sides of the table here) and he's welcome to do it next year as an 18+.
And it's really disingenuous that they're claiming Daryl tried to deceive them. The guy does five panels for them and this is the thanks he gets.
I really don't think they tried to imply that Daryl was trying to deceive that. Perhaps because he does so many good panels for them that they just ok'd whatever he put forward without even reading it. Seriously I think you guys should take what they said at face value. It should have been an 18+ (fault lies on both sides of the table here) and he's welcome to do it next year as an 18+.
And that's my problem with it, currently. They gave him an OK for a panel, and then when the panel turned out exactly as he had described, they put the kibosh on it. I honestly don't think that "fault lies on both sides of the table" here. It was Otakon's responsibility to read the entirety of the panel description whether Daryl's done one panel or one thousand, and they didn't.
To put it another way, if Otakon didn't read the entirety of the panel description, and didn't have a projector in that room for the panel, who's fault would it be?
And that's my problem with it, currently. They gave him an OK for a panel, and then when the panel turned out exactly as he had described, they put the kibosh on it. I honestly don't think that "fault lies on both sides of the table" here. It was Otakon's responsibility to read the entirety of the panel description whether Daryl's done one panel or one thousand, and they didn't.
To put it another way, if Otakon didn't read the entirety of the panel description, and didn't have a projector in that room for the panel, who's fault would it be?
That's a different situation. We all agree that this panel should have been 18+ from the start.
That's a different situation. We all agree that this panel should have been 18+ from the start.
It doesn't seem like that to me. What exactly was the content that caused the problem?
Well, the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, was nudity. A large, naked monster woman with bare breasts and nipples showing was when the staffer present told Surat to shut down the panel and told everyone to leave.
It's so weird that you can show all the guts and exploding heads you want, but god forbid some little kid sees a nipple! Shocking!
But like Scott said, it's not Otakon's responsibility to fix America.
Well, the guts really should've made it an 18+ panel as well. While Surat probably should've made it an 18+, Otakon is still dumb for not thinking that extreme gore doesn't mean 18+. You're right, it's a ridiculous double standard and Otakon wasn't being correct. I think the whole panel, regardless of the nudity, should've been 18+.
Otakon is still dumb for not thinking that extreme gore doesn't mean 18+.
Also, the nudity that Daryl Surat specifically mentioned in the application. Someone didn't read it, and it's entirely Otakon's fault.
Exactly. It shows that even if he did mark 18+ on his application, they probably still would not have read it. Blame falls 100% on Otakon here, my friends.
Otakon is still dumb for not thinking that extreme gore doesn't mean 18+.
Also, the nudity that Daryl Surat specifically mentioned in the application. Someone didn't read it, and it's entirely Otakon's fault.
Exactly. It shows that even if hedidmark 18+ on his application, they probably still would not have read it. Blame falls 100% on Otakon here, my friends.
Yeah. Pretty much. Edit: Just realized I'm actually in agreement with both of you. Quite funny, considering our history.
Exactly. It shows that even if hedidmark 18+ on his application, they probably still would not have read it. Blame falls 100% on Otakon here, my friends.
OK, it's totally otakon's fault. What the fuck now? How does this change anything?
The Otakon staffers didn't seem bitter about this issue. Daryl will probably just do it next year. I only heard of 3 problem panels (craziest deaths, bleach, and anime myths/gods/whatever the hell that panel was that the crazy girl was bitching about.) 3 out of the 70-100 panels that went on that weekend doesn't worthy of the "OMG, panel ops dropped the ball!!!" that you guys are saying.
OK, it's totally otakon's fault. What the fuck now? How does this change anything?
The Otakon staffers didn't seem bitter about this issue. Daryl will probably just do it next year. I only heard of 3 problem panels (craziest deaths, bleach, and anime myths/gods/whatever the hell that panel was that the crazy girl was bitching about.) 3 out of the 70-100 panels that went on that weekend doesn't worthy of the "OMG, panel ops dropped the ball!!!" that you guys are saying.
Why are you taking stuff so personally? Stop misrepresenting what we said and chill out.
I wasn't there, but I thought I'd weigh in since I have the facts from you people. Taking a quick look at the standards you have over in the U.S., nipples will generally mean an R rating, though some slip past into PG-13. From what I gather, Daryl's assessment of his content as R-rated was probably accurate. Your standards generally require an adult guardian for R-rated material. Since Otakon probably cannot enforce this requirement, it is reasonable to assume that they would be forced to restrict it to 18+. However, it is completely out of line for them to expect everyone else to realise this. In summary, Otakon is at fault for having no clear guidelines on what constitutes 18+ material, and Otakon is at fault for not reviewing Daryl's description, where he quite clearly stated the content of his panel.
It's so weird that you can show all the guts and exploding heads you want, but god forbid some little kid sees a nipple! Shocking!
But like Scott said, it's not Otakon's responsibility to fix America.
Well, the guts really should've made it an 18+ panel as well. While Surat probably should've made it an 18+, Otakon is still dumb for not thinking that extreme gore doesn't mean 18+.
Since U.S. standards seem to allow plenty of extreme gore and violence into PG-13 rated content, especially if it's animated, I wouldn't say they were "dumb" with regards to the gore at all.
You're right, it's a ridiculous double standard and Otakon wasn't being correct.
It is indeed a double standard
I think the whole panel, regardless of the nudity, should've been 18+.
However, since we're talking about how things should be, I must disagree and say that ideally, such content should not warrant restriction to ages 18 and over.
I'm frankly annoyed at the amount of computer-chair-con-organization going on. Everything is easy for those who don't have to do it.
And you care...why?
Yeah. I never said this made the Otakon staff terrible. I was just saying that the person doing it didn't happen to put a lot of care into this particular event. I also understand that it's a fully volunteer run convention, and so we shouldn't expect great service, but that doesn't mean we can't point out the things that are bad anyways.
I also understand that it's a fully volunteer run convention, and so we shouldn't expect great service, but that doesn't mean we can't point out the things that are bad anyways.
PAX only has a few top people that are paid besides the professionals that run things like lighting/ A/V stuff, as most anime conventions also pay for that sort of service. The rest of the staff of PAX is entirely volunteer. Just because you don't expect it, doesn't mean it can't be offered or given.
From working as both a PAX Enforcer for a year and various postions of staff at Sakura Con for 6 years, I can say that there is a big difference between anime con staff and PAX staff. Scrym touched on this lightly in the improving anime conventions show, but I think it's the different cultures of the video gamer and the otaku. They can be two different sets, but they also mix and match. I am pretty much going into the stereotypes of anime otaku of lacking the social skills which doesn't help being a con staffer dealing with people constantly, and majorly freaking out at the smallest problem. I cannot tell you how many times I've seen people at Sakura Con freak out over the tiniest thing.
As a PAX Enforcer, when a problem occurred, Enforcers analyzed the situation and dealt with it accordingly in a timely manner and fashion and contacted the proper people to inform them of the situation.
I know what I'm saying is all anecdotal, but it's what I have noticed on the differences between both types of convention volunteer staff.
I also understand that it's a fully volunteer run convention, and so we shouldn't expect great service, but that doesn't mean we can't point out the things that are bad anyways.
PAX only has a few top people that are paid besides the professionals that run things like lighting/ A/V stuff, as most anime conventions also pay for that sort of service. The rest of the staff of PAX is entirely volunteer. Just because you don't expect it, doesn't mean it can't be offered or given.
From working as both a PAX Enforcer for a year and various postions of staff at Sakura Con for 6 years, I can say that there is a big difference between anime con staff and PAX staff. Scrym touched on this lightly in the improving anime conventions show, but I think it's the different cultures of the video gamer and the otaku. They can be two different sets, but they also mix and match. I am pretty much going into the stereotypes of anime otaku of lacking the social skills which doesn't help being a con staffer dealing with people constantly, and majorly freaking out at the smallest problem. I cannot tell you how many times I've seen people at Sakura Con freak out over the tiniest thing.
As a PAX Enforcer, when a problem occurred, Enforcers analyzed the situation and dealt with it accordingly in a timely manner and fashion and contacted the proper people to inform them of the situation.
I know what I'm saying is all anecdotal, but it's what I have noticed on the differences between both types of convention volunteer staff.
Perhaps it's also that a more wide variety of people fall under the description of what PAX has to offer, and therefore there are more qualified candidates to choose from as volunteers.
Perhaps it's also that a more wide variety of people fall under the description of what PAX has to offer, and therefore there are more qualified candidates to choose from as volunteers.
Perhaps it's also that a more wide variety of people fall under the description of what PAX has to offer, and therefore there are more qualified candidates to choose from as volunteers.
I know it's attendance is bigger. But the number of people who'd want to attend an event like PAX is larger. Most Otaku would, as most Otaku I've met play video games and would like something PAX has to offer. Plus, there are tons and tons of gamers who aren't Otaku who would like to go. Therefore, there are more qualified people in the PAX staff both because of the reasons you and Rym have mentioned, and because there's a larger selection pool, therefore making a higher chance of good volunteers.
I know it's attendance is bigger. But the number of people who'd want to attend an event like PAX is larger. Most Otaku would, as most Otaku I've met play video games and would like something PAX has to offer. Plus, there are tons and tons of gamers who aren't Otaku who would like to go. Therefore, there are more qualified people in the PAX staff both because of the reasons you and Rym have mentioned, and because there's a larger selection pool, therefore making a higher chance of good volunteers.
I don't see any evidence for that. The higher age demographic of PAX and the culture and attitude of the PAX enforcers are what make the difference.
I know it's attendance is bigger. But the number of people who'd want to attend an event like PAX is larger. Most Otaku would, as most Otaku I've met play video games and would like something PAX has to offer. Plus, there are tons and tons of gamers who aren't Otaku who would like to go. Therefore, there are more qualified people in the PAX staff both because of the reasons you and Rym have mentioned, and because there's a larger selection pool, therefore making a higher chance of good volunteers.
I don't see any evidence for that. The higher age demographic of PAX and the culture and attitude of the PAX enforcers are what make the difference.
We frequently and repeatedly offer our services to fix various problems we complain about at conventions. Most of they time they turn us down.
They say put up or shut up. We offer to put up. They reject our offer because they know we will show them up.
Fair enough, but I think it's more of "hey we can do this better," " thanks, but no thanks."
Also, I feel the need to point out that we're only having this discussion because half the con wanted to see this panel. If one of the less popular panels had done this exact thing I doubt we'd have even heard about it.
This was actually my first time out to Otakon, and it was a blast. It was great getting to meet some many awesome people from "teh interwebz" or w/e, but it was really awesome. All the panels were great (which I wrote in my coverage for the convention) as well as the stuff to see. Overall great convention, and I'm not looking forward to adding this to the circuit of yearly cons I attend.
Comments
---
Also, with regards to checking panel content, I still hold to the opinion that it's a bad suggestion. A panel proposal should be enough, and panelists should give Otakon the respect of presenting solidly-researched, well-spoken panels. Of course, this is sometimes a hard goal to fulfill, especially when Otakon tries to branch out to new panelists. But even for me -- presenting 4 panels at this year's Otakon -- I usually pull together my presentation literally 2 hours before my panel time.
Daryl makes the point in his post, though, that Otakon staff plainly did not pay attention to the panel applications. Scrym mentioned this in one recent podcast, when talking about the descriptions in the online schedule, as if they were just copied and pasted without any critical thought put into the process. Daryl's response was:
While it is true that on the panel applications form I neglected to check Yes for "is this an 18+ event?" there is another section on the application form that stated something to the effect of "is there anything else we need to know regarding the content of your panel?" It was in this field that I stated quite clearly something to the effect of "the content contained within my panel contains strong graphic violence with the possibility of brief nudity, but no graphic sex or hentai beyond that which would be seen in an R-rated movie, and that was the reason why I did not check it as 18+." (Indeed, the offending clip was not from a hentai title at all.) Since my panel was approved as submitted, I took that to mean the staff did not object to my reasoning, as has been the case with all of the other conventions where I've run this in the past. Next stop: Anime Festival Orlando, then Anime Weekend Atlanta (where this panel was last run; at 2 PM on Friday no less).
I can only assume the cause of this stems from the same thing that caused the missing commas and the Kikuko Inoue matter: someone didn't look at the whole thing in detail as the deadlines drew near. If they had, they could have said "well, we disagree with your reasoning because here at Otakon we consider R-rated material the same as 18+ hentai material" quite long ago and designated it accordingly. Had any of the multiple staffers in the room simply informed me of this fact during the 15-20 minutes between the time I addressed the crowd and the time I actually got to the clip in question, I still could have simply not shown that clip, since the panel is mixed together on-the-fly.
To put it another way, if Otakon didn't read the entirety of the panel description, and didn't have a projector in that room for the panel, who's fault would it be?
What exactly was the content that caused the problem?
But like Scott said, it's not Otakon's responsibility to fix America.
You're right, it's a ridiculous double standard and Otakon wasn't being correct. I think the whole panel, regardless of the nudity, should've been 18+.
Edit: Just realized I'm actually in agreement with both of you. Quite funny, considering our history.
The Otakon staffers didn't seem bitter about this issue. Daryl will probably just do it next year. I only heard of 3 problem panels (craziest deaths, bleach, and anime myths/gods/whatever the hell that panel was that the crazy girl was bitching about.) 3 out of the 70-100 panels that went on that weekend doesn't worthy of the "OMG, panel ops dropped the ball!!!" that you guys are saying.
Taking a quick look at the standards you have over in the U.S., nipples will generally mean an R rating, though some slip past into PG-13. From what I gather, Daryl's assessment of his content as R-rated was probably accurate. Your standards generally require an adult guardian for R-rated material. Since Otakon probably cannot enforce this requirement, it is reasonable to assume that they would be forced to restrict it to 18+. However, it is completely out of line for them to expect everyone else to realise this.
In summary, Otakon is at fault for having no clear guidelines on what constitutes 18+ material, and Otakon is at fault for not reviewing Daryl's description, where he quite clearly stated the content of his panel. Since U.S. standards seem to allow plenty of extreme gore and violence into PG-13 rated content, especially if it's animated, I wouldn't say they were "dumb" with regards to the gore at all.It is indeed a double standard However, since we're talking about how things should be, I must disagree and say that ideally, such content should not warrant restriction to ages 18 and over.
They say put up or shut up. We offer to put up. They reject our offer because they know we will show them up.
From working as both a PAX Enforcer for a year and various postions of staff at Sakura Con for 6 years, I can say that there is a big difference between anime con staff and PAX staff. Scrym touched on this lightly in the improving anime conventions show, but I think it's the different cultures of the video gamer and the otaku. They can be two different sets, but they also mix and match. I am pretty much going into the stereotypes of anime otaku of lacking the social skills which doesn't help being a con staffer dealing with people constantly, and majorly freaking out at the smallest problem. I cannot tell you how many times I've seen people at Sakura Con freak out over the tiniest thing.
As a PAX Enforcer, when a problem occurred, Enforcers analyzed the situation and dealt with it accordingly in a timely manner and fashion and contacted the proper people to inform them of the situation.
I know what I'm saying is all anecdotal, but it's what I have noticed on the differences between both types of convention volunteer staff.
On another Otakon-related note.
DID YOU EAT CRAB?
Also, I feel the need to point out that we're only having this discussion because half the con wanted to see this panel. If one of the less popular panels had done this exact thing I doubt we'd have even heard about it.