Animation Source Forums

True. But at some point, the option had to be added or coded into the site. And I think we know what that means.

Can I just QFE all of this?

I've actually lost count of how many people I used to know on here, who genuinely enjoyed seeing Balto things on the site, who left because the entire site turned into "Whatever you want Source".
It's pretty blatant Steet only really seems to care about TaleSpin Source, I'm just glad that so far he's held firm on saying "no" to every single new 3D movie that's released.

That "wolfs yaaaay" mentality Cat was on about was expressed PERFECTLY when "Alpha and Omega" was released - that movie had no original plot, no really memorable characters & low quality animation but there were TONS of requests for "Alpha and Omega Source" for no real reason other than ANOTHER place for people to upload their generic wolf characters.
Even All dogs go to Heaven Source got "wolfdogs" submitted all the time and they don't really fit the world of ADGTH at all, sure they are kept as pets but there are SO MANY OTHER breeds of dog to use.
Nothing escapes this. 101 Dalmatians Source gets characters submitted that are listed as "German Shepherd", "Golden Retriever", "Border Collie" and these characters are coloured on generic wolf lineart.
Most attempts at making something different are ruined by ignorance, most fan characters aren't even drawn in a style that replicates the style of the movie they're supposedly meant to fit into.

The reason Balto Source is getting less and less recognition is because the overwhelming majority of people who submit things to it don't really care. Go look at most fan characters and look at what their "Relation to Balto" is. Many don't even have one, those that do are awful ones like "Lives in Nome", "Pulls a sled", "Met Balto once", "Is in the wolf pack Aniu was in when she was a pup" - terrible.
Have a look at fan art and fan image galleries and most things are renders of people's own (usually sparkly) characters and they get around the original-to-fan ratio by rendering their character on to a screenshot with another character in it and tagging the official character - even though that character has little to nothing to do with the image itself - OR they render Balto into Balto and call it original work, or render Balto into Steele which is just as lazy.

If I go looking I still see ACTUAL Balto fan art in other places, not very frequently but it is there, but honestly if you came across BaltoSource and saw all the rants about how badly run the site is, all the questions going "were is mai new charctur i sent it in lyk 1 hours ago?????????" and all the arguments over stupid things - would you join?
I sure as heck wouldn't.

It doesn't happen as OFTEN as on Balto Source, but on other sources, especially S.S, that happens. It's annoying. I now grew into the habit of clicking "modify" to make sure no site-related characters are there when they aren't actually in the image. I am starting to have to do that with Balto Source. It's not all that easy to look into each gallery and make sure everything's correct. Especially on balto source, since it's most active. It isn't that easy (not saying you said it was) but I think if we saw a rabbit riding a bike trying to be submitted to a canine site, we would notice lol

I'm just going to reply to a bunch of stuff, since I'm behind.

JC, I'm not trying to psychoanalyze you; I'm just saying that everybody evaluates other people; it's such a basic part of human interaction that trying to do without it would be like trying to walk without feet. So basically I'm analyzing the human habit of analyzing.

Now personally I agree that the whole sparkledog thing is getting silly. Heck, it's been silly from day one. Same for wolfaboos, although to some people's way of thinking I'm a wolfaboo just for being on this site on a regular basis - one of my co-workers said as much yesterday, although he used the word "furry." My point is that the definition you showed seems sensible to me, but there is an inherent danger of using words not in the dictionary. They're too malleable in their meaning to hold any precise meaning, and this kind of situation demands drawing some fine lines.

I also agree with you about the characters thing, although I've offered a reasonable solution to that before. Do I really have to repeat it?

As for this matter of new sources driving people away, I somehow fail to see the logic in using that, as one might infer from certain comments made thus far, all expansion of AS should cease. I concede that there should be a certain amount of sense and judgment exercised in what movies or series are granted a source - I cringe at the thought of a Captain Planet Source, and even with personal bias I'd be dubious about a Road Rovers Source, for example. I've come to grips with the idea of a My Little Pony Source only in the sense one would come to grips with an imminent pandemic. I still think that new Sources should be a possibility at least considered, within reason.

I'm not talking about individually sizing someone up and analyzing their comments and profiles, DT. I'm talking about your previous inference that it is somehow everyone's responsibility to continually analyze every single member for trends, behavioral commonalities and so forth. That's a different thing entirely. And if you didn't mean to infer it, you should go back and have another look at what you said and consider saying it a different way.

And do not ask me to go back, pull out the particular phrasing, and quote it here. I'm not that invested in this to get into that level of debate. I saw it, I commented. I'm not going to engage in a cut & paste debate with you.


Whom are you addressing here, DT. You said you were catching up and responding to several points. At least three other people responded since our last exchange, but you only addressed me in the opening statement. What, specifically, did I say about characters, DT?

I've got to be honest: this is getting into one of those situations where I feel like I can't speak honestly without triggering a fight. All I'm asking is that you not make assumptions about everyone who annoys you on the site. Forgive me if that's not what you're setting out to do, but it seems like to you everyone who complains about their problems is a whino looking for attention, etc. Can't you just not talk to them? I've seen you and a few others be pretty cold without any real necessity, even to people who are real fans of the movies in as much as they've forgotten more than I ever knew about them.



Forgive me, that was an oversight on my part. I was referring to this and other similar statements you and others since have made:



Like I said, there have been other such remarks. This one, however, pretty well sums up the matter. And as I said, I agree that the matter of unrelated/unrealistic characters is getting out of hand. I would like to see some reasonable boundaries placed on characters - no wings, no weird piercings, no rainbow-striped fur, no outlandish accessories (e.g. bandannas and maybe scarves are okay, but dogs wearing pants or carrying weapons ought to be left to Wishbone).

One thing I do think it's overboard to try doing is placing a minimum standard on artistic skill or quality. I know you've heard me sing this song before, but just for the benefit of anyone who hasn't, I can readily sympathize with those whose art skills are limited to rendering from blanks or drawing none-too-spectacular pictures, namely because I'm one of them. If we who don't have a lot of skill want to post our beginner material here, and our lack of skill bothers someone, that someone has two reasonable alternatives: offer some helpful tips, or pick another gallery.

A. "Whino"? That is not even a word.

B. If you cannot speak honestly about it without triggering a fight, then don't speak at all. I quite believe you, as it has happened between you and myself, and between you and others, quite frequently over the manner in which you not only expect them to conduct themselves, but in what they ought to say, believe, think, feel, and so on. You have no business, given that, wagging an accusative finger my way. It is not up to you to set the tone or dictate behavior. "Dictating behavior" is an increasing and increasingly-disturbing phenomenon here on Animation Source, where members are being told what they can and cannot say by certain moderators. And that is unacceptable. Certainly no NON-moderator has any business whatsoever trying to accomplish the same thing.

C. I don't make assumptions. I see behavior or comments that I wish to comment upon, and I comment forthwith. And I do so within the bounds of the existing rules (constantly fluctuating though they may be). If someone acts the fool, I am going to speak on it, and call attention to it. If someone acts in a way I want to comment pleasantly upon, then I will do that instead. I decide how to proceed on that. You don't decide that for me, or for anyone else. You're really going to need to come to terms with that if you want to avoid conflict.

D. Those who go into a shoutbox whining about their "problems", it is almost always the case, is someone seeking attention and repeated stroking of their rather fragile egos. That much is certain. And if they have REAL problems to sort out, they have no business trying to do in on here. They ought to be offline, seeking the help of someone who really CAN help them...not some other teenager or someone who seems to think they have some right or some clout to be providing therapy. I've seen you get drawn into that with unbelievable ease, and then act like their mother...or their therapist...which you are most definitely not.


No one is suggesting placing a limit upon relative artistic skills of any member, DT. That is a misrepresentation of the issue. The ISSUE, in fact, is putting a stop to kiddies, teenagers and even adults coloring over screen shots or tracing them and then coloring them in. To alter a screen shot amounts to theft. To alter it is defacement. There is no defense for that. I don't care WHO the member is, and whether or not they are ten years old, or twenty five, or fifty. Wrong is wrong is wrong. And seeing the plethora of pathetic colorings and tracings (including what several of us have come to term the "it needs more red!" phenomenon), frankly, is driving people nuts. Not just a few people -- MANY people. Regardless of the fact that only a few are vocal about it.

Of course, a related issue to that is the increasing desire, by dedicated fans, to put an end to the sparkle/unrealistic thing that has blanketed this website with its garbage. Art or not, it doesn't belong here. And the only reason it IS here has already been very eloquently pointed out by Cat. I can add nothing that would make it any clearer. I suggest you read it. And if you have, then review it. Because you don't seem to be getting it.

Bottom line, I am going to continue commenting honestly and directly when I feel the need to. If I see something that impresses the hell out of me and makes me feel good, I'll comment thus (and I have veeeeeerrrrrrrry often...in spite of the fact that certain dumdums only ever seem to like to focus on whatever negative or blunt comments I make...which are a small percentage of the actual number of comments I happen to make on this site...I find this fixation towards my negative and/or blunt comments to be rather obsessive and disturbing. No matter who is the person fixating upon them...moderator or not).

And if I see things that strike me as idiotic or irritating, I am going to comment upon them if I feel I want to. I'm not going to put out some touchy-feely nicey-nicey comments on the order of "awww...there there, I know you're new. Golly, do you want to talk about it? Is there trouble at hooooome? Did we not get our fiber this morning?"

Uh uh. Not gonna happen.