Animation Source Forums

I've seen a lot of stuff flying around over the controversy of unrealistic and/or unrelated characters, as well as ones that are not really used for anything. And to be fair, I can see where the people complaining about this are coming from. I saw a profile for the windup cat toy on Balto's boat from teh first movie. Somehow I doubt there's going to be a story about the toy's life. Or if there is, it will probably involve Woody and Buzz Lightyear.

Jokes aside, I think some of the suggestions go way overboard, especially those that involve getting rid of the character section entirely. I'll be up front and say that in this I want to see my own characters preserved; I've worked long and hard to create interesting, original characters people would enjoy, and I've never had any complaints, so I assume I was doing a good job of expanding on the Balto universe in my own small way. But I'm only one of many. I've seen people put in a lot of work on characters who do get used in fanfics and fanart, too many people to begin to list. I don't think it's fair to punish us for the actions of those who have little or no interest in the Balto movies. So I propose the following solution.

1. Appoint character mods. This ideas is already out there, and it's one of those that I think makes a great deal of sense. We have mods to keep teh rest of the site in line, why not the characters as well?

2. Set a limit on unused characters. This may be a bit long for those who want a fast and oversimplified solution, but stay with me here. Since characters can be registered as present in fanfics and other fan material, it stands to reason that they could be regulated much as those other works are. For example, at least 25% of every fanfic gallery must consist of stories involving canon characters. The same, unless I'm mistaken, goes for art and images. So just set up the reverse for characters; have it set up so that if someone has more than X percent or X amount of characters that aren't in any story or picture, they can't load any new characters. Since this is such a hot issue, I could see making the "used character quota" higher than that of canon-related content in other sections - say, 50 or 75%. This would have the added benefit of keeping things tied to the original characters, since in order to produce works featuring all of their own characters people would also have to do stuff with the canon characters too.

3. Mandate connection to the canon characters. Simply put, have a rule to be enforced by the mods that characters in fanart and fan fiction be somehow connected with those in the Balto movies. I won't say how closely connected because I feel that any set number of degrees of separation would be rather arbitrary, but some kinf of connection born out in any stories where the characters might appear seems reasonable. To be fair, this one might be waived for RP-only characters, or it might not. Make your opinion known on this, please.

3. Settle on some rules that compromise. Let's face it. If you ruled out all unrealistically colored characters then Jenna would have to go. So why not just agree on something like no characters with wacky markings (except on MLP Source if that opens up) or really crazy color combos like red, yellow and green? The rules could be flexible according to site, like more color versatility on ADGTH Source (or HTTYD Source since, after all, what rules are there about dragon colors?) and the aforementioned dispensation on MLP Source if that ever opens?

I think this would be fair to all concerned and make a lot more sense than fighting. Any thoughts?

This is all already being discussed not only in the rant board, DT, but on the latest fan news (at least showing on Balto Source). Why do we need to have a separate discussion about it here? That seems superfluous to me. Just pitch into the existing conversations.

I agree, there really wasn't a need to make a topic on a already hot topic that is being discussed in multiple places. As stated, this is something you could have added into another conversation.

I suppose I should have explained that here as well as on the main topic for this controversy. Since a lot of suggestions seem to just get steamrolled over and lost in the crowd, I wanted to take steps to avoid that happening with my suggestion. I talked to one of the mods about this, and while I don't recall how clear I was that I was planning on making this a sopic unto itself, she seemed to approve the plan on its own merits.

However, it seems that at least in terms of present company, my efforts to get the idea actually looked at have backfired.

Well, I don't know who approved this, but whoever did was wrong. Because this topic is hitting points that a lot of other people have brought up countless times.

I say this nicely, but I wouldn't worry about your thoughts being ignored. Like I said, these are pretty basic things that have been brought up before. Someone is bound to respond to you if you were to post this in a discussion.

"In terms of present company"?

I'm not out to stick it to you personally, DT, if that was the implication you were leveling with that statement. And I don't believe Mighty is either. It just seems superfluous to me to have this stuff being discussed in several places at once, rather than just ONE place. I should think that would make sense here. Maybe I'm jumping the gun. *Shrug*

Alright, I'll put that to the test, then. But regarding the two no-voters, whom I'm guessing are you and JC, if you're voting on the ideas themselves, would you be so kind as to explain what fault you find with them on their own merits, rather than how they are submitted?

JC --> What I'm trying to say is that you guys haven't said one thing about the idea itself. If it really makes that much difference how it's presented, fine. Main topic, here I come. Again.

I've already said more than enough of my peace on the aforementioned topics and locations. Repeating it here would be pointless, in my opinion, and would contradict my original post in here.

Don't jump to conclusions, DT.

I also have not voted, and am annoyed by the inference.

Voting implies a desire to participate. And, as I said, I have participated in this very same discussion enough elsewhere.

And, as evidence, my own screen shot of the voting tally, and the clear indication that it is still asking ME to vote (as you can see that, from the "Logout" on the navigation menu, this IS a screenshot of my own account online on the forum at the time).



Don't make inferences you cannot support, DT.

My apologies. Since you two were the only ones I had any evidence had ever been here, it seemed like an open-and-shut case, so to speak.