Phil's Rambling Rants
1. We're going to try to make the catagories clearer next year by adding descriptive text; unfortunately, when the OVFF concom picks a name for the category it isn't always clear to anyone else what their intention is.
2. We didn't have time to get into this at the Pegasus meeting because of the Wild Mercy concert, but we're lengthening the ineligibility period for performer/composer. Up until now we've been going with a one-year off period; we're going with five years off now. We'll be making this retroactive, so that means the following people are ineligible in the category named until the year listed
Tom Smith - 2011
Kathy Mar - 2010
Cat Faber - 2009
Zander Nyrond - 2008
Talis Kimberley - 2007
Jeff and Maya Bohnhoff - 2011
Urban Tapestry - 2010
Dandelion Wine - 2009
Three Weird Sisters - 2008
Talis Kimberley - 2007
This should cause new blood to make it into the Pegasus Awards in these categories.
(Oh, and as for Threes, there are multiple versions of the words out there; you'd have to ask Mary where she got the ones she did.)
"We're going to try to make the catagories clearer next year by adding descriptive text; unfortunately, when the OVFF concom picks a name for the category it isn't always clear to anyone else what their intention is."
Sorry for going a bit off topic here, but I wonder if anyone has considered applying that sentence with a substitution of "songwriting contest topic" for "category". From what I heard, I suspect I wasn't the only person more confused than inspired.
Part of the fun of the songwriting contest is people coming up with novel interpretations of the topic. I like seeing people taking a creative approach to writing a new song; what I don't like is seeing them make creative excuses for why the song they already wrote should be considered eligible when most people would say it's not.
Changing the eligibility on the person awards so someone can't win their second Best Performer or Writer/Composer until 5 years after the first is a good idea. My own personal feeling is still that someone who has won the award in the past should be handicapped, so if for example Cat is on the ballot again in 2009, I will only vote for her if I think she's enough better than the second place that she deserves a redundant award. But that's a subjective decision that I couldn't put into words as a clear rule even if I were picking the awards myself. I suppose one could say that a person should only get a second (or third) award if the things they've done since they won the last award, ignoring their previous work, deserve the award, but our minds don't work that way.