Split Cour vs. Traditional Two Cour

[Dawnstorm]

The difference is treating a split-cour show as one show, or two shows, yes? If that's how we interpret the difference, logic consistency would dictate that a split cour that finishes airing within a year should be eligible for each separate season. That means that theoretically a franchise could place two times. (So for example, I could vote separately for both Owari no Seraph seasons this year.)

I think logical consistency and how we interpret split-cours is important to take into account, as different takes on what a split cour is have different logical implications. That might help us decide. (I'm not sure how comprehensible I am.)

[Archon_Wing]

It should really be counted as separate seasons. Yes, this means the 2nd half might fare better when it shows its real shit but a lot of multi part series also have that same problem.

Of course, an exception needs to be made if they both fall within the same year, because pitting a show against itself is absurd.

Furthermore, the way a series is developed is far beyond our control, and they will not alter their production schedule to fit the AS awards. Thus, we need to treat every series as potentially having a continuation due to new content, or they need more money or whatever. There's also the possibility of a series simply being cancelled and that would be highly unfair if we wait for another continuation to never come. So I think there's just too much possibilities to take into account.

Of course, the funniest case must be Durarara which is a split cour and a second season....

[Reckoner]

The AS awards were meant to bring exposure to as many quality titles as possible chosen by the community as a mission statement. The split cour rule, as well as not more than two category rule, was introduced to mitigate overly popular series from dominating two entire year's awards. The question of split cour is one of exposure. I don't think it's smart to give more exposure to something just because people are impatient and want to give their favorite series a gold star as soon as possible. The system we have now isn't perfect, but it's the best we can manage given the production schedules of the modern industry where they rather have a break between cours than just do a simple two cour show.

[IceHism]

It should be counted as two different seasons. The point of opening the vote to all of AS is to represent what the community wants. While we should strive for diversity, that's more of a fault of the voting population rather than the awards itself. If you want to stress diversity, it would be better to just have a panel of judges choose the whole awards and not open up the voting to everyone. If a show like Fate/Zero is good enough to dominate in two separate years (and it is) then it should be able to. If our community didn't like the second cour then it wouldn't have been nominated again.

[Reckoner]

The AS members choose what series to nominate and vote on in the end. All we're doing is establishing criteria for eligibility that support the original mission statement of the choice awards. Again, we're trying to give exposure to titles of utmost quality as chosen by the AS members. It's counterproductive to have essentially the same show get accolades twice (And if it completely sucks in its second half, it's also a bit sucky to offer that as a suggestion of a great series).

Strictly talking representation, the rules were put into place because of significant complaints by AS members on this board. So we do take suggestions from the community, but in the end the committee has to make decisions based on sound logical reasoning and not on the whimsical desires of folks who change their minds every year. People can still vote for their favorite split cour show next year. This precedent was established beforehand when we decided not to split long running shows in half for consideration (Take Hunter x Hunter 2011 for example), so that they were still only eligible in one year. All the same arguments you make for split cour shows being considered separately can be made for those as well and that's not one rabbit hole I want to go down into.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

The AS members choose what series to nominate and vote on in the end. All we're doing is establishing criteria for eligibility that support the original mission statement of the choice awards. Again, we're trying to give exposure to titles of utmost quality as chosen by the AS members. It's counterproductive to have essentially the same show get accolades twice (And if it completely sucks in its second half, it's also a bit sucky to offer that as a suggestion of a great series).

Two seasons (labeled as such) of a multi-season show

vs.

Two separate cours (labeled as such) of a split cour show.


Increasingly, I don't see any functional difference between the two. Often the two halves of a split cour show seem indistinguishable to me from two one-cour seasons of a multi-season show (the two most recent Prisma Illya seasons immediately come to mind for me).

If I knew nothing about Owari no Seraph, and someone told me that Owari no Seraph has two separate seasons (rather than being two separate cours), I personally wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Same deal with Akagami no Shirayuki-hime.

Back in 2014, we had Selector-Infected WIXOSS and Selector-Spread WIXOSS. One aired in the spring, and the other in the fall of the same year. The two shows had different names, and Wiki calls them different seasons. Content-wise, WIXOSS totally blurs the line between a split cour show, and two different seasons in a multi-season show.

Increasingly, I don't see any good reason to treat two halves of a split-cour show any differently than we treat two different one cour seasons of a multi-season show. To put it another way, I think it's entirely unfair to treat them differently from one another.

You raised the issue of long-runners - I think there's greater reason to treat long-runners differently from split cour shows than there is to treat split cour shows differently from one-cour seasons in multi-season shows. What makes the long-runner stand out is that its typically airing continuously until it eventually reaches a series end. It often doesn't have clean one cour cuts that can reasonably be evaluated on their own, separate from the entire story.


So on the whole, I disagree with you on this, Reckoner. I think that each cour of a split-cour show should be treated the same as an one-cour season in a multi-season anime show. The one clear exception being what's already brought up in this thread - if both halves of a split cour show are aired in the same calendar year, they should count together as one entry in the AS Choice Awards (like WIXOSS was for the 2014 year, IIRC).

One final note for those who don't know - I'm in the Community Awards Social Group just like Reckoner is. He doesn't speak for the Community Awards organizers anymore than I do. Haak is having a public discussion on this, open to the full AS membership, precisely because the Community Awards Social Group has some internal disagreements on this particular issue. So feedback from the full AS membership is highly valued here, and may well have an impact on what we go with for the 2015 AS Choice Awards.

[relentlessflame]

Re: the awards, I would just make it so that a franchise that has already won an award in one category one year is not allowed to have its second season/cour/whatever be nominated in the same category the following year. You could have a "special mention" in that section for cases where a show did have a second season/cour/whatever that is worthy of consideration even though its previous half/cour/season/whatever won in the previous year. This encourages variety in the winners, without ignoring the fact that a long-running franchise can be consistently good in the same category even in its subsequent seasons/cours/whatever. It also completely side-steps the technical argument about "split-cour" vs. "split-season".

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

Re: the awards, I would just make it so that a franchise that has already won an award in one category one year is not allowed to have its second season/cour/whatever be nominated in the same category the following year. You could have a "special mention" in that section for cases where a show did have a second season/cour/whatever that is worthy of consideration even though its previous half/cour/season/whatever won in the previous year. This encourages variety in the winners, without ignoring the fact that a long-running franchise can be consistently good in the same category even in its subsequent seasons/cours/whatever. It also completely side-steps the technical argument about "split-cour" vs. "split-season".

I would be fine with this myself. It could be a good compromise position.

[Reckoner]

@RRR

That's a lot of text, but you didn't really say anything other than that you disagree. You haven't addressed the crux of the problem which is exposure. Why is it beneficial to treat the two halves separately? How does this benefit the award ceremony as a whole?

The point of the rule was to limit crowding out of too many shows across 2 years (ala Fate/Zero). There will always be shows that don't fit the rules easily, again it's not perfect, but consistency is important here. The show still gets it due accolades if it the community feels it was up to par, just not at the cost of it dominating two years and making the award ceremony in the second year a wash. Additionally, I personally feel it's in bad taste to present half of a split cour show as great full well knowing the second half later might be terrible, but that has less to do with the system in general and my own personal preference if I was looking at these awards as community suggestions.

@RF

That's an interesting idea, but logistically I'm skeptical of introducing such complexity into the process. Voters get fatigued enough with the whole setup as is, so having clear cut rules is best. Otherwise I know Haak and Felix would get many headaches with people wondering why some split cour shows are eligible in a certain year and others aren't .

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

@RRR

That's a lot of text, but you didn't really say anything other than that you disagree.

No, I explained why I disagree. For me, it's a basic issue of fairness. I think it's good for awards of any sort to aim for a high level of fairness. This is for a variety of reasons, but the main one is ensuring the legitimacy and perceived legitimacy of the awards.

I can see legitimate and fair reasons for treating OVAs/Movies a bit differently in them having their own category or categories - Movies in particular often have a major budgeting advantage for obvious reasons.

I no longer see a legitimate and fair reason to treat split-cour shows differently from split-season shows. Two or three years ago, the line between "split-cour" and "split-season" didn't seem so blurred to me. Now it does. With that blurring of the line, I just don't see any legitimate and fair reason to continue to treat split-cour and split-season differently from one another.

Exposure is important, but so is fairness. And I think you're overstating the exposure issue. Fate/Zero and UBW were special cases.

There will always be shows that don't fit the rules easily, again it's not perfect, but consistency is important here.

The AS Awards have changed and evolved significantly over the years. Categories change and shift, some removed entirely never to return. It's good to have some consistency, but you don't need perfect consistency. In fact, an insistence on perfect consistency is likely to lead to an Awards program that fails to keep up with a frequently changing anime world and landscape. What made sense 2 or 3 years ago may not make as much sense today, due to changes in the anime world itself.

Additionally, I personally feel it's in bad taste to present half of a split cour show as great full well knowing the second half later might be terrible,

How often have you found the first half of a split-cour show to be "great", and then found the second-half to be "terrible"? I can't recall ever having this experience with a split-cour show. So I'm honestly pretty dubious of the value of your argument here.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

No, I explained why I disagree. For me, it's a basic issue of fairness. I think it's good for awards of any sort to aim for a high level of fairness. This is for a variety of reasons, but the main one is ensuring the legitimacy and perceived legitimacy of the awards.

I can see legitimate and fair reasons for treating OVAs/Movies a bit differently in them having their own category or categories - Movies in particular often have a major budgeting advantage for obvious reasons.

I no longer see a legitimate and fair reason to treat split-cour shows differently from split-season shows. Two or three years ago, the line between "split-cour" and "split-season" didn't seem so blurred to me. Now it does. With that blurring of the line, I just don't see any legitimate and fair reason to continue to treat split-cour and split-season differently from one another.

Exposure is important, but so is fairness. And I think you're overstating the exposure issue. Fate/Zero and UBW were special cases.

Fairness? What's unfair here? All I see is frustration that people don't get to vote for their pet series this year instead of next year. Trust me, Shirayukihime and the like won't be forgotten next year. That hypothesis has already been tested out.

You're making it seem like the split cour distinction is arbitrary. It really isn't. There's a big difference between a show initially announced as split cour, and one that gets a new season later down the line. There are pipelines in the industry that take a long time for sequels to come out, if they are decided to be created. Split cour is essentially the same season, just with a break in it. This is why people thought it was silly for it to crowd out awards two straight years (THAT is what is unfair to people).

The AS Awards have changed and evolved significantly over the years. Categories change and shift, some removed entirely never to return. It's good to have some consistency, but you don't need perfect consistency. In fact, an insistence on perfect consistency is likely to lead to an Awards program that fails to keep up with a frequently changing anime world and landscape. What made sense 2 or 3 years ago may not make as much sense today, due to changes in the anime world itself.

Too much change is not good, particularly when you're waddling on the same issue over multiple years.

How often have you found the first half of a split-cour show to be "great", and then found the second-half to be "terrible"? I can't recall ever having this experience with a split-cour show. So I'm honestly pretty dubious of the value of your argument here.

Pretty often actually.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Fairness? What's unfair here?

Treating the first cour of a split-cour show differently than one of the seasons of a multi-season show. Functionally, I don't see the difference between the two any more. So I think it's unfair to treat them differently.

You're making it seem like the split cour distinction is arbitrary. It really isn't.

I disagree. The distinction increasingly seems arbitrary to me.

There's a big difference between a show initially announced as split cour, and one that gets a new season later down the line.

"Later on down the line" is frequently not that much later. Sequels are very commonplace in the anime industry. And there are examples of shows that announce sequels in the very last episode of a particular season. I am not seeing the "big difference" that you're seeing.

Split cour is essentially the same season, just with a break in it.

Increasingly, that isn't what it seems like to me. Not at all.

Trust me, Shirayukihime and the like won't be forgotten next year.

I'm not worried about it being forgotten next year. I simply think it deserves to be treated the same as the most recent season of Prisma Illya. I don't see any good reason whatsoever to treat those two differently when it comes to eligibility rules for 2015 shows.

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

That's an interesting idea, but logistically I'm skeptical of introducing such complexity into the process. Voters get fatigued enough with the whole setup as is, so having clear cut rules is best. Otherwise I know Haak and Felix would get many headaches with people wondering why some split cour shows are eligible in a certain year and others aren't .

Well, FWIW, I don't think you would have to add much complexity. Just "if this franchise won last year, it can't win in the same category again the next year". It's not even about split-cour/seasons or anything else, just variety of winners. All you would have to do in the nomination phase is show who won in each category in the previous year.


And well... regarding this little spat... split-cour shows are the same production. It is the same show with a production gap in the middle so they can catch up on episodes.

Utawarerumono: Itsuwari no Kamen -- 25-episodes, started in October 2015
GATE -- 24 Episodes, started in July 2015, break in Fall 2015, resumes in January 2016.

I don't see how logically you can think of these any differently just because there's a production gap in the middle. They're both single production, two-cour shows.

But this is why I personally would prefer to avoid this argument entirely, since it requires more understanding about anime production than the average voter should be expected to have. "The same franchise can't win twice" is easier to understand.

[Reckoner]

@RRR

There are exceptions in every case, but please refer to RF's post for the significant nuance involved between a normal sequel and a split cour show. The solution should be to deal with these exceptions or other perceived issues (multi season shows winning in more years), not open the flood gates to create more undesirable side-effects.

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

Well, FWIW, I don't think you would have to add much complexity. Just "if this franchise won last year, it can't win in the same category again the next year". It's not even about split-cour/seasons or anything else, just variety of winners. All you would have to do in the nomination phase is show who won in each category in the previous year.


And well... regarding this little spat... split-cour shows are the same production. It is the same show with a production gap in the middle so they can catch up on episodes.

Utawarerumono: Itsuwari no Kamen -- 25-episodes, started in October 2015
GATE -- 24 Episodes, started in July 2015, break in Fall 2015, resumes in January 2016.

I don't see how logically you can think of these any differently just because there's a production gap in the middle. They're both single production, two-cour shows.

But this is why I personally would prefer to avoid this argument entirely, since it requires more understanding about anime production than the average voter should be expected to have. "The same franchise can't win twice" is easier to understand.

Well that's essentially what I'm trying to explain to RRR. Not sure if he understands the significant production nuance involved. It is very difficult for me to understand how one could consider them different shows as a result. Of course the rules as is don't capture this perfectly.

Same franchise can't win twice would be easier to understand at face value from the perspective of an AS voter. Although there are certain grey areas that would need to be ironed out. Would Railgun and Index be considered separate franchises? Are F/Z and F/S N separate franchises? Technically not really, but sensibly they shouldn't be IMO.

The question is then if this is a desirable rule? It would essentially wipe out uncertainty for the most part. I don't know how I would feel about that though. The reason why I don't think split cour should be considered separately is the reasoning spelled out above, as well as the ridiculously close proximity of the cours. Multi season shows over a span of years like Monogatari or something are worth considering how to deal with as well, but do we want to eliminate that totally from consideration?

Maybe same franchise can't win in consecutive years seems better than saying same franchise can't win again period. I'd have to give this more thought.

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Multi season shows over a span of years like Monogatari or something are worth considering how to deal with as well, but do we want to eliminate that totally from consideration?

That's why I was proposing the "Special Mention". I would consider the Monogatari Series one single work with many seasons, even though they happen to all have different titles (partly to reflect the novel titles). So if, let's say, Monogatari Series Second Season won in a certain category last year, I would say Owarimonogatari isn't eligible for the same category this year, but it could get a Special Mention in the sense that "hey, if you liked last year's pick, don't miss this year's rendition of it".

That said, perhaps "franchise" is the wrong word. I would tend to say that different Gundam shows (being substantially different in nature in tone despite being part of the same overall franchise) and even things like Index/Railgun should be thought of as separately. I would likewise consider something like Prisma Illya separate from Fate/stay night, even though they're part of the same "franchise" in the universal sense (not that either would be likely to win in the same category, I'm guessing). Perhaps you could make the distinction more on the basis of something being a "direct extension" of something vs. being in the same fictional universe.

Obviously, the mechanics of the rules are something you all would need to debate and agree... but the idea in general is to try to side-step as much debate as possible with something that's clear to the user and clear enough to the adjudicators. No matter what there will still probably be a few situations that will require someone to make a judgement call, but at least the Special Mention gives a way to recognize things that were technically disqualified.

[monster]

How about if two shows/seasons/cours have the same main character, then treat them as one. Otherwise, treat them as separate.

[Sackett]

I think there is a very clear difference between a split cour show and a 2nd season.

Split cours are written, produced and animated by the same team through out. They are functionally a two cour season that has had an empty cour stuck inbetween the two cours to allow the animation team to keep up.

New seasons on the other hand require writing a new script, rehiring the animation and production team - which can even change between seasons. Heck, some shows even switch animation studios in between seasons.

Now there is a new development of regularly approving a new season at the end of each current season, but that is a rather new development in anime, and one I think we need to wait and see if it becomes consistent before we make a process adjustment for.

If it does, I would think the more rational thing would be to start treating those shows as ongoing series the same way we treat the big three, and other long runners.

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

Re: the awards, I would just make it so that a franchise that has already won an award in one category one year is not allowed to have its second season/cour/whatever be nominated in the same category the following year. You could have a "special mention" in that section for cases where a show did have a second season/cour/whatever that is worthy of consideration even though its previous half/cour/season/whatever won in the previous year. This encourages variety in the winners, without ignoring the fact that a long-running franchise can be consistently good in the same category even in its subsequent seasons/cours/whatever. It also completely side-steps the technical argument about "split-cour" vs. "split-season".

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

That's why I was proposing the "Special Mention". I would consider the Monogatari Series one single work with many seasons, even though they happen to all have different titles (partly to reflect the novel titles). So if, let's say, Monogatari Series Second Season won in a certain category last year, I would say Owarimonogatari isn't eligible for the same category this year, but it could get a Special Mention in the sense that "hey, if you liked last year's pick, don't miss this year's rendition of it".

That said, perhaps "franchise" is the wrong word. I would tend to say that different Gundam shows (being substantially different in nature in tone despite being part of the same overall franchise) and even things like Index/Railgun should be thought of as separately. I would likewise consider something like Prisma Illya separate from Fate/stay night, even though they're part of the same "franchise" in the universal sense (not that either would be likely to win in the same category, I'm guessing). Perhaps you could make the distinction more on the basis of something being a "direct extension" of something vs. being in the same fictional universe.

Obviously, the mechanics of the rules are something you all would need to debate and agree... but the idea in general is to try to side-step as much debate as possible with something that's clear to the user and clear enough to the adjudicators. No matter what there will still probably be a few situations that will require someone to make a judgement call, but at least the Special Mention gives a way to recognize things that were technically disqualified.

The problem with your compromise is that it is far more difficult for us to implement, yet it is functionally the same as denying split cours until they both are done. (Either way the show is only allowed to appear in one year's contest).

[Sixth]

12 episodes (1 cour) for me. 24 episodes are acceptable.

Never like long-running series because the animation and the quality will take a hit.

If Naruto and One Piece were running in cour, these anime would be great and amazing. Long-running series is basically asking for filler scenes. I don't mind additional filler scenes for fight, but filler plot? Haha, no thanks.

[AntonKutovoi]

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

Re: the awards, I would just make it so that a franchise that has already won an award in one category one year is not allowed to have its second season/cour/whatever be nominated in the same category the following year. You could have a "special mention" in that section for cases where a show did have a second season/cour/whatever that is worthy of consideration even though its previous half/cour/season/whatever won in the previous year. This encourages variety in the winners, without ignoring the fact that a long-running franchise can be consistently good in the same category even in its subsequent seasons/cours/whatever. It also completely side-steps the technical argument about "split-cour" vs. "split-season".

I actually think it's the opposite - if show's season is split-cour, it's first half shouldn't be nominated and only after it's end it should be judged.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Two seasons (labeled as such) of a multi-season show

vs.

Two separate cours (labeled as such) of a split cour show.


Increasingly, I don't see any functional difference between the two. Often the two halves of a split cour show seem indistinguishable to me from two one-cour seasons of a multi-season show (the two most recent Prisma Illya seasons immediately come to mind for me).

If I knew nothing about Owari no Seraph, and someone told me that Owari no Seraph has two separate seasons (rather than being two separate cours), I personally wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Same deal with Akagami no Shirayuki-hime.

I haven't seen the second cour of Owari no Seraph but I have seen the first cour and I can say without doubt that the ending for the first cour of Owari no Seraph was beyond unsatisfactory. I would have no trouble believing that it's a split cour or just a terrible rush job, but if someone told me it's supposed to be a self contained first season out of two then I would definitely be amazed.

There should be a significant difference between split cours and two seasons. When two cours are announced as split cours then they are essentially treated as two cours in the production process with a gap in the middle so that they have a damage control option if the first cour bombs in sales (Or in FSN: UBW's case it's a gap in the middle that allows them time to catch up because the first cour was 16 episodes rather than 12). The fact that there is a known second cour will have a direct effect on how the first cour is treated as it can affect everything from budget to storyline considerations. You can say that Shirayuki-hime's first cour feels like a first season but we have no idea how it would have looked if only one cour was announced and we didn't know that there would be a second cour until the end of the first. For all we know it could've been an absolute rush job with terrible animation and a rushed story as is often the case with single cour adaptations. However, if Shirayuki-hime was a single two cour season then there wouldn't be any difference at all.

Similarly, Prisma Ilya's first season counts as a first season because we know exactly what it would've looked like had there not been an announcement for a second season at the end of the first: exactly the same.

So consider this:

• What would the first cour of Prisma Ilya look like if there was no announcement of a second until the end? - What we already have.
• What would the first cour of Shirayuki-hime look like if there was no announcement of a second until the end? - Unknown with very large standard deviations.

Now here's the difference broken down:

• What would the first cour of Shirayuki-hime look like if it's a split cour show? - What we already have.
• What would the first cour of Shirayuki-hime look like if it's a single two cour season? - No difference.
• What would the first cour of Shirayuki-hime look like if there was no announcement of a second until the end? - Unknown with very large standard deviations.

You're right in that there is a blur between single two cour shows, split cour shows and multiple seasons but there definitely is a more significant gap between second and third that allows us to draw a line in the sand there rather than anywhere else. Allow split cours and you might as well allow Ongoing Series (after all, what is the functional difference between an ongoing single two cour season and an ongoing split cour show?) and risk the Awards becoming a farce where the same show can dominate year by year. Going the opposite direction and banning all anime that have seasons announced next year would simply be impossible to implement as well as obviously excessive. The split cour rule is a good compromise that only currently rules out three anime.

Your argument is largely based on a subjective reason of how complete a storyline feels, but this is heavily open to interpretation and is a poor marker. Such judgement calls should only be used when there are no better indicators. The marker I've explained above is by no means clear cut but I think it's a lot more consistent than storyline interpretations.

Of course, it's not just the production difference that's a factor as well. The difference is also in how well the Community Awards Group is equipped enough to handle the problem. Split cours are still fairly easy to keep track of, but keeping track of every anime and making sure none of them have a sequel announced next year would be nigh impossible.

Back in 2014, we had Selector-Infected WIXOSS and Selector-Spread WIXOSS. One aired in the spring, and the other in the fall of the same year. The two shows had different names, and Wiki calls them different seasons. Content-wise, WIXOSS totally blurs the line between a split cour show, and two different seasons in a multi-season show.

I think there is a bit is misunderstanding about our rules but let me clarify. Name alone is not going to catch us out.

In last years awards Selector-Infected WIXOSS and Selector-Spread WIXOSS we combined to just Selector WIXOSS because we already knew its schedule would classify it as a split cour show. The rule is that if there is only a three month gap or shorter between cours then it is considered one whole season. Wikipedia can call it a season but that doesn't make it accurate. For example, it also calls the second cour of Shirayuki-hime a second season. The statement and its citation also gives a misleading impression that the two cours weren't announced at the same time even though they were. Selector WIXOSS was treated as a split cour - there was no ambiguity there.

On a side note, even if Infected aired between Jan-Mar and Spread aired between Oct-Dec (more than a three month gap) we would've still combined the two because we have a separate rule that states that if two seasons finish airing in the same year then they are automatically combined. The only exception to both rules I'm aware of is if the second cour/season is not a direct continuation of the first (in which case we would make a judgement call) but as far as I'm aware of that never applied to Selector WIXOSS.