LAWRENCE, Kansas – As some of you may know, my boyfriend Todd and I have collaborated on a comic strip for the last two years – he illustrates, I write.

We began doing “Little Scottie” in October 2008 as a color webcomic with no consistent format or structure and only a self-imposed weekly deadline. Since then, we’ve completed 150 strips. 118 of them appeared in The University Daily Kansan newspaper over the course of three full semesters and a summer.

Yesterday, our final strip ran in the paper, ending what has been the most interesting, challenging, baffling and frustrating period in the time we’ve done the comic.

First, it’s worth noting that, although I may be the more outspoken of us, Todd is undoubtedly the creative force behind the comic. He knows comics; I don’t. So, when he says the characters need to be better defined, a change must be made. And, because his responsibility as illustrator is far more time consuming than mine as writer, our schedule for doing comics inevitably depended on how much time he could devote to it.

In the end, Todd was willing to do the comic under a few conditions: 1) we cut back on doing the comic two days a week instead of three, 2) we work ahead to ease his workload during the semester and 3) we develop our characters better. So, that’s what we did.

Our work began over the summer, revamping characters, storylines and artwork to create something that would stand on its own two feet that people would want to read. We worked together to create the storylines and establish connections between characters that we could reveal over the course of the semester. Then, we focused in on individual characters to give each one a more specific identity.

Todd then went to work developing more stylized versions of existing characters as well as new characters. One major change was that he would draw nearly every panel from scratch, while we had the luxury of time, instead of pulling from previous comics. We also agreed on a new, more condensed font that would allow text to take up less space.

By the time classes began, we were about six weeks ahead. It had made for a lot more work for both of us in a very short period of time. But the goal was for it to get progressively easier throughout the semester. Before long, however, it became increasingly obvious that we wouldn’t be able to keep up with the comic for another semester on top of our other obligations.

No sooner had we reached that conclusion than we were suddenly under fire for one of our comics. We vigorously defended our work and made every effort to reach out to groups that had felt offended. Before then, I had always been the one most enthusiastic about doing the comic. But, as responses quickly became personal, I grew disenchanted with the whole idea of doing the comic.

Doing the comic allowed us a unique opportunity to discuss issues that might otherwise not be in the newspaper. But I never wanted our comics to become the story. Sure, there were times when I hoped a comic might make people think or even make people uncomfortable. But they were always meant to be funny. If people couldn’t have a sense of humor about themselves and accept the criticism within our satire, then maybe we had outstayed our welcome.

That having been said, it was encouraging to see others that we didn’t even know express their support for us and our right to express our viewpoint. But for as uplifting as the positive response has been, the negativity simply removed any doubt that we were making the right choice to end the comic.

And so we end “Little Scottie,” trying not to take our work too seriously while being proud of our efforts nonetheless.

Filed under: College, Opinion/Editorial

LAWRENCE, Kansas — Even after the Kansas men’s basketball team had escaped with a one-point victory against UCLA last night, something just didn’t feel right. How could officials have put 0.7 seconds back on the clock after reviewing the same footage I’d seen on television?

The issue to me was not whether KU’s Mario Little was in fact fouled but whether the official had called the foul before time had expired in the second half. After the replay had aired several times, it was clear that the official hadn’t raised his arm until after time had run out.

At first glance, my personal feeling was that the decision should be based solely on when the foul was actually called. This interpretation is similar to how timeouts are treated. When a coach or player attempts to call a timeout, the clock only stops when it is granted by the official, not when the coach or player first asks for the timeout.

The converse opinion is that the official’s reaction time should not be the deciding factor, particularly at such a critical time in the game. As such, the time on the clock should be based solely on when the foul is deemed to have been committed.

So, did they make the right call? Or should the game have gone to overtime?

Fortunately, the NCAA has defined the proper protocol for this specific situation. It should first be noted that the on-court ruling of a foul cannot be overturned by video replay. Thus, even if you think it was a bad call, that was never going to be reversed.

Rule 2-13.3.c of the NCAA Men’s and Women’s Basketball Rules and Interpretations specifically states that:

When there is a reading of zeros on the game clock and after making a call on the playing court, the officials shall use such available [video/replay] equipment in the following situations:

Determine whether a foul occurred before the reading of zeros on the game clock at the end of the first half, or at the end of the second half/extra period only when necessary to determine the outcome of a game. When it is determined that the foul occurred before the reading of zeros on the game clock, the official is permitted to put the exact time back on the game clock as to when the foul was committed.

I’m a big believer that proper use of video replay in sports is a good thing for everyone involved, even if you don’t get the call you wanted.

In this case, the officials got it right. And that’s a win for everyone.

Filed under: Opinion/Editorial, Sports TV, Technology

LAWRENCE, Kansas — In the wake of several suicides involving gay teens ranging in age from 13 to 19, “cyberbullying” has quickly become the buzzword du jour.

These events are a stark reminder of what those of us in the gay community already know: being gay isn’t easy. But while the issue of anti-gay bullying is very real, cyberbullying is not simply limited to straight people targeting gays.

Since the early days of chat rooms, message boards and instant messaging, there has been an opportunity for people to attack others with little or no consequence.

The big difference now is that because today’s cyberbullies use tools like Facebook and Twitter, many don’t even bother to conceal their identities online and then use passive-aggressive tactics to attack their victims.

Don’t be fooled. Talking about rather than to someone isn’t a defense for bullying.

Given the ability of social media to reach a broad audience of both passive and active users, there’s no telling how many people may witness the attack.

Imagine the torment and embarrassment of being bullied by one of your peers on the playground in elementary school. Now imagine that, instead of just your classmates, you have hundreds or even thousands of people watching.

What’s worse, because these online tools are designed to facilitate sharing and discussion, what might start as one attacker can quickly turn into four or five.

And if you think this only happens to teens, think again. Bullying is a byproduct of insecurity, and there are insecure people of all ages.

For instance, a few weeks ago members of the gay community took exception to a comic I wrote and a response I co-wrote, both of which were published last month in The Kansan.

The day the comic ran, I had received both a tweet and a Facebook message calling the comic “trash” and telling me to “get a life.”

He was back on the attack a week later after an openly gay student tweeted that “the best way not to perpetuate a stereotype is to not conform yourself to it in the first place.” His response was to call the dissenter “a spinster” and suggest that only someone who had no social or sex life would make such a statement.

Two others retweeted the comment, effectively cosigning it. One other posted a similar response.

When our response ran the following day, the same student posted a comment calling me “overweight” and a “hypocrite,” before making various sexual insinuations. Before long, others jumped on the bandwagon posting similar messages.

Such incidents are all too common and, unfortunately, are thought by many to be rather innocuous. They’re not.

As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, I can assure you that even the slightest one-time occurrence can have life-changing consequences. And bullying can have life-ending consequences.

No more lives need to be lost to see there’s a simple solution. If you want to stop bullying, stop bullying.

Appeared on Page 4B of The University Daily Kansan (10/7/10)

Filed under: College, Opinion/Editorial, Social Media, Technology