I agree almost entirely with everything you say - at least before the final two questions - but:
Shortly after the Hugos were announced, I spotted this post (http://weirdmage.blogspot.com/2011/08/hugo-scandal-ineligible-doctor-who.html) from someone enraged that a double Doctor Who episode had won Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form when its total running length was quite a few minutes over the specified 90 minutes. I started composing an explanation of why this was quite OK but rapidly realised I was writing an article (which I will probably try to complete some time) when I didn't have time for more than a short comment (and anything longer would probably not have been easy to read there anyway).
But I also realised that when you are trying to explain that not only does rule 3.2.10 allow for variation of rule 3.3.8 by the Worldcon Committee (which, to be fair, the complainant realised) but that (as the complainant didn't) rule 3.12 allows (and in practice strongly encourages) this power to be delegated to a subcommittee, which in practice (as I think the rules don't state) means to an awards administrator, with other subcommittee members only intervening if something appears to be going seriously wrong, but that awards administrators are almost always intelligent, honest, hard-working people who abide not only by the letter of the rules but also established custom and practice, and if they don't, at least some of the people attending the Business Meeting at Worldcon will almost certainly pull them up on it (which anyone attending Worldcon who is willing to spend their mornings there sitting through meetings is welcome to attend)...
Well, I realised that the type of person who wants an explanation in no more than three bullet points (which is actually most of us most of the time) would immediately assume that I was trying to pull the wool over their eyes. And if I then had to plunge into another explanation of the historical reasons why the rules are this way...
None of which is to say that the process is broken, or indeed that there's anything that would make it much better (rather than roughly as good but different). In fact, the workings of any institution allowing even a degree of popular participation, from the Athenian Agora onwards, could be subjected to similar criticism. But the reason that it's difficult for people to get this kind of thing through their heads is that the full explanation is genuinely complicated, particularly if you are trying to follow a description rather than taking time to watch the whole thing work out in practice.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-09-01 06:03 pm (UTC)Shortly after the Hugos were announced, I spotted this post (http://weirdmage.blogspot.com/2011/08/hugo-scandal-ineligible-doctor-who.html) from someone enraged that a double Doctor Who episode had won Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form when its total running length was quite a few minutes over the specified 90 minutes. I started composing an explanation of why this was quite OK but rapidly realised I was writing an article (which I will probably try to complete some time) when I didn't have time for more than a short comment (and anything longer would probably not have been easy to read there anyway).
But I also realised that when you are trying to explain that not only does rule 3.2.10 allow for variation of rule 3.3.8 by the Worldcon Committee (which, to be fair, the complainant realised) but that (as the complainant didn't) rule 3.12 allows (and in practice strongly encourages) this power to be delegated to a subcommittee, which in practice (as I think the rules don't state) means to an awards administrator, with other subcommittee members only intervening if something appears to be going seriously wrong, but that awards administrators are almost always intelligent, honest, hard-working people who abide not only by the letter of the rules but also established custom and practice, and if they don't, at least some of the people attending the Business Meeting at Worldcon will almost certainly pull them up on it (which anyone attending Worldcon who is willing to spend their mornings there sitting through meetings is welcome to attend)...
Well, I realised that the type of person who wants an explanation in no more than three bullet points (which is actually most of us most of the time) would immediately assume that I was trying to pull the wool over their eyes. And if I then had to plunge into another explanation of the historical reasons why the rules are this way...
None of which is to say that the process is broken, or indeed that there's anything that would make it much better (rather than roughly as good but different). In fact, the workings of any institution allowing even a degree of popular participation, from the Athenian Agora onwards, could be subjected to similar criticism. But the reason that it's difficult for people to get this kind of thing through their heads is that the full explanation is genuinely complicated, particularly if you are trying to follow a description rather than taking time to watch the whole thing work out in practice.