I contend again that you don't have the right to speak for "fandom," nor does anyone else. Nobody can't plausibly claim to be the Voice of Fandom.
If you think you are the Voice of Fandom, then go out and set up your own awards to be decided by Real Fans and see how many people pay attention to you.
can you give me an answer to as why the Hugo rules are not in synch with what is actualy nominated?
They are, but you don't realize it because you want to take things out of context to support your pre-defined conclusion. You're not allowed to take rules out of context (which you're doing by only looking at a few of them). You have to include the entire rules, and generally speaking precedents are going to influence how the administrators rule on things.
As I said earlier, it would be possible to include thousands of words of discussion on interpretation, history, and precedent with the ballot, but since nobody would read it, it is a waste of time and paper. WSFS isn't going to add thousands of words to the ballot to please one person who isn't even a member of the organization.
Writing constitutional rules is much more difficult than you think it is. I commonly use the toothpaste-tube analogy: The harder you squeeze, the messier it gets.
Why don't you try writing rules that don't amount to, "Do what I personally say, since I know better than everyone else, and nobody would ever question my judgment. Just submit every work to me and I'll tell you whether it's eligible or not." Since that's obviously silly, what we actually do is let every individual make his or her mind up about whether he or she thinks the work is eligible, and then only have the administrators get involved in clearly out-of-bounds situations.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Speaking For Fandom
Date: 2011-09-02 05:35 pm (UTC)If you think you are the Voice of Fandom, then go out and set up your own awards to be decided by Real Fans and see how many people pay attention to you.
They are, but you don't realize it because you want to take things out of context to support your pre-defined conclusion. You're not allowed to take rules out of context (which you're doing by only looking at a few of them). You have to include the entire rules, and generally speaking precedents are going to influence how the administrators rule on things.
As I said earlier, it would be possible to include thousands of words of discussion on interpretation, history, and precedent with the ballot, but since nobody would read it, it is a waste of time and paper. WSFS isn't going to add thousands of words to the ballot to please one person who isn't even a member of the organization.
Writing constitutional rules is much more difficult than you think it is. I commonly use the toothpaste-tube analogy: The harder you squeeze, the messier it gets.
Why don't you try writing rules that don't amount to, "Do what I personally say, since I know better than everyone else, and nobody would ever question my judgment. Just submit every work to me and I'll tell you whether it's eligible or not." Since that's obviously silly, what we actually do is let every individual make his or her mind up about whether he or she thinks the work is eligible, and then only have the administrators get involved in clearly out-of-bounds situations.