I actually understand your frustration with a "newbie" coming in and thinking he knows better than you. But I don't see the rules you are speking of here http://www.renovationsf.org/wsfs-constitution-2010.php. Rule 3.8.2 never mentions ineligible nominees being accepted because there is a lot of nominations. And rule 3.2.10 does not mention it either.
I have absolutely no problem with not agreeing with the Hugo rules, but I have a problem with what seems to be the Hugo committee not being obliged to follow the writtenm Hugo rules. Rule 3.3.8 seems to exclude the Doctor Who double episode, and the rules don't seem to accept ineligible nominees. Rule 3.2.10 seems to be only for moving eligible nominees to another category, not allowing an ineligible nominee on the final ballot. I might be missing something here, but not being on any committee I have only the written rules to go by, and I can't see why they should be twisted if they exist. From your explenation it seems that there should be only one rule: 1.1 The committe makes the rules, you are irrelevant and should shut up!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Speaking For Fandom
Date: 2011-09-02 06:43 pm (UTC)I have absolutely no problem with not agreeing with the Hugo rules, but I have a problem with what seems to be the Hugo committee not being obliged to follow the writtenm Hugo rules. Rule 3.3.8 seems to exclude the Doctor Who double episode, and the rules don't seem to accept ineligible nominees. Rule 3.2.10 seems to be only for moving eligible nominees to another category, not allowing an ineligible nominee on the final ballot. I might be missing something here, but not being on any committee I have only the written rules to go by, and I can't see why they should be twisted if they exist. From your explenation it seems that there should be only one rule: 1.1 The committe makes the rules, you are irrelevant and should shut up!