Personally I'd also like a definition in the written rules of whether episodically presented stories are considered long form or short form.
Not possible, because episodically-presented stories can't be made to fit a single definition. Some shows are series of self-contained stories, while others are a multi-part single story.
The general rule (remember, you have to read the entire document) is:
3.2.6: Works appearing in a series are eligible as individual works, but the series as a whole is not eligible. However, a work appearing in a number of parts shall be eligible for the year of the final part.
This general rule applies to both written fiction and dramatic presentations. Single episodes of ongoing television series are usually going to be short form unless they exceed "three parts." (That's a fuzzy definition, I know, but you can't write a hard-edged one; there are too many variables.) Game of Thrones appears to me to be a single story told in multiple parts — a mini-series — and therefore qualifies as long form.
I don't see the big problem in making this clear in the written rules.
You want hard-edged rules for a fuzzy-edged world. Try writing a set of rules that does what you want and you may get some idea of why it's do hard. I'm dead serious. I helped draft what's there, and I know why it's hard. I don't claim what we have is perfect; I only know it's what we were able to get passed.
Here's the public record of the two WSFS Business Meetings that passed and ratified the split of Dramatic Presentation into two parts:
If you want to complain that the minutes are difficult to find and should be linked from the WSFS web site, I'll agree with you. The WSFS web site is in desperate need of updating. I have some hope that maybe the project re-launched this year to rebuild wsfs.org will come to fruition and we'll finally get all of these documents in one place.
But one thing I'm hope you get clear here: there was a discussion about these issues, and much of it was in public, not just at a WSFS business meeting, but it happened about ten years ago and you weren't there. Just because you weren't there doesn't mean it didn't happen.
There's a way to get things changed. I know: I've been one of those agents of change. But just complaining isn't enough. You have to have firm, clear, difficult-to-misinterpret proposals and you have to get members of WSFS willing to introduce them. You don't even have to go to the Worldcon to do it (although you do have to be a member, and not being there makes it harder to argue your case).
And, again quite seriously, if you can somehow come up with better wording that I think accomplishes what you want without doing harm elsewhere (say by excluding any non-television, non-theatrical motion picture works, as many proposals aiming to "simplify" the rules have done), I'll introduce it myself and back it before the Business Meeting. You think I like having the rules be difficult to understand? Nope. But as a WSFS politician of long standing, I also think you have to have some concept of what's actually likely to ever get passed.
Re: Speaking For Fandom
The general rule (remember, you have to read the entire document) is:
This general rule applies to both written fiction and dramatic presentations. Single episodes of ongoing television series are usually going to be short form unless they exceed "three parts." (That's a fuzzy definition, I know, but you can't write a hard-edged one; there are too many variables.) Game of Thrones appears to me to be a single story told in multiple parts — a mini-series — and therefore qualifies as long form.
You want hard-edged rules for a fuzzy-edged world. Try writing a set of rules that does what you want and you may get some idea of why it's do hard. I'm dead serious. I helped draft what's there, and I know why it's hard. I don't claim what we have is perfect; I only know it's what we were able to get passed.
Here's the public record of the two WSFS Business Meetings that passed and ratified the split of Dramatic Presentation into two parts:
If you want to complain that the minutes are difficult to find and should be linked from the WSFS web site, I'll agree with you. The WSFS web site is in desperate need of updating. I have some hope that maybe the project re-launched this year to rebuild wsfs.org will come to fruition and we'll finally get all of these documents in one place.
But one thing I'm hope you get clear here: there was a discussion about these issues, and much of it was in public, not just at a WSFS business meeting, but it happened about ten years ago and you weren't there. Just because you weren't there doesn't mean it didn't happen.
There's a way to get things changed. I know: I've been one of those agents of change. But just complaining isn't enough. You have to have firm, clear, difficult-to-misinterpret proposals and you have to get members of WSFS willing to introduce them. You don't even have to go to the Worldcon to do it (although you do have to be a member, and not being there makes it harder to argue your case).
And, again quite seriously, if you can somehow come up with better wording that I think accomplishes what you want without doing harm elsewhere (say by excluding any non-television, non-theatrical motion picture works, as many proposals aiming to "simplify" the rules have done), I'll introduce it myself and back it before the Business Meeting. You think I like having the rules be difficult to understand? Nope. But as a WSFS politician of long standing, I also think you have to have some concept of what's actually likely to ever get passed.