kevin_standlee

Current Mood: sad
Current Location: Fremont, California

Entry tags:

cheryl,
hugo awards

Sad

Cheryl's withdrawal from many of her current projects saddens me, although it doesn't surprise me.

If there is anyone out there who wants to continue to insinuate that the Hugo Awards are somehow "corrupt," and who has any better evidence than "I didn't win" or "The things I wanted to win didn't," I want them to actually come forward and produce it.

I've said this before and I'll keep saying it: The failure of works/people to win the Hugo Award that you want to win is not a failure of process. Why is it so difficult for people to get it through their heads that not everyone thinks exactly the same way they do? Is it so important to you to consider yourself The Standard Person?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

So far you haven't given me any rules language. You've only discussed what effect you want to see, which isn't a bad thing. (It is usually best to start with the desired effect and then work toward rules language from there.) But note that you are making an assumption that isn't always true, as as two-part US "hour long" television episode may very well have slightly more than 90 minutes of total running time. (90 minutes is a known soft point; that's why there's a gray zone around it.)

Discussing generalities is easy. Writing rules is hard Write a rule. You've seen the WSFS Constitution. Now write a rule in the proper parliamentary form that codes the rules the way you think they should be written.

Edited 2011-09-02 18:38 (UTC)

Firstly, an "hour" of US Tv is usually about 42 minutes if you remove the commercials, so two episodes will be under 90 mins.

Secondly, what I'd like to see added to the rules is either a definition at the end of 3.2.8 that includes double episodes (or even triple) or that excludes them. Personally I'd also like a definition in the written rules of whether episodically presented stories are considered long form or short form. I used Game of Thrones as an example, and I think that is relevant for next year. Is it 10 short form presentations or one long form presentation?
I don't see the big problem in making this clear in the written rules. But I can see that there will have to be a discussion as to what is short or long form, and I would like that discussion to be held in public (online) and not being confined to just a meeting.

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:

2001 WSFS Business Meeting

2002 WSFS Business Meeting

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.

Sorry I missed 3.2.6, but I think it should be added to 3.3.8 for clarification.

I understand the problem with defining TV series. But I have a suggestion that you may or may not agree with. Defining a series of episodes that tell a single story as long form if they exceed two episodes. The two episode mark because it wouldn't separate US and UK series. Alternativly defining any show that is not a continous story (mini or maxi series -hope you understand the comic book terminology of that) as always belonging to the short form category.

I wish I had easy answers, but as you pointed out it is difficult making rules that always apply. But I can't help feeling that the written Hugo rules say that The Pandorica Opens/The big Bang is ineligible, and that it at least should be noted that they were deemed eligible. -Basically more comunication from the Hugo committe to potential voters.

Defining a series of episodes that tell a single story as long form if they exceed two episodes.

We really don't want to try and go by "episodes" any more that we should define our measurement lengths as "blocks." "Episodes" have too much variability, as shown in the differences between typical US and UK "one-hour" shows. What about two "half hour" episodes?

The main reason we went with running length, serialized-work rules, and a 20% gray zone is that it's the only general form we could come up with that roughly matches up with how the real world works.

Basically more comunication from the Hugo committe to potential voters.

Do you really think some notice like this would have helped:

"Some of the nominations in BDP Short Form are longer than 90 minutes but shorter that 108 minutes because most (or all) of the nominations for those works placed the works in Short Form and because the WSFS Constitution allows works to appear in either Short or Long Form if they are within 20% of the 90 minute boundary between categories. The Hugo Award Administrator kept the works in question in the category where the voters believed the works belonged."

I don't think it would have made a difference and might have actually confused voters.

When I was a kid, there was a sf serial on tv with episodes 5 minutes long (maybe 4 real minutes). Do you really believe that a story that took 5 episodes (20 actual minutes) should be "Long Form"?

Suppose (and this has happened) something is released as a three-part TV show in the UK and then as a movie with a theatrical release in the US? This is why the split between short form and long form is based solely on running time and not on whether something is a TV show or movie, or divided into episodes or not, because those criteria can vary in different places for what is essentially the same work.

I'll give a try at re-writing rule 3.2.8, or rather adding to it.

Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form. Any television program or other production, with a complete running time of 90 minutes or less, in any medium of dramatized science fiction, fantasy or related subjects that has been publicly presented for the first time in its present dramatic form during the previous calendar year.

Any story that is presented in episodes of under 90 minutes will be considered as short form, and belongs to this category.

Alternativly:

Two or more episodes of a TV show that are part of a story will be defined as long form if they exceed 90 minutes, and nominations of such story should be done in the long form category.

You're on the right track, but I suspect that you'd not get either version past the Business Meeting, since they'd find ways to poke holes in it and since it would defeat the known legislative intent of the BDP split. Save yourself effort and don't try to ban "two parters" from Short Form. I know for a fact that the legislative intent of the current rule is that "two part" episodes belong in Short Form and "three part" episodes and "mini series" belong in Long Form. So concentrate on making things that fit that.

Let me see if I can format your proposal into the proper redlining form:

Moved, to Amend Section 3.3.8 of the WSFS Constitution to prohibit multi-part televised dramatic works from the Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form category if they are longer than 90 minutes, by adding words as shown:

3.3.8: Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form. Any television program or other production, with a complete running time of 90 minutes or less, in any medium of dramatized science fiction, fantasy or related subjects that has been publicly presented for the first time in its present dramatic form during the previous calendar year. Two or more episodes of a TV show that are part of a story will be defined as long form if they exceed 90 minutes, and nominations of such story should be done in the long form category.

While you're at it, you should try striking out the 20% gray zone in the constitution as well, since you obviously don't believe in it. And be prepared to explain what you're going to do to absolutely determine the running length of a work, which would become critical for works that are right around 90 minutes. You may think it's simple; it's not. In fact, the main reason for that gray zone is that it's very difficult to determine running time (or word count) absolutely.

In short, you have a concrete proposal, but it has more holes in it that a block of Swiss cheese. (For example, there's a technical argument that you're amending Short Form but are referring to Long Form, so maybe it should be a general rule rather than written into a single rule. Except that you want to keep the words near the Short Form definition because you only want to look at rules in isolation, not in context.) This isn't likely to be obvious to you because you've not been through the wars on this, so I'm prepared to cut you some slack, but I warned you that it wouldn't be easy.

Your biggest problem with passing this, however, isn't technical: it's substantive. I can assure you that based on years of legislative history, WSFS doesn't want to kick "two part" episodes, even those that are slightly longer than 90 minutes, out of short form. You know how I know this? Because this isn't the first time that a >90-minute "two-parter" has been nominated in Short Form, and there's not been a squawk about it. The last time the issue was visited was when a theatrical motion picture of 87 minutes running length was nominated in Short Form when many (including me) think it should have been in Long Form, and we worked to add language to make it more likely that future similar films would be there.

Well, I have actually given some thought to the problem you state above. Unfortunately the solution is pretty drastic, namely altering the dramatic presentation categories. Instead of long form, have Dramatic Presentation -single presentation. I.e. any work that is not part of a series. (I can see the problem with this, as the Harry Potter films would be ineligible. And also it would make it hard for a short fil, but then again they could be a third dramatic presentation category.) And Dramatic presentation -serial presentation, a category that would include all TV series whether it was a single story arc or individual story episodes.
I realise that would not be ideal either, but I think it would be better. You would for instance have only one nomination for Doctor Who, and perhaps open up for series that are not deemed good enough on single episodes, but are better as a whole.

You aren't the first person to propose such drastic changes, but I'll warn you that trying to re-split BDP is unlikely to have enough votes to even get considered, let alone passed. (The Business Meeting can and does kill proposals without debate if 2/3 of the people there don't even want to talk about it by the process known as Objection to Consideration.)

Trying to split things by series/standalone has other problems. What if a movie comes out and wins a Standalone Hugo, and then they announce that the sequel is under production. Do we go back and strip the Hugo from the first movie because it's no longer standalone?

Dramatic Presentation was originally given to entire series — go look at the history — but in the 1960s the members decided that they wanted to award individual stories, not series as a whole.

Keep thinking about it. You'll probably find that fixing one problem creates another. Remember my warning about toothpaste tubes.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Sad

Re: Speaking For Fandom

Re: Speaking For Fandom

Re: Speaking For Fandom

Re: Speaking For Fandom

Re: Speaking For Fandom

Re: Speaking For Fandom

Re: Speaking For Fandom

Re: Speaking For Fandom

Tinkering With BDP

Re: Tinkering With BDP

Re: Tinkering With BDP