Sad

[kevin_standlee]

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?

Comments

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

"which, to be fair, the complainant realised" - correction. Complainant didn't realize this at the time of writing the screed, but only added it later, and then defiantly but inexplicably claimed that the double-episode remains ineligible for Short Form.

As a former Hugo administrator who invoked 3.2.10 myself, I can testify that the number of smart people who not only don't get the rule, but are proud of their ignorance and eager to display it in public, is very large.

[ole a. imsen (from livejournal.com)]

Rule 3.2.10 makes no mention of allowing nominations in the wrong category, only moving a nominee to another category.
And since you obviously have read my blog post you should have been able to see that I also criticised that no mention of any use of 3.2.10 has been made. So I'd like you to answer if the Doctor Who double episode was accepted because of rule 3.2.10, and if so why it was not made public?

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Why not read Section 3.8, which addresses precisely the questions you are asking?

Kevin has already responded to you at vastly greater length and with vastly greater patience than I would. Why are you so proud of your ignorance and so eager to display it in public?