You Don't Get It Both Ways

[kevin_standlee]

I now see the next wave of special pleading from supporters of this year's Hugo Award finalist slates, insisting that it's wrong to No Award works without reading them and you should only do so after reading them and because you don't like them. I've been accused of being disingenuous. I'm not. Indeed, as a defender of WSFS rules, I'm quite consistent.

There is no central authority that can disqualify a nominee for abuse of process (AKA "gaming the system"), only for for technical reasons such as wrong year or wrong length or no qualification in eligibility year. I don't actually think it's possible to write comprehensible rules to completely guard against abuse of process. Only the members as a whole can respond to abuse of process by a minority of the members in a Hugo Award election.

None of the nominating ballots counted in this year's election was illegally cast. As far as the administering Worldcon was able to determine, each ballot was legally cast by an individual natural person. But in more than 30 years of being part of Worldcon, I have never seen such a reaction from the membership as a whole to the majority of the finalists as I've seen this year. Oh, sure, there are always nominees that leave you scratching your head and saying, "What were they thinking?" But not more than half of the finalists. I don't recall ever repeatedly being asked how the Business Meeting could declare the entire ballot void. (They can't.) I've never seen widespread calls for cancelling the entire Hugo Award election. (Not allowed; I'll explain why if asked.) This massive groundswell of public opinion shows that a lot of members of WSFS believe that there has been an abuse of process. But there's only one remedy for this sort of abuse of process, and it's not to tear up the rulebook.

The only way that the members of WSFS can respond to Hugo Award finalists that they do not think deserve to be on the ballot for any reason is to vote them below No Award. If you want a more subtle approach, you actually have two options:

1. If you thought a work was worthy of being a Hugo Award finalist, but don't want it to win because you disliked it sufficiently badly, rank it somewhere on your ballot below No Award.


2. If you don't think a work should have been on the ballot in the first place for any reason including if you think the work was pushed onto the ballot by unethical-but-legal actions, rank No Award somewhere on your ballot (including 1 if the whole slate meets that definition) and don't rank those offending works at all.

So understand that I'm completely consistent here. Rules apply equally to everyone; otherwise, we might as well not have rules at all.

Comments

[rogers cadenhead (from livejournal.com)]

I've been looking at the rules for submitting new business. What day is the Preliminary Business Meeting held this year, and is voting limited to attending members at the business meeting when a vote occurs?

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

See my post from two days ago and the Introduction to the Business Meeting on the Sasquan web site. (It's under Hugos & WSFS / Business Meeting or type "Business Meeting" in the search box on the Sasquan web site.)

The Preliminary Business Meeting is (as always) on the second day of Worldcon (Thursday this year), at 10 AM. Although there is currently a location scheduled for it, that location may change, so you should check the convention schedule closer to the event and read the convention newsletter. There is only so much hand-holding the convention can do on this. We aren't trying to hide anything, but if we have to move it to a bigger room, we will do so. No voting member can be denied attendance in my opinion, but we also don't want to spend $15,000 renting a 2,700-seat hall if only 300 people actually want to attend.

Voting at the Business Meeting is limited to Attending (including Military and Young Adult, but not including Single-Day members) who are present in person at the meeting when the vote occurs. There are no proxies and no remote participation.

[erikvolson.livejournal.com]

I know it would have no official meaning, but could you put up a survey saying "Do you plan on attending the WSFS business meeting Y/N member number?" and see if you can at least get some data on how many are planning on attending?

And let me give you my highest regards for the job you're doing here (even as I pick at your flanks at times!) You've gotten the absolute bingo year to be chairing the business meeting, and you are being clear, fair, and reasoned beyond reproach. Applause on a difficult job well done so far, and my best wishes for the rest of the way.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Your idea is a possibility that I've considered. How accurate the result would be, I don't know. I can actually see multiple reasons for answering dishonestly, i.e. saying Yes when not planning to go (in order to incite panic and over-spend, because it's fun to prank SMOFS) or not answering when intending to flood the place (in order to disrupt and destroy the meeting). But we may try it anyway.

Thanks.

[erikvolson.livejournal.com]

I think if you're also collecting member name/number with the survey, that might help a bit with filtering out people obviously trying to flood the survey for ill, esp. if both of those data points aren't online -- I haven't looked, if both are online, it's not much protection. And, of course, you can discount supporting members -- not eliminated completely, as some may convert at door, but discount.

It's a bit of an interesting problem set. I think the real weakness of the survey is getting the word out enough to get enough people who do want to attend to respond to make sure you're not under sampling and ending up with the too small room anyway! Some won't respond, so you have to figure the under response percentage , and since we've never done this, we have to use the highly technical procedure known as the WAG.

And, hey, it may be useful just in the sense of "give them something to do while I work on other things...."

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I have asked Sasquan's web team to give it some thought. It's on their list, but there are other, higher-priority items, and I agree with the prioritization. For example, I think it much more important to get the online payment token system for Site Selection running first, and not just because I'm a director of one of the non-US bids (Montreal).

[erikvolson.livejournal.com]

I agree with you completely there -- and that the Hugo Final Ballot is also way more important that this, as well as just getting ready to get the program online.

It also doesn't need to happen now -- indeed, I think it would be counterproductive to happen now -- it should happen after most everyone has confirmed travel plans, etc. July 1 would be a good day for it to go online, if I had to pick a day out of thin.

[desperance.livejournal.com]

And let me give you my highest regards for the job you're doing here (even as I pick at your flanks at times!) You've gotten the absolute bingo year to be chairing the business meeting, and you are being clear, fair, and reasoned beyond reproach. Applause on a difficult job well done so far, and my best wishes for the rest of the way.

This, oh so very much this.

[frostfox.livejournal.com]

Indeed (to quote Teal'c).

FF

[desperance.livejournal.com]

(Heh. Did you do the eyebrow thing?)

[history-monk.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear.

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

Thanks for writing this. You're always clear and fair in what you say.

[livejournal.livejournal.com]

Hello! Your entry got to top-25 of the most popular entries in LiveJournal!
Learn more about LiveJournal Ratings in FAQ (https://www.dreamwidth.org/support/faqbrowse?faqid=303).

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear.

[richardthe23rd.livejournal.com]

If you don't want us questioning your motives for nominating a work for the ballot, don't question our motives for voting for No Award.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Nicely and succinctly put.

[billroper]

I agree with the statement in theory, but hasn't that ship already sailed?

(Not you. You have been quite civil in your remarks, as have many other people who have commented from both sides of this mess. Others, not so much.)

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

People have imputed unsavory motives to various flavors of Puppies (many of whom have trumpeted their unsavory motives to the skies anyway.) This does not strike me as much problem, since Puppies have imputed unsavory motives to non-Puppy Hugo Voters from Day One of Sad Puppy 2. If you are not familiar with the Sad Puppy history I can certainly find you some posts.

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

Ok, I'll ask. Why can't the awards simply be cancelled? (I don't want them to be. I'm just curious.)

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I think it's in the WorldCon bylaws that they have to hold them. Bylaws can be amended but that would have to be voted on at WorldCon N and ratified again at WorldCon N+1 to take effect for WorldCon N+2.

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

That was my assumption, but since that fits neatly into a parenthetical, I wondered if it might be more complicated than that.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

The reason the Hugo Awards cannot be unilaterally canceled by the hosting Worldcon is the first sentence of Article 3 of the WSFS Constitution (emphasis mine):

Section 3.1: Introduction. Selection of the Hugo Awards shall be made as provided in this Article.

That's a "shall." Worldcons shall conduct the Hugo Awards selection as a condition of holding a Worldcon. It's a contract between the Worldcon and the members of WSFS who elected it to hold the convention. Worldcons can't cancel the Hugo Awards any more than the London Olympic Organizing Committee could have canceled the Marathon. In that case, only the IOC can change the events; the local Organizers are responsible for carrying them out.

Worldcons aren't required to hold a Hugo Award Ceremony, nor are they actually required to present Hugo Award Trophies, although if they do so, they must following the prescribed design of the rocket specified in the Constitution.

IANAL, but I think that a Worldcon that decided to cancel the Hugo Awards would be in a bad position if even one of its members (any one of whom would have standing as a damaged party) sued them to compel them to live up to the terms of its contract. Heck, it's possible that the Mark Protection Committee, acting on behalf of the members of WSFS, might attempt to intervene (It would be acting to protect the Hugo Award service mark from damage in this case.), although it's trickier there because the MPC isn't a legal entity, WSFS being an unincorporated organization, and thus might not have legal standing to participate in a case.

In any event Sasquan is going to hold the Hugo Awards, and does plan to give out trophies at a Hugo Award ceremony, so bear in mind that this is all theoretical.

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

A friend had asked on Twitter "Is there any reason why they haven't just cancelled the Hugos outright?", and I said "Actually yes" and pointed her towards this post, but I was curious about the full answer. (Which was more or less what I expected)