You Don't Get It Both Ways

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.

( Rules Must Apply Equally )

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.

My Succinct Goal as Business Meeting Chair

If everyone who comes away from a meeting I run feels they were treated fairly, regardless of whether they got what they personally wanted, I consider my task accomplished.