Why Is This a Difficult Concept?

[kevin_standlee]

I just replied to this comment complaining about how you have to join Worldcon in order to vote for the Hugo Awards, which led off with "But I don't have to pay to vote for my government officials." This is not the first time that I've heard someone trot this out. I'll repeat here what I said there:

That's right, you don't. That's because "paying membership dues" is not one of the requirements for being a citizen of your country. But WSFS isn't a country. It's a club. If you want to join a club, you have to meet that club's membership requirements.

Why is the concept of having to pay membership dues to be a member of a club, and having to be a member of a club in order to vote on things that club decides, such a difficult concept for some people? Are these people who have never in their lives joined a club or society, have never had to pay membership dues, and simply assume that if the word "vote" is involved, it must be free to anyone who wants it just because voting for public officials doesn't have a direct cost associated with it?

I actually understand the "It costs too much" complaint. That can be translated as "The amount you're charging for membership is more than the value I place on the things I get from that membership." There's nothing inherently wrong with that; it's an economic value judgment like every other decision we make about what to buy or not buy. It's what sounds to me like whining that "but I want it, so it shouldn't cost me anything!" that gets on my nerves, because it's childish.

Comments

[howeird]

I think the concept which is difficult for people to understand is that a world-reknowned award like the Hugo is a club activity. This is made even more difficult by the fact that no one joins WSFS as such, one buys a membership in an event sanctioned by the club, and that event is held in a different part of the world each year, and is inconvenient for most people to attend. Why should a fan pay to support a convention in order to vote for an award which is not being given by the convention, per se?

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I think the concept which is difficult for people to understand is that a world-renowned award like the Hugo is a club activity.

That's because we don't promote the name of the sanctioning body (the World Science Fiction Society) that much. Instead, we promote the World Science Fiction Convention, WSFS's only event.

This is made even more difficult by the fact that no one joins WSFS as such, one buys a membership in an event sanctioned by the club....

But in fact we do -- we just don't use that terminology. A Worldcon Supporting Membership is your annual membership dues to the World Science Fiction Society. The difference in price between an Attending and Supporting membership is the "convention supplement."

...and that event is held in a different part of the world each year, and is inconvenient for most people to attend.

For some years, I was a member of the National Association of Parliamentarians and its regional body, the California State Association of Parliamentarians. I paid membership dues to NAP. NAP holds a convention. If I wanted to attend it, I would have to pay an additional fee (the convention supplement) on top of my membership dues. And the NAP convention was held in a different place every time, so it wasn't always convenient to attend. (In fact, I never did attend one; I did, however, once attend the CSAP annual convention, and even got to vote -- there was no guarantee of being able to vote at these things even though I was a member!)

Why should a fan pay to support a convention in order to vote for an award which is not being given by the convention, per se?

Why should I have paid membership dues to NAP when I didn't attend their annual convention?

Maybe if we actually styled the supporting membership as "WSFS Membership" and the remainder as "convention supplement," this distinction would be more clear. But I don't think it would change people's minds very much.

[howeird]

Maybe if we actually styled the supporting membership as "WSFS Membership"
This would certainly help. By supporting membership, I read "supporting the convention" not "supporting the parent organization." It would also help if WSFS sold memberships on their site - do they?

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

WSFS doesn't sell memberships directly because, by its own rules, all of its maintenance is done by its conventions, and the only way to buy a membership in WSFS is to buy at least a supporting membership in Worldcon.

Yes, your supporting membership helps pay to support the convention, but without the convention, WSFS ceases to exist. All of the functions that a "home office" would do for an organization are operated by the individual Worldcons, you see, and thus they get all* of the money raised by that convention.

If WSFS actually had a more obvious standalone existence, with a "home office," board of directors, etc., then you could more easily decouple the memberships -- at which point I'm absolutely certain that people would start yelling about how "unfair" it was that they had to pay WSFS membership dues to attend Worldcon and that they should only have to pay for the "convention supplement."

_________________
*Except for a small amount (and it's actually a voluntary payment, although every non-loss-making Worldcon has made the donation) to help maintain the WSFS Mark Protection Committee, which does the only thing that individual Worldcon committees can't do -- own the Society's intellectual property.

WSFS membership

[hazelchaz]

Well, at any given time, there's one way to join WSFS: send $X to Y.

In years when the Worldcon doesn't accept Paypal payments, it's bit tricker, but I could easily imagine a "Sign up for WSFS Supporting Membership with Paypal" payment button on WSFS.ORG.

On the 1st of September (or whenever, but default it to then) the sign-up form is changed to have a new Paypal e-mail address, for the next convention. If the supporting membership rate has changed, then that's updated too.

it would be more work, and need more coordination with the operating committees, but it could be done...

Re: WSFS membership

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree that it could be done, but I don't see the individual Worldcon committees agreeing to it.

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

I'm trying to recall if the supporting membership price goes up over time or if it is fixed for the duration of its availability?

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

There are some limits on what a Worldcon can charge. They cannot charge more than 125% of the Advance Supporting Membership (voting) fee charged for their election until less than 90 days before their convention. That is, until 90 days out, they can raise the price to not more than 125% of their voting fee (Denvention raised their supporting membership price on January 1), and at 90 days out, there is no limit and they can charge whatever they want.