As the Hugo Whinging Continues

[kevin_standlee]

What I said earlier this year still stands.

Of course, if we lower the cost of joining Worldcon as a voting member, say down to the cost of a new hardcover SF novel in the US$20-$30 range, the "it costs too much to vote," argument will be replaced by the "you let too many people vote" argument, and probably from the same people. They should just be honest and say what they really mean, which is, "The Hugo Awards should only go to the things I personally like since I'm the only person in the entire world who really matters and the rest of you are just mindless zombies."

Comments

[beamjockey.livejournal.com]

I could get behind a rule like that. Unfortunately, I would find it difficult to get the mindless zombies to vote for it...

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Sucks. Gotta hit 'em just right with that pickaxe.

[sethb.livejournal.com]

A significant percentage would continue claiming it costs too much.

[rono-60103.livejournal.com]

I suspect some would say that $1.00 (or $0.01) is too much to pay since they expect everything to be free.

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

And the word for today is "entitlement," my friends.

[dsmoen.livejournal.com]

I see I started a kerfluffle by accident. :)

[chocolatescifi.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, weren't there a record number of nomination ballots submitted this year? Have there been any comments from the complainers yet?

[trinsf.livejournal.com]

Well, *I* for one am very happy that more people nominated. I hope we have lots of voters, too. :-)

[memphismaniac.livejournal.com]

It's great that more people took the time to nominate. As always, I'm mildly disappointed when some of my choices didn't make the final ballot and flabbergasted when some of my choices actually do. I came across this Livejournal post today, which I thought summed things up rather nicely.

http://luisfilipesilva.livejournal.com/6040.html