Bemused, Amused, and Exasperated

[kevin_standlee]

The above title describes my mood regarding the various reactions on the SMOFS e-mail list about L.A.con IV's plan to offer "taster" memberships. As apparently is usual, many people there are seizing upon the potential negative implications, including all of the ways that people might try to jigger the system or commit "vote fraud" on the Worldcon site selection, all of which, while not absolutely impossible, are vanishingly unlikely.

Something I've tried to explain to our clients (and our sales people) in my job is that the existence of outliers on a curve of possibilities does not invalidate the mean. Just because it's possible for some odd thing to happen now and then doesn't mean that it will happen regularly.

But I guess it's human nature. I've been reading Christian Wolmar's book On the Wrong Track: How Ideology and Incompetence Wrecked Britain's Railways, which, among other things, blames some horrific railway accidents on the way in which the British railway system was privatized. I bet that a lot of people in Britain think rail is the most dangerous way to travel, when in fact it is among the safest. People assume the outliers are the mean.

Meanwhile, the scenario where a horde of people take advantage of these $20 Worldcon memberships to flood the Business Meeting and vote themselves a bunch of Hugo Awards is just silly. On top of the fact that there's no way enough people could be rounded up to try it in the first place, there are so many procedural safeguards¹ built into the system to prevent "meeting packing" that it's just ludicrous that people would think it's even a possibility in the first place.

__________________________________________
¹Taster memberships can be used once per person, so you can only flood the meeting on one day. But the WSFS Business Meeting takes place over (usually) three days. You'd have to get enough people to show up on day 1 to avoid having your motion squashed by Objection to Consideration. Then on day 2, you'd have to flood the meeting again to actually pass it. But wait, you're not finished yet. Any canny BM regular, realizing that the meeting was flooded with one-shot attendees would vote on their side; then, on day 3, they'd vote to reconsider the early vote on passing the motion. This means you'd have to either flood the meeting a third day, or try what is known as "spiking" reconsideration; but there is a counter to a "spike" designed for such scenarios (it's called "Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes") and in such a wild situation, I expect it would be used.

But let's say you get by all those hurdles and your proposal has passed. How are you going to transport all these presumed Business Meeting Zombies to Japan to get your proposal ratified next year? The 2007 BM would reject ratification, and all your efforts (not to mention all the money you spent to buy memberships for the zombies) would have been in vain.

Comments

[purpleranger.livejournal.com]

And how many of these (supposedly) Business Meeting newbies would even be aware that the WSFS BM does things with Robert's Rules that probably have General Robert spinning in his grave?

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Other than the abuse of Objection to Consideration, I think WSFS BM's would not particularly bother General Robert. We actually follow things pretty much the way he would have suggested, although we've modified a bunch of the rules to that while we're nominally following Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, we're closer to practicing The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure ("Sturgis").

[bovil.livejournal.com]

Is a day member eligible to vote in site selection?

Day Members and Site Selection

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Yes. So what? There's not going to be a mass influx of day members joining (then claiming the "taster" refund) for the right to spend $50 to vote for the site of the 2008 Worldcon, the closest of the three serious candidates for which is Denver. We're also not going to see any of the bids bankrolling a bunch of site selection zombies to show up and vote for them because:

(A) It's unethical, and I don't expect any bid to to stoop to such tactics.

(B) The logistics of it are difficult.

On the other hand, if any bid is sufficiently well organized to pull off such a stunt -- you need a lot of votes to make sure you win on the first ballot in such a race -- then maybe they deserve to win, because they've certainly got sufficient organizational skills and obviously a bunch of people they can motivate to work for them on their committee.

Re: Day Members and Site Selection

[bovil.livejournal.com]

I wasn't sure.

The economics of buying a selection are pretty insane even with the "taster" refund; I can't imagine even a cash-flush gate show organization (and we know how good they really are at their finances) mounting a successful zombie plan.

The logistics of preventing this sort of selection-buying aren't really that difficult; there are a number of ways to mark ballots and make it possible to verify day member ballots haven't been taster-ed.

Re: Day Members and Site Selection

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

It doesn't matter if the day member cashes in his/her refund; s/he had membership rights when s/he voted, so s/he is an eligible member. (Note that I haven't consulted with Site Selection on this, but I know that's how I'd rule if I were in their shoes. It's too much work otherwise.)

The number of "taster" voters is going to be so small as to be irrelevant to the result of the election, I think.

Re: Day Members and Site Selection

[bovil.livejournal.com]

I'll take that as a valid point.

Re: Day Members and Site Selection

[querldox.livejournal.com]

I'll bite; who's the third serious candidate other than Chicago and Denver?

[Yeah, I know Columbus is running. But given their complete lack of presence and campaigning over the last year, I hardly consider them a serious candidate any more]

Re: Day Members and Site Selection

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Well, that's understood, but from an official standpoint, I have to consider any candidate listed on the ballot (and Columbus is there; I proofread the ballot a few days ago) a "serious" candidate. Even Roswell in 2002 was serious, by that standard. And my life would probably have been easier if they'd won.

Re: Day Members and Site Selection

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

Well, *you* can consider Columbus a "serious" candidate. But when a bid blows off both the Worldcon and the NASFiC the year before its vote -- has no party *and* no presence -- I think "serious" is a wicked dubious claim.

[timill]

Hum. All I'm seeing on Smofs is griping about the title...

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Then you've missed half of the messages on the thread, all talking about various ways to mess around with site selection or the Business Meeting that are highly unlikely to happen in this universe.

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

Oh, I think about 50% of the discussion is of the "I have a light day at work...let's come up with completely ridiculous scenarios" variety. About 25% is speculation for purely intellectual reasons. Maybe 5% is people who honestly believe (and one here worries about their mental health) that someone will go to all the trouble of getting a Taster Membership just to be disruptive of the business meeting. Another 10% is Seth trying to figure out how to game any system...and the final 10% is proof positive that unemployment can be dangerous to mental health.