Sorry to be a few minutes late, everyone.
What we missed: By unanimous consent, the word “volume” in Best Series was changed to “installment” to indicate it doesn’t necessarily have to be a full novel added.
Now we join our meeting, already in progress.
1108: Dr Farah Mendelsohn for the ratification of Best Series. Basically a rehash of the arguments for from last year, indicating there are mechanisms for keeping the category fresh, etc.
1112: Question from Dr Adams; if we ratify this amendment this year, will the series that won for 2017 be eligible since the Best Series this year was actually a special Hugo, not under this amendment. The Chair rules that he declines to rule and it’s up to the administrator for next year’s award.
1115: Ben Yalow speaking against the chair’s ruling. Believes the chair is incorrect because the exclusion clause is “has not won previously 3.3.x” and thus this year’s winner will still be eligible.
1116: Lisa Hayes for; this leaves it open to the administrators. You have to leave it open to the interpretation by the administrators, that’s their job.
1117: Debate ended and question called. The chair’s ruling is sustained.
1117: Dr Adams offering amendment to add that the winner under WorldCon 75 be excluded as if it had won under 3.3.x. Chair rules the motion is out of order. It would increase the scope of the amendment.
1118: Dr Laurie brings up that it’s impossible to actually become familiar with all of the series to vote intelligently.
1119: There is no time left for arguments in favor. Mr Tredaway has an inquiry – does this exclude a graphic series from eligibility? Chair rules that it’s defined by word count, so if you have a graphic series that has that number of words, sure. Dr Adams clarifies that this was asked last year too and answered the same way.
1121: Mr Whyte, this year’s Hugo administrator also against – agrees with Dr Laurie. The joy is in celebrating the work of the previous year. We’re really changing the meaningfulness of that if we’re shifting to work that goes back sometimes decades.
1122: Motion to end debate fails.
1123: Ms Rudolph against – agrees with Dr Laurie, and does not think there will be sufficient Hugo-worthy works to keep nominating after a few years.
1124: Mr Yalow against – has vast sympathies for the burden on the Hugo administrators. Series vs sub-series; uses the “1632” series as an example. How are we defining it? The award is difficult if not impossible to administer.
1125: Mr McCarty against – in all other fiction categories, we judge complete works. The series are not necessarily compete.
1126: SERPENTINE SERPENTINE SERPENTINE (the Chair is in doubt)
1131: 51 for, 39 against. Best Series is ratified. It will become a regular category starting in 2018. Note that it will be up for re-ratification in 2021 and is automatically on the agenda.
1133: Three Stage Voting is up. The chair recuses himself as he intends to speak in favor in debate. Mr Eastlake becomes acting chair.
1134: Mr Harris for – 3SV is a targeted strategy for removing unsuitable works; brings the No Award option forward. All algorithmic approaches are still vulnerable to gaming. The human judgment places the responsibility upon the voters. 3SV is something forced on us as a response by people who are bad actors. The question is if this is still needed. If you think there’s a chance of people coming back with a targeted attack again; if you think the measures are unnecessary and the bad actors have lost interest, then vote against it. What is our success criteria? What do we consider a good ballot? EPH guarantees a couple of good candidates; a lot of us thought that years in the future with categories that are half slate was not great. Decide you are okay, for example, with PNH being displaced by VD because of bullet voting.
1138: PRK has a PoI – would an amendment to make 3SV at the discretion of the Hugo Administrator be a greater or lesser change? The chair rules that this would be a lesser scope change and such an amendment would be in order.
1139: Dr Laurie against – doesn’t think we need this. Thinks making sure we have five good nominees, that’s good enough.
1140: Mr Standlee for – in 2015, Kevin had the choice to preside over the business meeting as opposed to proposing this, and he regrets not doing 3SV then. This strategy is more in keeping with the ethos of the Hugos; it has safeguards built into it. It puts the power in the hands of the voters. It has a supermajority and quorum requirement. It doesn’t empower just the administrator. This takes some of the things the administrators have had to do in secret and quickly before, and puts them in the open and in the hands of the voters. During the preliminary period, that’s when permission and eligibility checks for the nominees; and now the Hugo admins can openly ask for help contacting people instead of trying to do so in secret. Also takes burden of keeping quiet from potential finalists. Crowdsources the eligibility and contact research.
1144: Ms Secor against – introduces a political stage to the Hugos.
1146: Mr Wallace for – welcomes this amendment as an author of EPH and EPH+. Helps restore the honor of being a finalist. By putting junk nominations out there.
1147: Ms Deneroff question – is this intended to replace EPH or be an adjunct?
1148: Mr Whyte against – as this year’s Hugo admin, has changed his position on this. Says puppies are no longer a problem. Doesn’t think there’s sufficient evidence for thresholds set in amendment.
1151: Question – is it possible to delay this another year so we don’t have to go through the whole process? Not as such, but there are ways to effectively do that.
1152: Mr Oakes for – this will be very easy to implement. Does not trust VD to keep his word. (hear hear!)
1154: Mr Boucher moves to insert “at the discretion of the site selection of the Hugo Administrator” – Kevin Standlee requests it’s “the administering WorldCon” as a point of order. No objection.
1155: Mr Boucher in favor of the amendment – we need weapons that are available to us, but doesn’t mean we have to use them constantly.
1156: Mr Yalow against – 3SV is already becoming a political question. This makes it more political and puts the administrator in the heart of the politics.
1157: Kevin Standlee with a PoI – would this increase the scope of the change. Chair is of the opinion that it decreases the scope and as such is a lesser change.
1157: Chair’s ruling is appealed. Sorry, not following the ruling appeal debate because I needed another cup of tea.
1201: Question is called on appeal of the chair’s ruling. We are three deep now and people are getting confused, so Mr Eastlake is explaining it. And we’re a SERPENTINE HOLD ON TO YOUR BUTTS
1205: 40 for, 47 against; chair’s ruling is overturned, making this proposed amendment a major change.
1206: Back to the amendment. Kevin moves to call the question. Seconded. (This would mean voting to the amendment and then the underlying proposal with no further debate.)
1208: Mr Cronengold has a PI – has there been sufficient debate? Yes.
1208: Mr Yalow with a PI – will you have to have two calls on who wishes to speak? Yes.
1209: Dr Laurie is confused (ME TOO, DR LAURIE) – voting order of the stack? Yes. Okay.
1210: Question is called on all pending questions. So we’re going to vote on the amendment first. Nays have it and amendment fails. (The bit about the additional clause.)
1210: Now onto ratification of 3SV. Ratification is defeated.
1211: 10 minute recess.
1223: And we’re back. The chair would like to remind us that when he asks if there is objection, if you do not object, keep your mouth shut. There is no objection to taking up EPH+ before the motion to suspend EPH.
1223: Now we will have a report from the Hugo Administrators on EPH not to exceed 10 minutes.
1224: Mr Whyte has provided detailed reports. Perhaps unprecedentedly so.
1226: This is a really impressive number of reports Mr Whyte has produced, y’all.
1229: Clear conclusion: EPH this year made it much harder for slate candidates to get on the nomination list, but made it easier for those with bullet voting to do so.
1231: Move to thank the administrator and his staff for going above and beyond on this analysis. Lots of applause.
1233: On to EPH+, or rather the amendment for EPH+. Recognizing Mr Wallace first to speak in favor. Chair is ruling that if the amendment for EPH+ passes, it will be a greater change and there will need to be an additional for EPH+ for ratification.
1235: The ruling of the chair is appealed. Five minutes of debate that comes out of the five minutes for the amendment. The chair says looking at the proposal, it’s changing a lot of stuff and the only way to digest it properly is with another year.
1236: Ms Secor against the ruling – the effect of 6.1 is to make the use of EPH+ is optional. Making things optional is a lesser and not a greater change.
1236: Mr Yalow for the ruling – in our recent history, ie a few minutes ago, we decided things that give greater power and flexibility that did not exist prior in fact do constitute greater changes. We should follow the precedent that we set twenty minutes ago.
1237: Mr Cronengold against the ruling – the change here is that 6.1 would allow the business meeting to make the change available a year in advance. It makes a sunrise clause. It does not expand the scope.
1238: Dr Laurie calls the question on the appeal. Chair’s ruling is sustained. The amendment is a greater change if passed and will require an additional year of ratification.
1239: Motion to extend debate back to five minutes since we just used a bunch of the amendment’s debate time. There is objection because I think we want to keep moving.
1240: Debate clock is not reset because there’s less than 2/3 voting for it.
1241: Dave Wallace for the amendment – the effect is to make EPH+ optional on a vote of the business meeting. It’s the extra strength version; makes anti-slate stronger but also makes bullet voting stronger.
1243: Mr Harris against – it’s not helpful to switch this on and off from year to year; this only becomes clear in Jan/Feb when people start announcing intent.
1244: The amendment fails. Now on to EPH+.
1245: Mr Wallace for – This has a stronger anti-slating effect. Given that 3SV has failed, we should pass EPH+, because he does not trust the chief puppy to abandon his efforts. Doesn’t think we’ve seen the end of it.
1247: Mr McCarty against – EPH does reward bullet voting. People who nominate only one thing get disproportionate strength under this system. Under EPH+ this becomes even worse.
1248: Mr Cronengold moves to add a one year sunrise…. can’t do that, since amendments are considered speech against.
1248: Ms Hayes against – fundamentally against EPH, and thus EPH+ is basically worse. It’s a magic box.
1251: Debate ended, we are voting to ratify of EPH+.
1251: EPH+ is NOT ratified by a vast majority.
1253: Mr Yalow speaking for suspending EPH for a year because the way it encourages people to bullet vote. EPH makes nominating harder to explain. Points out that Sad Puppies, who include longtime members of fandom, changed their behavior to be less bad, while the rabids went back to gaming things.
1255: Mr Dunn against – if EPH goes away, what’s to say the slates won’t return? The suspension motion was just up if things interacted strangely, which they didn’t.
1256: Ms Hayes for – agreement with Ben Yalow
1257: Ms Stark against – bullet voting allows one bad candidate on the list, but that’s what 5 and 6 is for. Don’t bring back the slates.
1257: Mr Bloom for – his opinion that EPH has no effect on the puppies. The No Awarding is what made them change their strategy.
1258: Alex speech against (hi this is Corina). Getting rid of EPH would be bad because the Puppies are watching and won’t give up. Sad that 3SV was struck down so strongly suggesting it be kept on until we get something better.
1300: Mr Kovalcek for – better we have a clear system that is easy to explain in the short term. EPH is horrible, we need to come up with something better.
1300: Mr Renda against – EPH is bad, but it’s the price we pay for having better resistance to slates.
1301: Mr McCarty for – for the record; while we use EPH we will continue to get perverse results with things getting knocked off the ballot for inexplicable reasons.
1303: Mr Pomeranz against – reluctantly, defends EPH. Thinks the greatest harm will be swinging back and forth too quickly. Get more data on the results. The ill effects are not so significantly bad as to need to remove it immediately.
1304: By vast majority, the motion fails. EPH continues in effect for the following year.
1305: 10 minute recess.
1314: Meeting back in order. We are on to Defining North America.
1316: Mr McCarty proposes to suspend rules so we can bring up 5 and 6 now to dispose of like business together.
1318: Rules are suspended, motion to suspend 5 and 6 for one year is before the meeting.
1319: Clarification: laying a motion on the table does not specify when we will pick it back up. It requires a motion to pick it back up. If we do not pick it back up before the meeting is adjourned sine die, the motion dies.
1319: Mr Yalow is not asking a question where he knows the answer already for once. We are not allowed to adjourn sine die when there is still privileged business on the agenda, so is this motion privileged?
1320: Chair: We can adjourn sine die without picking it back up.
1321: Motion to lay on the table fails.
1321: Now on to the motion to suspend 5 and 6.
1322: Mr Bloom in favor of suspending 5 and 6 because we didn’t suspend EPH and says they are at cross purposes. At least one should be suspended.
1324: Mr Cronengold against – please stop switching back and forth. Let’s see how it runs for a little bit.
1325: Mr McCarty in favor – We’ve tested EPH against many sets of data. If there is a slate of five candidates, the candidates that EPH knocks off, like 50% of the time it puts them back on. These don’t work well together.
1326: Mr Desjardin against – consistency, some resistance against slating. It makes a better ballot. What was added to the ballot this year was mostly very good works. Anecdotal experience is that this is a very popular change.
1327: Ms Hayes calls the question. Seconded. Question is called.
1327: Motion fails overwhelmingly. 5 and 6 remains in effect for one year.
1328: Back to Defining North America.
1330: Ms Dashoff – why is central America part of North America here? Chair rules that’s actually debate. Okay.
1331: Mr Yalow for – being the person who carelessly and accidentally took it out of the constitution years ago, he apologizes for the necessity of putting it back in.
1331: What about the Caribbean islands? Does this extend to islands bordering the Gulf of Mexico? Yes, those things are part of the Caribbean.
1333: Mr Cronengold moves to call the question. Soundly seconded. Question is called.
1333: Motion is ratified by a very large majority.
1334: No, Iceland is not eligible to hold a NASFiC. (Continents, not tectonic plates, people.)
1334: Mr Kovalcek motions to adjourn.
1334: Mr Cronengold wants to debate.
1335: Mr Kovalcek for the motion – most of us are tired and stayed up late last night. It’d be better to come back tomorrow when we’re fresh.
1336: Kevin notes that we have the room for five hours tomorrow. DO NOT MAKE US USE ALL THAT TIME. Meeting adjourned.