Looking forward to WSFS meetings 3

I ended up browsing a bit on File770 and saw the latest collection of news, which included this astounding example of hollering before you’re hurt from David Pascoe writing on Sarah Hoyt’s blog:

While there’s a good deal of speculation over whether such a motion will even get approved (what then, would supporting members get for their hard earned filthy lucre? How could WorldCon possibly garner any kind of diverse, international support by shutting out anybody who can’t afford to fly across an ocean to come to the majority of conventions?), that it’s not reduced to backroom rumor mills is a sign of how strong the desire is to keep out the undesirable types.

A few points after reading the post:

  1. As a queer pinko liberal SJWer hell bent on destroying everything that makes America great(TM) I would stand against that kind of resolution so fast that the air displacement would break the sound barrier. In reality, I (and I surmise a lot of my filthy brethren and sistren) want supporting memberships to be cheaper. Because greater accessibility to voting is a good thing, always.
    1. I don’t have a problem that the self-named puppies want to nominate things they like. I never have, because I’m an actual adult human being who isn’t threatened by people disagreeing with me. It’s okay to not like things as long as you’re not a dick about it!
    2. I do have a problem with the fact that the puppies aren’t acting like puppies–they’re acting like seagulls. As in making a lot of noise and shitting all over everything. Which is, by the way, a classic example of being a dick.
    3. It’s also okay if things I don’t like get awards! Things I don’t like get awards all the time! Almost nothing I ever think should get an Oscar gets an Oscar, for example. I might grumble, but I haven’t made it my mission to personally destroy the Academy Awards because it’ll make people who have sinned by disagreeing with my taste upset.
    4. Considering the go-to whinge on the puppy side seems to be the ceaseless butthurt over If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love, the hypocrisy is just astounding.
  2. As a note, I’ve heard a couple suggestions that there should be some kind of test to force people to prove they’ve read the works they’re nominating/voting for. I would also vote against that so fast I might injure myself. Making voting less accessible doesn’t help anyone. Or at least not anyone I’d want to help.
  3. If there is a more lovingly self-pitying way to characterize those who disagree with one’s position than calling them “puppy kickers,” I have yet to hear it. Barf.
  4. Speaking of making life hard for anyone who can’t fly across the ocean to attend a convention, how about we stop holding so many WorldCons in the US? Helsinki in 2017. Just sayin’.

If I wasn’t clear enough, the ego-stroking conspiracy paranoia about limiting voting memberships? Appears to be just paranoia. The lovelies at File770 helpfully provided the supporting link for current business on the WSFS agenda for this year, and destroying all those who dare disagree with my taste in escapist fiction being a giant dickbag about voting memberships isn’t on there as of yet. Since there’s some new items on there, a quick run through of thoughts:

  • 4 and 6: still in favor of this
  • The Five Percent Solution: YES STILL IN FAVOR
  • Best Series: They’re no longer trying to destroy novelette to make room for this category. I generally tend to be of the mind that more rocket ships to go around is a good thing, but on the other hand, I have no desire to sign myself up for that amount of reading. On a third hand (because I’m an alien creature) maybe it would encourage people to finish up their goddamn series in a timely manner instead going on and on for like 20+ books. Probably not, but I could hope. On the fence, still thinking about it.
  • E Pluribus Hugo: Still can’t wrap my brain around this. Still think it’s needlessly complex. Still willing to be convinced, but as that might well require a powerpoint presentation, I doubt that will happen.
  • Multiple Nominations: Ensuring that a work can only be in one category? I’m in favor of that. Spread the rocket ships around, etc. I also consider it necessary if Best Series if going to be a thing.
  • Nominee Diversity: I’m so goddamn tired of the dramatic presentation short form being the Best Doctor Who category. Also, whether the author is someone I personally like or not, I don’t think any one person needs to have a lock down on all or most of the slots in a category. Stop being greedy. (Though I think some clarification is likely necessary when it comes to authors, for example, how that works in a co-author situation, etc.)
  • Two Year Eligibility: The part of me that never has enough time to read thinks sure, why not. The part of me that understands math points out that if there’s a two year range of eligibility, you’re really just doubling your field. Not in favor. Could potentially be argued around, but not bloody likely.
  • Electronic Signatures: Seems like a no-brainer. Will hopefully help give site selection another little boost when it comes to trying to diversify Worldcon geographically.
  • I Remember the Future: Sure, why not.
  • Hugo Eligibility Extension for Predestination: Again, sure, why not.
  • Hugo Nominating Data Request: It would certainly cut down on the speculation in all quarters. I’m in favor of more data being available–so long as anonymity is guaranteed.
  • Open Source Software: Sure, why not? Is there a reason to not?
  • MPC Funding: Another sure, why not?

NOTE: I will be attending all of the WSFS meetings at Sasquan unless something actively prevents me from doing so, since it’s been asked a couple of times. And if there is wifi to be had, I will be liveblogging at this space. If there isn’t wifi, I’ll livetweet from @katsudonburi. I just type a lot faster (and more coherently) than I can swype tweets into being, so keep your fingers crossed for wifi that won’t make my wallet cry.

3 thoughts on “Looking forward to WSFS meetings

  1. Reply Tim Illingworth Aug 6,2015 17:10

    Fortunately, the EPH proponents have a PowerPoint (not that I think the BM will see it)…

    Essentially, nominees are paired up and fight to the death. The fight is by nomination count, so the #1 nominee always wins. The #2 can only be beaten by the #1, the #3 by the #1 or #2 and so forth, and in a normal year, the #1-#5 will wind up on the ballot.

    In a slate year, as nominees are eliminated, the slate nominees sink to the bottom and are pitted against each other, and thus tend to have only one survivor.

    I dare say I could be persuaded to turn my phone hotspot on, if I’ve got any signal.

    • Reply Rachael Aug 6,2015 18:51

      If it comes to that, I’d appreciate the hot spot immensely. :) Hopefully there’ll be decent convention center wifi, though. It’s been all right the last couple years IIRC.

  2. Reply David Goldfarb Aug 6,2015 22:55

    A PDF of the E Pluribus Hugo powerpoint can be viewed here. Executive summary: 1313 ballots with a distribution similar to those seen in 2013. Add 200 slate ballots. Current first-past-the-post system lets the slate sweep the category. EPH limits the slate to one nominee.

    (Without the slate ballots, FPTP and EPH give the same results, an important point.)

    “4 / 6” doesn’t do much to limit slates, given a bit of extra organization by the slatemakers. EPH does.

Leave a Reply to Tim Illingworth Cancel Reply