Tag: hugo awards

Categories
worldcon

With Regards to “No Award.”

Edit at 0820 on 8/25: Due to writing this post at the end of an extremely long day, I misunderstood section 3.6 and got a few things wrong. It should be corrected now; thanks to Cheryl Morgan and Kendall for keeping me on the straight and narrow.

This post is only intended to examine the potential for “No Award” to structurally damage the Hugo Awards, because I’ve now witnessed this odd rumor in a couple different places. I have less than zero interest in debating the righteousness or wrongness of people voting No Award, or discussing my own votes, or pontificating about how it might or might not affect the reputation of the awards. But matters of fact? Let’s get those straight.

Basically, voting No Award in the Hugos has zero effect on the inner workings of the awards themselves. The end. Votes of No Award over successive years might arguably have some kind of negative effect on the voting population, but will not affect the continued existence of the categories or anything like that.

Quick summary: The Hugo categories themselves are enshrined in the WSFS constitution. The only way to add, remove, or alter them is with a constitutional amendment, which takes two years to accomplish. The amendment has to be proposed one year and passed at the business meeting, and then ratified at the next year’s business meeting. You can see this process in action with the proposal of the “Best Series” category for this year. Nothing in the results of the Hugos can actually alter the existence of the awards themselves.

If that’s good enough for you, stop there. Otherwise, I’ll go ahead and get granular.

Let’s take a quick look at the places “No Award” appears in the WSFS constitution. Please note that as of this writing, this is the 2014 WSFS constitution. I don’t think it contains anything we ratified during the business meetings this weekend. But I promise, there was nothing related to “No Award” in the amendments we did ratify.

Section 3.6: “No Award”. At the discretion of an individual Worldcon Committee, if the lack of nominations or final votes in a specific category shows a marked lack of interest in that category on the part of the voters, the Award in that category shall be canceled for that year.

Note the phrase “marked lack of interest.” Lack of interest would be indicated by lack of voting/nominating; a vote of “No Award” still counts as an actual vote.

Under 3.8: Tallying of Nominations: 

3.8.3: Any nominations for “No Award” shall be disregarded.

Pretty self explanatory; nominations for no award will be disregarded when it comes to tallying the nominations. It’s always an option on the final ballot, after all, as we’re about to see.

Under 3.10: Voting:

3.10.3: “No Award” shall be listed in each category of Hugo Award on the final ballot.

Also pretty self explanatory. “No Award” is always an option for voting.

From Section 3.11: Tallying of Votes:

3.11.1: In each category, tallying shall be as described in Section 6.4. “No Award” shall be treated as a nominee. If all remaining nominees are tied, no tie- breaking shall be done and the nominees excluding “No Award” shall be declared joint winners.

3.11.2: “No Award” shall be given whenever the total number of valid ballots cast for a specific category (excluding those cast for “No Award” in first place) is less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of final Award ballots received.

3.11.3: “No Award” shall be the run-off candidate for the purposes of Section 6.5.

This determines how “No Award” is tallied from the ballots. So hey, you could technically win jointly with “No Award.” That’s… a thing. Also, this makes it so that categories that are very small and ignored relative to the total number of ballots get an automatic No Award. Note this doesn’t eliminate a category through lack of apparent interest, just makes “No Award” automatic if very few ballots are received. The categories still exist as required by the constitution.

That’s it. Those are the only places “No Award” is even mentioned in the constitution.

Fun fact: Worldcon committees are allowed (but not required) to make one and only one special Hugo category that will just exist for that year:

3.3.17: Additional Category. Not more than one special category may be created by the current Worldcon Committee with nomination and voting to be the same as for the permanent categories. The Worldcon Committee is not required to create any such category; such action by a Worldcon Committee should be under exceptional circumstances only; and the special category created by one Worldcon Committee shall not be binding on following Committees. Awards created under this paragraph shall be considered to be Hugo Awards.

I don’t believe this has happened during the time I’ve attended/paid attention to WorldCon, which has only been since 2008, but it sounds cool. (And has been used in the past to experiment, such as in 1988 when Watchmen won “Other Forms.” Wikipedia also has a list, though some of those categories were once in the WSFS constitution and then subsequently removed.) Anyway, notice with this, it’s also in line with 3.6; the concom has some discretion when it comes to administering the Hugo categories, but its choices are not in any way permanent. The categories themselves make up sections 3.3.1 through 3.3.17 of the constitution of the World Science Fiction Society. And the constitution can’t just be changed on a whim:

Section 6.6: Amendment. The WSFS Constitution may be amended by a motion passed by a simple majority at any Business Meeting but only to the extent that such motion is ratified by a simple majority at the Business Meeting of the subsequent Worldcon.

So if anything were to be changed structurally about the awards themselves, the administration, the categories, anything, the only way to do that is to get an amendment to the constitution passed by a simple majority at the business meeting, and then ratified the next year.

This would be why there was so much excitement about E Pluribus Hugo and 4 and 6 this year; both will structurally change how nominations are done and finalists are decided for the Hugos. Both got a majority vote at this year’s meeting, but will have no effect unless and until they are ratified in 2016–at which point they will change how things go in 2017.

The conclusion is, the Hugos can’t be structurally destroyed by a single messy year. Or two. Or ten. It would take a majority at two consecutive business meetings to do that. Destroyed socially? Rendered a travesty because they delivered results you personally dislike and thus the Hugos Are Over? That’s for people to argue who have a lot more patience, endurance, and time to waste than me.

Categories
books worldcon

The Hugo Nomination Problem or, I Am a Bad Reader

[ETA 5/3/15: It seems I was unclear that by a recommended reading list, I mean a large list with things added throughout the year that I can then winnow down myself. Not a short slate of nominees sized specifically to fill or partially fill categories. I have updated the post to reflect my position more accurately.]

I’ve been meaning to write this post for nearly a week, but work has been absolutely batshit and promises to continue to be so for another two weeks. So yay for the lunch break blog post, right? This is to say, if this is not particularly coherent or well-organized, please forgive me.

I was at Penguicon over the weekend, which was a fabulous convention, by the way, marred only by the fact that the assholes in the room next to mine would not shut the fuck up at four in the morning. But everything to do with the actual convention was lovely and full of chocolate glee, and I’m extra happy to have gotten to be on panels and then do karaoke with Steven Saus, Sarah Hans, and Michael Cieslak, to name just three of the many lovely people I met. (I met more lovely people, but their business cards are currently out of my reach and I’m complete shit with names. Sorry, everyone.)

By the way, karaoke? I still fucking kill it when I do Tribute. My demon voice cannot be stopped.

Anyway, on Sunday at Penguicon, I ended up setting off a discussion about Hugo nominations mostly because I was grumpy and wanted to go over what actually happened when the SFWA bulletin blew up (tl;dr version: “Haw haw ladies!” “Could you please not?” “Fuck you liberal fascists!” “No, sirs, fuck YOU.”) as opposed to what’s being incorrectly summarized everywhere, mostly by people fighting about the bullshit puppy slates. But anyway, after I got things going, two gentlemen started arguing about the Hugo nomination process, and I feel like a total asshole because I didn’t catch either of their names, but they both had extremely valid points.

Most Excellent Dude Number One has several working ideas on ways the WSFS constitution could be amended to de-fang slates so this bullshittery cannot happen again. (As I pointed out, well, in a couple years at best, since you can’t amend the WSFS constitution overnight.) Most Excellent Dude Number Two didn’t think that was any kind of solution, and that the only real way to fix things was some serious get out the vote effort.

Honestly, I’m not sure if either way works. I’d have to see some convincing math on any WSFS amendments and have a good long think about if it’s going to actually fix a problem or just make things worse. (Though I think there could be something to limiting nominations to three per category, say. That would shake things up a bit at least.) And it’s also a fact that the nominating and voting statistics for the Hugos are nothing short of embarrassing.

LonCon3, which I believe is now officially the biggest Worldcon ever, had 8784 attending and supporting memberships, which would be the people who could nominate and vote–and this doesn’t even count the attending members of the previous Worldcon, who could also vote! The most nominating ballots were cast for novel, with a total of 1595, just 18% of eligible members. The rest of the categories had far fewer nominating ballots, coming in at 3.6% to 11.3% of the membership. Actual votes cast tended to be about three times higher than nominating ballots. Still embarrassing, but slightly less so.

So yes, there’s definitely a get out the vote problem, though I’m left wondering just what WSFS can be expected to do about that, other than finding ways to make voting and nominating more accessible. I’d be in favor, for example, of severely lowering the price of supporting memberships, in order to open up the process particularly to people in non-US countries who are already getting screwed by the exchange rate. Education efforts? Maybe.

But as sad as the actual voting numbers are, the real problem is the nominating numbers. And I don’t honestly think that’s something that can be fixed easily by amending the bylaws.

Forgive me if I assume my personal experience can stand at something close to average, but I think the nomination issue isn’t really one of accessibility. There have been many years past when I haven’t nominated for the Hugos at all outside of dramatic presentation, because I quite literally had not read anything that had come out that year. There is a lot of good literature out in the field, and a lot of bad. I have only a very limited amount of time to read. The only reason I’ve been reading much newer stuff lately is because I’ve been trying to help with the occasional podcast for Skiffy and Fanty, or because I have writer friends who have new things coming out, so I make it my business to actually read them. (And I don’t do that nearly as often as I should, sorry guys. I’m such a shit.) But there’s also a very real reason why, on the podcast, you hear me mostly on movie episodes, and why here I mostly talk about movies. Movies are a much smaller time commitment, and I know I can sit down and get through one in normally less than two hours and still be able to have thoughtful opinions.

I’m not going to nominate things I haven’t read. I’d like to think most people who are interested in the Hugos are honest enough to not nominate or vote for things they haven’t read. So I’m thinking what we have is a big blob of voters like me, who have no idea what the fuck we’d even nominate because we haven’t really read that much, and in fact we’re waiting for the list of nominees to come out so we know what we should be reading.

Is that something WSFS can really fix? I guess you could argue for some kind of juried award, but then you’re only as good as your jury.

This is the point where I obviously speak only for myself, but what I need is help, to be honest. I don’t need someone breathing down my neck and telling me I need to nominate when I have no idea what the hell I’d even nominate. Some of it’s a self-actualization issue, where I need to just get off my ass and find the time to read more, and try to read things the actual year they come out. But it’s pretty overwhelming, guys. We are blessed to live in an age where your genre choices are not limited to what you can find on the spinny racks at the grocery store, or on that one shelf in your local library where the dude with the funny-smelling coat always hangs out. Which is awesome! But it also means that there’s so much coming out every day, at some point book mountain gets so high that you’re like fuck this, I don’t even know where to start so instead I’m going to make myself a cup of tea and play World of Warcraft while Captain America: The Winter Soldier plays on the TV in the background.

I’m sure this does not reflect on me well as a human being. I also know I used to read a hell of a lot more back before I didn’t have a full time job and a part-time writing gig and a daily commute during which reading tends to give me severe motion sickness. But here it is, the call for help. I seriously need some helpful soul, or maybe some kind of crowd-sourced thing that can tell me what I should be reading as things come out so I’m not floundering under drifts of pages on book mountain when the Hugo nomination period opens. Preferably some recommendation engine where my fellow writers, bless you guys I love you all but damn I know how we are, are not allowed to nominate or push their own books. I don’t want reviews, I don’t even want opinions, I just want a simple but large list of titles and authors and maybe a helpful link where someone can say hey, I think this book should totally get a Hugo and/or other award or is just awesome and you should read it anyway, and then other people who agree can maybe give it a plus one, and that’s it. Let me form my own opinions.

Does something like this already exist and I’ve just never seen it because I’m a failure at google? Is this something a complete computer incompetent like me could set up on her own site pretty easily? I’d do it in a heartbeat if I knew how.

Categories
books worldcon

The United States of Rachael Does Not Negotiate With Terrorists

So this year’s Hugos is basically the same story as last year, but more so. Apparently we have not only the Sad Puppies, we have Rapid Puppies courtesy of that corpulent pustule on the anus of humanity, Vox Day. And I’ve heard mentions of Gamergate? Haven’t been able to easily locate the truth, don’t actually care that much, but it’d certainly be a match made in pathetic teenaged misogynist fantasy wankland.

My response is mostly the same as last year, to be honest. It’s going to be a personal choice how people react to what they are and aren’t willing to read. I’m not going to tell people how to conduct themselves. Everyone has a personal line that they’re going to draw, and it’s not mine to judge or argue.

I am personally, deeply uncomfortable with the idea of sight unseen torpedoing every work in a category because it’s got puppy shit on it, but on the other hand, I also have no leg to stand on to lecture other people on what should or shouldn’t let them sleep at night. Part of this is because I know Lou Antonelli and know him to be a good guy, and I’m definitely going to be reading and considering his stuff. Also, I don’t think blanket voting No Award is going to necessarily discourage this behavior in the future; we’re dealing with nihilistic wankbabies here that are going to play Heads We Win, Tails You Lose. The only ultimate win is figuring out a decent fix for the nomination process for the future, which is a whole other kettle of fish and involves going to WSFS meetings and dealing with the arcane rules lawyering that goes on there.

Yes, by the way, I will be going to the WSFS meetings at Worldcon this year, and as long as there is wifi, I will be liveblogging them. If no wifi, expect tweets.

Anyway, I had my attention drawn to this comment by the Pustule in another post:

If No Award takes a fiction category, you will likely never see another award given in that category again. The sword cuts both ways, Lois. We are prepared for all eventualities.

Well, that’s not threatening at all. It really sounds like “vote for the shit I have presented you, or the Hugos get it.” And sorry. The United States of Rachael does not negotiate with terrorists. Because this is the thing. Other than the Pustule’s story last year (which I actually did read, in its entirety, out loud, whilst drunk, and it was hilaribad) I actually tried to give all the nominees a fair shake. I made an attempt to read each and every one of the offerings. And most of them? I gave up after 10 pages, normally because I was bored, or occasionally offended, but ultimately entirely unconvinced by the work and its worthiness of even being considered for an award.

I’m not going to change that policy this year. If I can’t even fucking get through a story, it has no business being on an award ballot. If I finish reading it, and still have no idea why the hell it should even be considered award-worthy, I’m not going to vote to give it an award. It goes under No Award. Period. No matter who nominated it. You can’t make me.

Really, I’m a little stunned that the Pustule’s somehow managed to hit what I thought was the bedrock of deeply pathetic, then whip out a rotary drill and keep digging down. Look, dude. Forcing us to read your shit isn’t going to make us like it. Threatening to blow up our awards because we don’t like your shit is not going to make us like it. You cannot threaten people into loving or respecting you or your work. I’m sure if you literally held a gun to someone’s head, you could make them say just about anything, but none of it would be true. A compliment forcibly paid under duress does not change the basic facts of the matter.

If the only way you can gain acclaim or success is by cheating or threatening your way to it? You’ve already lost and will remain forever a giant, wanky loser.

Some other good posts about the general Hugos bullshittery:

Categories
worldcon

[Worldcon] YA Hugo and Worldcon Membership committees

Hey guys, I made the last half an hour of the WSFS Sunday business meeting. There was some site selection stuff for bids 2016+, if you’re interested in that check my Twitter right now before I get all tweet happy and run the tweets I did about that off the page. I wasn’t intending to do anything further, but the committees have been announced for the YA Hugo and Membership issues we referred to committee yesterday.

The names were listed on powerpoint slides. Per Donald Eastlake, these ought to be going up online on the LoneStarCon 3 website in relatively short order. You can also ask for a copy of the slides by e-mailing Donald at bm@lonestarcon3.org.

However, for your viewing pleasure, the names of those on the committees, as typed by me. My apologies for any misspellings caused by fumbling during my frantic typing.

YA Hugo study committee: Dave McCarty as Chair

Members: Jodie Baker, Adam Beaton, Warren Buff, Johnny Carruthers, Martin Easterbrook, Chris Garcia, Helen Gbala, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Tim Illingworth, Farah Mendlesohn, Sue “Twilight” Mohn, Helen Montgomery, Cheryl Morgan, Kate Secore, Kevin Standlee, Adam Tesh, Peter De Weedt, Tehani Wessely, Clark Wierda, Lew Wolkoff

[Looks like my volunteerism was quite unnecessary, I can’t say I’m sorry. Honestly I was kind of scared out of my mind, though part of me insists it would have been super interesting and an opportunity for learning, etc.]

WSFS Membership Types and Rates Committee: Colin Harris as Chair

Members: Eemeli Aro, Adam Beaton, Gary Blog, Ken Bloom, Warren Buff, Donald Eastlake, Martin Easterbrook, Janice Gelb, Kevin Hewitt, Tim Illingworth, Kevin Maroney, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Mary Kay Kare, Priscilla Olson, Mark Olson, Howard Rosenblatt, Kevin Standlee, Ian Stockdale, Adam Tesh, Leslie Turek

And a couple other committee notes, just in case you’re interested because why not I wrote it down anyway. I just recorded the chairs for these, though.

Mark Protection Committee members listed on slide, and when their terms end.

Nitpicking and Flyspecking – Kevin Standlee as chair

HEROW – Perrianne Lurie as chair

FOLLE committee – continues unchanged

WSFS business meeting was adjourned at 1132.

ALSO! Worldcon 2015 will be in Spokane! (Apparently it will be known as “Sasquan.” Well okay then.) Kevin Standlee tweeted the GOH list. They beat out Helsinki by 35 votes. I don’t know anything more about it, since I missed that part of the meeting because I was at the Broad Universe RFR. I went second and kicked all the ass, thanks for asking.

Have a fun rest of Worldcon everyone!

Categories
worldcon

[Worldcon] Main WSFS Business Meeting Liveblog

PLEASE NOTE: My profound apologies in advance to anyone whose name I missed or misspelled. If you stumble across this blog and would like me to correct it, please just comment!

People are still filing in and dealing with the sign up sheet, so it’ll be a few more minutes before we get started. I’ll update this post as things happen. If you’re not sure what will be on the agenda today, you can get an idea from yesterday’s liveblog.

Also as a reminder: If you are someone who is interested in the YA Hugo issue, VOLUNTEER TO BE ON THE COMMITTEE. To do this, you need to speak to Donald Eastlake, the chair, before close of business on the Sunday meeting. Just stop by one of the meetings, he’ll be at the front.

And now I will eat my apple while I wait for things to get started…

1009: Meeting is called to order. Donald covers the procedure about speaking, etc.

1012: Kevin Standlee has uploaded the raw video from yesterday. Asking for donations to cover the high speed internet for the upload.

1014: Going over what we’ll be voting on today, quick review of the committees, noted the newly created committee yesterday.

1016: No objections to agenda as stated.

1016: First item: Worldcon Publications constitutional amendment. Five minute debate time. But I think we’re debating the amendment to the motion first.

1017: Lisa Hayes, author of amendment: The idea is to remove the financial burden of the paper publications by telling Worldcons to just charge people who want paper pubs instead of paying for it themselves.

1017: Colin Harris: Publications are not defined in the constitution, not everyone gets sent everything. The practice of publication distribution isn’t very consistent. Thinks it’s best to not put specific details, since it’s not defined in the constitution that Worldcon even has to be five days or in the summer, for example. Wants to just simplify the language even more so that committees can operate on common sense.

1020: Lisa Hayes doesn’t feel that her original language was not overcomplicated.

1021: ???: It’s nuts to try to figure out how much something costs up front.

1022: Amendment passes with simplified language.

1023: Back to the original motion, which is now out of debate time. Moved and seconded to extend the debate time by five minutes. Less than 2/3 in favor, debate time not extended.

1023: Motion is passed.

1024: Now on to No Representation Without Taxation amendment.

1024: Priscilla Olson says that this amendment was not intended to keep poor or young people from voting, but we’re all in this together. Notes that the original name “No Cheap Voting” was unfortunate. [Personally, I don’t think this new name is any better.]

1026: Against, Christopher J Garcia: as a broke American, feels this disallows a minimum of participation. A voting only membership would be the most basic way to spread participation in the Hugos and WSFS as a whole.

1027: Dave McCarty (sp? sorry!) This would dissociate the Hugos from WSFS and the Worldcon if a voting only membership was created. This is heinous to him.

1027: Against, Warren Buff: Agrees in principle that we should keep the membership rights together. Feels the next amendment would do a better job of it. In favor of the next amendment, against this one.

1028: Glen (????): If you can have a Hugo only membership, you can have a site selection only membership. And thinks this is distorting and weird.

1029: Against, Perry (???): This sends the wrong message to fandom at large. Says this is exclusionary and gives the idea that we don’t want them to participate. Does not want to unbundle rights, but is against setting a minimum price.

1031: Rick Kovalick: “I don’t trust Worldcon.” Something to do with the best dramatic presentation category.

1031: Against, Stephen (didn’t catch last name): Why are people trying to circumscribe innovation? This will lock the price in, which is bad. Worldcon should be inclusive.

1033: Mike (???) moves to refer this to committee, since membership is ill-defined in the constitution. Motion is seconded.

1034: Kevin Standlee: Moves to amend the motion to commit by referring the Keep Us Together motion to committee as well. Seconded.

1036: Okay so first we have a motion to commit both items at the same time, then we have to vote on the motion to commit for real. This is complicated shit.

1037: Motion to commit both together passes. Motion to send both to committee passes. Donald Eastlake will now take volunteers and appoint the committee. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THIS ISSUE, TALK TO DONALD ASAP AND VOLUNTEER.

1039: Now time for the WSFS Accountability Act of 2013. Starting off complicated by proposing to clarify the text. The new text is… not something I’m going to type out for you. But it’s a lot shorter, I’ll tell you that.

1041: New text read a second time by Donald.

1042: Dave McCarty suggests a change to the changed language. Wants to change “person submitting” to “persons certifying and submitting.” No objection to changing that language. No objection to the new language for the amendment.

1043: Issue is called to vote without debate. No objection. Motion passes.

1043: Expansion of Best Fan Artist category.

1044: Joshua Kronengold speaks for: fans work in all sorts of media, he wants to clarify this will be for all media, not just for visual artists and cartoonists. Also wants to clarify the public display of qualifying art must be non-commercial like with fanzines.

1045: Ben Yalow against: Supports the non-commercial in, since that’s a good clarification. But does not like opening it in to performance media. Most performance media is already covered by dramatic presentation. Moves to strike all changes but the “non-professional”. Seconded.

1046: Not all performance art is covered by dramatic presentation, such as musicians. Agrees that things shouldn’t be qualified for more than one category, feels that this would narrow things too much.

1047: Colin Harris for amendment to the motion: we do have ways to recognize things like music, such as best related work. Doesn’t feel we should be shuffling animation and filks into what has always been a visual art category.

1048: Seth Breitbart: This is for an artist, not for a specific work of art.

1049: Kevin Standlee asks to have the modified language read. Asks for unanimous consent for… something, and nope.

1051: Rich (???) feels that other types of art are adequately covered and costuming for example is more a craft than an art (at which point a low murmur sweeps over the crowd because THEM’S FIGHTIN’ WORDS).

1052: Debate time has run out. Motion to extend debate by five minutes is passed.

1053: Colin Harris again, asking unanimous consent to change his amendment language again to add back in that conventions are okay for display so that there’s no ambiguity. Unanimous consent is not given.

1054: Move to suspend rules to allow this amendment without unanimous consent.

1055: The added language passes. And now back to the original amendment to the amendment. Yes it really is getting this convoluted.

1055: Donald reads the new language…

1056: Chris Garcia likes this for retaining the word cartoonist. He feels removing the word would strike a blow against the long history of cartoonists in fandom.

1056: (???) The addition of ‘any medium’ does include cartoonists.

1057: Priscilla (???) Most of us are not qualified to discern between art and crafts, dramatic and not. Thinks opening up this category really starts blurring the lines about what we want to do.

1058: New language for the amendment passes.

1058: Move to extend debate time is seconded but does not pass.

1058: The amendment with the modified language passes. This means that fan artist is still basically defined as a visual category, but the constitution is clarified to note that display of the art is non-professional.

1059: Moving on to candidate elections.

1100: Mark Protection Committee election: no objection, the members are elected for three year terms.

1102: Next, the amendments proposed by the committees.

1103: Two-Thirds Is Good Enough, Part 1. Kevin S in favor, pointing out that everywhere else in the constitution, a supermajority is 2/3 and not 3/4. Consistency.

1104: (???) “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Doesn’t think it’s necessary.

1104: (???) Extensions should be hard to get; should require more than a simple majority. But does not think they should be that much harder to get. Extensions have provided good candidates in the past and will continue to do so.

1105: Merkel (???)

1105: Kate Seacourt: Do we really need to be ANY MORE SURE OF OURSELVES to extend eligibility than we are to amend the constitution that gave us the power to do this in the first place?

1106: (????) We only have one shot at the extension vote, we should get it right.

1107: Howard Rosenblat (????) Agrees with Ben Yalow’s analysis. 2/3 super majority is the standard. 3/4 sends a message, that’s not one we want to send.

1107: Debate is up. Motion passes.

1108: 2/3 is enough part two, move to call to question. And this one passes as well. [This was pretty darn funny, actually. You can’t call to question until someone speaks, so someone said, “I refer you to the points previously made” then it got called to question again. Okay maybe you had to be there.]

1109: We Don’t Need Another HEROW. Basically the HEROW gets passed every year, can’t we just make it permanent? There are currently 3 extended eligibility clauses in the constitution. Anything not originally in English already gets an extension. The critical mass of active nominators remains US members, and that’s likely to continue for a long time. So let’s just permanently extend for the works first published outside the US. Notes several advantages. He exhausts the time in favor.

1114: Mark Merkelson against: argues that markets are converging, for example because of the rising popularity of ebooks. The day will come when this is not necessary. Thinks we should keep it every year and hope for the day we won’t need it.

1116: (???) against: Something not published in the US is not significantly disadvantaged.

1117: A question about the language I am confused sorry.

1118: Ben Yalow against: It used to be hard to get overseas books. A good British author will have his books immediately known in the US. The markets have converged.

1119: Debate exhausted, motion to extend debate fails.

1120: Vote is called. Have to do this one as a serpentine. 49 in favor. 32 against. The motion carries and will appear next year for ratification.

1122: Financial reports.

1123: Ben Yalow proposes new business, removing the parts of the constitution that restrict the regions for the elected members of the Mark Protection committee.

1124: Ben Yalow for: The zone system was originally to move the Worldcon around. We got rid of that in everything but the Mark Protection Committee. No reason to keep it.

1125: Kate Seacourt against (???) Given what the committee does, and since trademark rules vary, it might be valuable to retain people who can speak to local issues when they come up

1126: Mark Merkelson–I kind of missed his points. >.> Sorry.

1127: Kevin S against: Feels there is still some value to having regional diversity, questions if people would be so happy if all nine elected members came from California.

1128: Andrew (???) Feels that the geographical movement of the Worldcons and with members elected at each Worldcon means ensures regional diversity.

1130: Motion to refer this to a committee. Motion fails.

1132: And then the new amendment passes.

1134: Meeting is adjourned.

ETA1: Corrected name spelling of “Collin” to “Colin.”

ETA2: More name corrections thanks to the lovely commenters. :)

Categories
worldcon

[Worldcon] WSFS Preliminary Meeting: Motions, motions everywhere.

1011: Meeting called to order, committee is introduced, ground rules noted.

1014: Going over the agenda for the preliminary business meeting. There are no constitutional amendments up for ratification this year.

1016: No objections to following agenda as stated.

1017: The YA Hugo has been withdrawn. Unanimous consent asked to withdraw that motion. Objection–the YA Hugo motion will remain.

1019: 4.1.1 (Worldcon Publications) Added to main meeting agenda I didn’t catch the debate time [This has to do with if publications will be paper, electronic, etc.]

1022: 4.1.2 (No Representation Without Taxation) debate time considered, set at 10 minutes, added to main meeting [This is the motion that will disallows Hugo voting rights being sold at a cheaper rate than supporting memberships.]

1023: 4.1.3 (Keep Us Together)  debate time considered, set at 6 minutes, added to main meeting [No memberships can be offered that don’t include all the key WSFS rights: Hugo voting, site selection voting, submission of business to the WSFS meeting, receiving publications.]

1023: 4.1.4 (Best Dramatic Presentation, very short form) Objection to consideration raised; 2/3 majority, motion will not be considered. [This would have added a category for films <15 minutes long, splitting that length from the Short Form category)

1024: 4.1.5 (Deleting Best Fanzine, Best Fan Writer, and Best Fan Artist from WSFS Constitution) Objection to consideration raised; HUGE majority votes to not consider motion.

1025: 4.1.6 (WSFS Accountability Act of 2013) debate time at five minutes, added to main meeting. [Adds more requirements/clarifications to financial reports.]

1026: 4.1.7 (YA Hugo) Objection to consideration has been raised on YA Hugo, the motion will not be considered. BOO I AM DISAPPOINTED BY THIS.

1028: 4.1.8 (Expand Best Fan Artist to Include All Types of Fannish Art, Not Just Static and Visual) added to agenda (I didn’t catch the debate time)

So if you think any of those remaining issues are important and you’re at Worldcon, you should really show up to the main business meeting at 10:00 tomorrow (Saturday).

…continuing on to some more amendments, these ones proposed by the committee. Theses ones we vote to adopt (if I’m understanding this right).

1048: We have now moved on to debating motions and amendments proposed by the committees.

1054: Motion to continue extending eligibility for non-American works by an extra year so that non-American works have a fair shake. Debate occurs. The point is raised that no matter where the Worldcon is held, the majority of people eligible to nominate for Hugos will end up being American. The point is raised (WELL RAISED SIR) “The rest of the world is not just one place. It’s a lot of places.”

1059: 99 votes in the serpentine for extending this extra eligibility for another year. There are five votes against. Motion is adopted, extended eligibility is in place for Loncon 3.

Okay since I’m doing this as a liveblog apparently just keep checking back I’ll post more if it’s interesting.

1105: Now we’re talking about extending eligibility for retroactive Hugos and god this is starting to get confusing. For the retros, we pretend to be the 1939 Worldcon and works eligible are those published in 1938. Extending eligibility means non-US works published pre-1938 would be eligible for this. <3/4 in favor (A LOT LESS, only a minority voted for this) this motion fails. I voted against because… yeah. It really did not make any sense to me.

1110: Motion to change the the vote for specific works getting eligibility extension from a 3/4 to a 2/3 majority. This is a constitutional amendment so it will go to the meeting tomorrow with 4 minutes of debate.

1112: Motion to change the blanket eligibility exemption from 3/4 to 2/3 majority.

1114: Motion to consider these two matters together… fails.

1115: Four minutes debate time set for the second 3/4 to 2/3 majority change, it’s added to the agenda for tomorrow.

1116: New motion: to make the eligibility extension for non-US works permanent instead of something voted on every year. Objection to consideration is raised, does not pass. We will consider this motion. This is a minority report proposal–the majority of the committee did not agree to this. 10 minutes debate time is set, this item will be voted on tomorrow.

1119: Kevin does a point of order to note we can set up a committee to consider the issue of the YA Hugo for next year with a 2/3 vote… so I think this is a thing that can happen when new business can be proposed? Apparently people are texting Kevin Standlee. A lot. GOOD WORK PEOPLE!!!

1126: By unanimous consent we endorse the activities of the Worldcon Heritage Organization.

1127: Resolution to tidy up something in the constitution (in regards to the eligibility section which is apparently a hot mess) is passed with unanimous consent.

1128: Motion to extend retro Hugo eligibility of The Hobbit. There was a objection to consideration, which does not pass. It is pointed out that if this were 1939, The Hobbit would have been eligible under current rules. This one is a tough call, I think. <3/4 in favor, motion fails.

1135: Motion to extend retro Hugo eligibility of films released prior to 1937. Objection to consideration, objection stands, we do not consider.

1136: Kevin Standlee is back! He proposes committee to study the YA Hugo issue. Seconded by several people including me. Unanimous consent, the committee will be appointed. Kevin has said he will be willing to be appointed to it.

1139: Question raised: Young Adults themselves can be on this committee because there is no age limit they can be part of it.

1139: People can volunteer by contacting the Chair by the end of the business meeting (the end of the Saturday or Sunday meeting). Kevin Standlee clarifies that the committee chair can appoint new members to the committee with the Chair’s permission; this is apparently SOP. If you want the YA Hugo to happen, this is a big step. Involve yourself in the committee. To volunteer for the committee you need to contact the WSFS Chair, Donald Eastlake, by the end of the business meeting, so no later than Sunday when that the meeting ends.

1146: We have moved on to financial reports and my eyes have kind of glazed over.

1151: There is applauding and cheering when Aussiecon says they have at last gotten all their funds taken care of and they’re done.

1200: The agenda for today is done, at exactly noon.

1201: Kevin Standlee, bless him, asks for a quick summary of what will be at the meeting tomorrow.

Categories
worldcon

[Worldcon] The WSFS Business Meeting: How the F*** Does It Work?

Normally I don’t bother putting my notes online until after the convention because I’d rather be going to more panels and taking more notes, but I wanted to put this up immediately because I consider it important and there weren’t a whole lot of people at the panel. And while I’m sure a lot of vets already know this stuff, I didn’t. Hell, I didn’t even know I could go to the WSFS meeting last year! (If you are at Worldcon, GO TO IT.)

First off, let me explain why you really really should care about the WSFS meeting. This is the place where amendments to the constitution of the WSFS are decided. Which means, in a very practical sense, this is how we decide how the Hugo Awards will work. (Among other things, obviously, but to me the Hugos are what has my attention.) Never forget that the Hugo Awards are ours. They belong to everyone who attends Worldcon or has a supporting membership.

There are a few items I personally consider important this year:

1) The YA Hugo

2) The “No Cheap Voting” motion

3) Trying to kill the fan category Hugos

So yes, I think this thing is important. I think you should consider it important too. And here’s what I learned from just going to this panel. I feel more prepared for the preliminary meeting tomorrow morning. (Hope I’ll see some of you there.)

* * *

THE WSFS BUSINESS MEETING: HOW DOES IT WORK

Martin Easterbrook, Mark L. Olson, Kevin Standlee (K)

The preliminary meeting doesn’t sound like a big deal, but it’s where the agenda is set and THAT IS HUGE.

One of the items is object and consideration which is special motion. If 2/3 of the people in the room say “this is stupid, we shouldn’t discuss it” then the motion is killed. The person who made the motion isn’t even allowed to explain when this comes up. This means “we don’t even want to discuss this.” This is generally just supposed to be to kill turkeys; people will vote to keep motions even if they disagree with them as long as they seem like they should be debated.

One year they killed four motions in five minutes because someone kept throwing in censures for individuals they didn’t like.

This is not going to be a good meeting for frivolous motions. (There is a lot on the table.) Apparently in a past year there was a motion objecting to Pluto’s demotion.

This is a democracy where there are no elected representatives. If you want something to happen, you need to get out there and convince people to vote. Also need people who know the business meeting process well.

Mark: The single most important thing you can do in submitting new business (after just being substantive) is doing a good write-up of it. Express it in good, clear writing!

Audience: People familiar with the business meeting will help you write your motion often even if they disagree with it.

Audience: Is it required that the person who proposed the motion be there at the meeting?

K: No, but if you aren’t there, others will be able to interpret it as they like. The proposer gets to make the opening argument but that’s it. Once you submit a motion you lose complete control of it.

K: There is no point in debating constitutional issues on motions at the preliminary meeting. But you can propose to fiddle with them at the prelim meeting because that is the place where it can be killed or sent to the next meeting. Motions can be amended at the preliminary meeting and those are given five minutes of debate. (So people can take a proposal and really just rewrite/change/regroove it if they’re good at this.)

The motion is not yours any more. The only way to change a motion once it’s hit the meeting is with these amendments.

Mark: You can get into amendment wars if you think a stupid amendment is proposed. You cannot amend an amendment while it is under discussion.

K: Amendments are a pretty low ranking motion. You can stack up motions of different primacy.

Objection to consideration can only be done IMMEDIATELY. It has to be the first thing that gets done.

You are supposed to stand and be recognized; if you are physically unable you can call out. You can’t get in line by standing and waiting. You have to be recognized by the chair.

You don’t have to know all the rules. The chairman is supposed to know them and will help you. You can make parliamentary inquiries.

Objection to consideration is only for a constitutional amendment. You cannot object to consideration of an amendment. You have to just vote it down.

Things that are not constitutional amendments will be decided at the preliminary meeting.

Martin: “Tabling” a motion means two different things in American vs. British English. American = not going to come back to it, British = take it up immediately.

K: Use of “Table” as a verb is thus discouraged.

Moving on to Saturday. The agenda is set, the frivolous amendments have been killed, all non-amendments have been dealt with.

Mark: Committees are normally for incoherent motions. Happen maybe one out of three years.

K: First person recognized gets to speak. There is set debate time, divided between the two sides. There is a time keeper. Once you have finished giving your statement you sit down. The sides take turns until no one else wants to speak, you run out of time, or the meeting approves by 2/3 to end debate. A 2/3 vote can also extend the time. Normally time extensions are done by unanimous consent.

Don’t object just for the sake of form. It wastes everyone time.

Closing the debate and calling the question are the same thing.

[They use Roberts Rules of Order]

“I move to call the question on the stack” – that means getting them all over with.

Note: Debate does not have to be factual. You cannot interrupt people to correct them.

Mark: WSFS does allow the point of irrelevant interjection.

K: Sometimes amendments/procedure will eat up all the debate time and you have to ask more time to actually debate the motion itself.

Martin: If you have limited time, you really need to get your best speakers lined up and ready to go. Sometimes your supporters can be your worst enemies if they are incoherent ramblers.

Amendments are allowed that day. They are move to amend motions.

K: You can’t bring up amendments that were dealt with on the previous day unless there are weird circumstances.

If the chair rules on any procedural motion and you don’t like it, you move to “appeal the ruling of the chair.” Then the chair has to explain what they did and why, then you say why you didn’t like it, and debate ensues. “Those who wish to sustain the ruling of the chair…” It takes a majority opposed to the ruling of the chair to overrule; a tie means the chair’s ruling remains.

Unanimous consent

Aye and nay are rarely used: people started shouting

A lot is done by uncounted shows of hands rather than counted shows. If the vote is close enough, they do serpentine, where all one side will stand, then count off one by one.

Almost everything requires a majority vote. The chairman only votes if his vote will actually have an effect on the outcome.

If something is voted on this year, it DOES NOT take effect next year. It has to go to the next Worldcon, get approved there as well, THEN it goes into effect the year after.

Sunday is for site selection questions.

Mark: The formality is there so we can find out what people at the meeting actually want, not just what the loudest people want.

K: The WSFS is a LARP with Roberts Rules as the rulebook. There are people who go just for the entertainment.

Mark: I encourage you to come. If you speak, do your best to speak clearly.

Martin: Because of the restricted time, it can look like a cross between a magician and a sumo wrestling match if you don’t understand the rules.