Tag: hugos

Categories
science fiction things that are hard to write thinking out loud worldcon

Drawing the line

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking, these last couple of days. Well, as much thinking as possible considering I’ve been getting about five hours of sleep a night and work is slowly consuming my brain, my soul, and probably my major viscera. (But hey, workshop day is tomorrow! Then I get to relax have severe panic about all the end of month work that I didn’t get done because of the workshop wheeeeeeee.)

Anyway. I’ve been thinking drawing the line. You know. The Line. The Line That Must Not Be Crossed.

It’s an expression that can have some real macho bullshit baggage with it, I guess because it makes for nicely threatening language. See anything involving foreign policy. But that’s not what I mean, here. It’s not about denoting territory in a power struggle, be it between international powers or people. It’s not about maintaining physical safety. Those are the lines you draw outside of yourself, whether you’re a country or a parent with a cranky toddler or someone trying to hold the distance between you and an evil shitbag that doesn’t comprehend the meaning of No–and that’s a whole different matter.

The lines I’m thinking about here are the ones you draw inside yourself. They’re part of the way you define and shape yourself into the person you want to be. They are yours–only yours. You don’t get to force your configuration of internal borders on anyone else, and no one has the right to reach into you and redraw those boundaries.

These internal lines read: if I do this, if I am a part of this, I will no longer be the person I am or the person I want to be. I will no longer be right with myself. Crossing these internal lines will probably never hurt you physically, but will wound you in ways that never heal.

And make no mistake, other people aren’t going to have the same internal lines as you; it’s never easy to hit a point where you think something is unacceptable, but your friend is okay with it. Being human ain’t easy because no two of us are exactly the same, and that’s another thing you have to decide for yourself.

But these lines are important. These are the lines you draw between yourself and the dark.

#

So why all the navel-gazing? It’s not really my style when I’ve got movies I could be bitching about. As you might suspect already, this is another dispatch from the gift that keeps on giving: this year’s Hugo short-list. In my previous post, I said I’d be doing my best to read all the entries with an open heart. It was the best I could come up with at the time, because my first urge is always to ask what’s fair.

But then I made the mistake of getting lost down the comment rabbit hole of Natalie’s post, and one of the people there invoked Orson Scott Card, Roman Polanski, and Woody Allen as similar situations to the Vox Day being a Hugo nominee. (Insert your own feelings here on if you think that’s even a fair comparison to make on the scale of artistic merit versus complete shitbaggery.) And god I wish he hadn’t done that, because I’d almost managed to stop picking at this particular scab and let it retreat to no more than a nagging itch.

I’ve already searched through this little sector of my soul in relation to Orson Scott Card. (For me, he’s the only really pertinent example, because in all honesty I’ve never really liked Woody Allen’s work.) I fought with myself, blood was drawn, wounds were taken, and I came to the conclusion that I have a line. There is a point at which I can no longer separate the art from the living artist. I cannot escape the fact that my support of their art, however miniscule in relative scale it may be, implicates me in what they then use their platform to do and say. It makes me complicit, if only peripherally, in the harm they choose to do. I said of Orson Scott Card:

If you can separate the art from the artist, maybe that makes you a better person than me. Feel that way if you like. But I cannot support someone who believes that me and many of the people I love and esteem are not full human beings.

If that’s true for OSC, whom I have met and actually liked as a person, it’s just as true for Vox Day. And I’m ashamed of myself for not having considered this sooner. Though I guess that explains why I’ve been so damn uncomfortable about this entire mess.

I may still read Vox Day’s story if it’s in the Hugo packet, because what little of his prose I’ve seen has been downright florid, and I have this “hobby” (some might call it a “problem”) where I watch or read terrible things and then go on seething rants about the awfulness I witnessed. So I might give this embarrassing shitstain in the shorts of humanity that much of my time. Or I might just watch a couple episodes of Master Chef reruns instead. The series where it’s all kids is super cute, after all.

But I will not be putting Vox Day above the No Award line. I gave up Ender’s Game because being right with myself was more important than a novel I treasured as a teenager. This isn’t even a contest.

#

You don’t have to agree with me. I don’t expect you to. These are my lines, not yours.

Feel free to discuss this with me. Feel free to offer me arguments (I’ll do my best to consider) or ask questions if you’re going to actually listen to the answers. If you think less of me as a person for my melodramatic little choice, well, it is what it is. This is personal. I didn’t make this decision for you, and I sure as hell didn’t make it just to spite some guy I wouldn’t recognize if I bumped into him on the street.

It’s the end of the day, and I feel right with myself.

Categories
science fiction worldcon

Reading stories, wrestling pigs, the repetition of history. You know, the Hugos.

I edited my post from yesterday to add this, but I’m going to make it as a statement all its own too (with a little expansion), since I don’t think I made this point as strongly as I wanted.

While my sideeyeing here is mighty, I’m going to do my best to give the fiction in the Hugo packet an open-hearted read, within time constraints. I feel like if I’m going to complain about this uber-pathetic deck stacking, then it’s my obligation to not play into the game by letting my choices be made by anything outside what I read in the stories. This might be a good place to whip out that old Samuel Clemens chestnut about not wrestling pigs (because you both get dirty and the pig likes it). I’m pretty sure whichever way the awards fall this year there will be politics invoked as the reason whether it is or not.

I’m also well aware that I’m operating from a pretty privileged position here, so please don’t read this as a finger-shaking exhortation or some kind of judgment. (And feel free to argue with me on this one, I’m just doing my best and my best ain’t perfect.) At the end of the day you do what you have to do to be right with yourself. Where you draw the line for yourself is your choice, not mine. Relevant update on this notion here.I’ll be doing my best to read everyone fairly… minus one.

To be honest I feel a bit bad for anyone that’s gotten unwittingly caught in the crossfire of Correia’s incredibly unsubtle “sad puppy” campaign thing because it adds an unhappy shadow of doubt to the nominations, and that seems unfair. Then again, guys, you got nominated for a Hugo! It’s not like you need some random person on the internet feeling bad at you for that.

Also, you should read Kameron Hurley’s post. And remember that this kind of stuff ain’t new.

That is hopefully all I’m going to need to say about that. I might try to blog a bit as I’m reading. If I have time to read.

Until then–IT’S LEG DAY MOTHERFUCKERS ARE YOU READY

Categories
science fiction worldcon

Happy Hugo Nomination Day! (In which I go “Yay!” and sideeye simultaneously.)

I know, I drop off the internets for two weeks (I have a massive slate of excuses that I’m planning to elaborate on…soon-ish) and then two posts in one day! Zomg! But the Hugo nominations just got released, so I’m going to react in between moving my plate so my cat can’t get to my sandwich.

So, here’s the list of nominees!

First off, I’ll cop immediately to the fact that I don’t have as many opinions as I would like about most of the categories because the amount of reading I got done last year was somewhere between deeply pathetic and downright sob-worthy. (And much of what I did read was not published in 2013. Boo.)

I’m super happy for Sofia Samatar; Selkie Stories Are For Losers is one of those rare 2013 stories I did actually read and I loved it so much I nominated it so woo! I helped!  The Graphic Story category is very exciting this year (and god I’m already looking forward to throwing Ms. Marvel on the 2014 ballot, you have no idea) and I’m very happy to see Gravity and Pacific Rim in the Dramatic Presentation, Long Form category. Also An Adventure in Space and Time and The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot are my faves out of the Best Doctor Who Dramatic Presentation, Short Form category. Semiprozine and Fanzine both look exciting this year. And Skiffy and Fanty got nominated in the Fancast category and I love that podcast ferociously so YAY.

Standard congratulations to everyone who got nominated, particularly the five writers up for the Not a Hugo award!

So then there are the things that I’m just sideeyeing so mightily.

First off, Wheel of Time. The whole series. In best novel. Look, I get that it’s technically okay by the letter of the rules, but seriously? I just… I can’t even. And don’t take this as me just being some WoT hater. I mentioned the nomination to Mike, who has read the series and owns many of the books. He likes that massive wood pulp trainwreck in his own way. And when I told him about the nomination, he frowned and said, “Really? That had better not win.” SO IT’S NOT JUST ME.

I’m super disappointed that Her didn’t get nominated in the dramatic presentation, long form. I’m guessing it’s because it wasn’t as massively popular (or well-advertised) as any of the other movies, but goddamn it was phenomenal. (It very much deserved the Oscar it received for best screenplay, and every one of its nominations.) And of course Europa Report, but I had no illusions about that one even having a chance since it was a relatively teeny independent film.

Then the dramatic presentation, short form category. The Best Doctor Who category. But really, The Name of the Doctor? And frankly, I have such a hate/love relationship with The Day of the Doctor that I just can’t even start on that. I guess I’m just glad The Time of the Doctor didn’t get a nomination or I might have punched my fist through my laptop screen. Boy I can’t wait until next year when The Loofah of the Doctor and The Worrying, Hairy Mole That Should Probably Get Looked at of the Doctor battle it out against Game of Thrones: The Lion and the Rose. (I have never watched nor read GoT, and yet it’s very likely even I would vote for that episode because I am an adult human being with an internet connection.)

And then there’s this thing where my sideeyeing hits the sort of level that might indicate incipient eye strain. Natalie Luhrs posted at her blog and there’s also a bit about it over at File770, which is basically the fact that several of the nominees were on sample ballots pushed by the dreaded Vox Day and the not-dreaded-and-is-probably-a-perfectly-nice-dude-in-person-but-online-sounds-like-a-real-asshole Larry Correia.

Now, I have no idea about the quality of most of the work on the ballot this year. I didn’t put nominees in a lot of the categories because I didn’t get to read much new stuff, which is kind of the point. It goes without saying that you shouldn’t nominate things you haven’t read. And for all I know right now, these are all equally fantastic damn stories; I look forward to finding out when I read them. In fact, I had no thoughts beyond, “Oh hey, good for you Brad Torgersen, two nominations!” and so on until I heard about this grossness. (Exception: I did think, “Wow, the Prince of Darkness got nominated for a Hugo? What the hell does that story do, press and iron your shirts while you read?”)

People post their personal ballot picks all the time. I actually look at those when the nomination period is drawing close so I can try to squeeze in a few more things to read and get a better spread on my own nominations. But there is a subtle but very important distinction between, “So this is who I’m going to nominate” and actively exhorting your followers to pony up the $40 for a supporting membership and participate in a “Sad Puppies Hugo stacking campaign” because it’ll… make liberals cry or something.

Bonus points for VD trying to blame it all on the subject of his massive internet hateboner, John Scalzi:

It should be interesting to see how this all turns out. But after John Scalzi – how entirely unsurprising – laid the groundwork for the open politicization of the Hugo Award, it was inevitable that what had always been done quietly behind closed doors would come out in the open.

See! He totally did it first! We’re just doing it better or something!

I get that there is an element of politics inherent in award giving, particularly when it’s “big” awards–all you have to do is observe the Academy Awards to see that. And I get that there is a lot of deck stacking when it comes to platform. (Shit, man, I was just bitching about how a movie I thought was fucking amazing didn’t get a nomination because it was insufficiently popular.) Yet all you have to do is really look over the nominations to see that it’s not just the 900-lb gorillas that get on the slate for these things.

While it might feel good to tell yourself that the only reason the people in your in-group aren’t raking in all the awards is because fancy schmancy people who write stories you don’t like because there’s too much global warming and not enough guns are having a massive circle jerk and didn’t invite you, it’s also pretty goddamn sad. It’s “you plebes just don’t get my genius” in a different form.

It just seems really…pathetic. Yeah, that’s the word I’m looking for.

ETA on 4/20: And since I feel like I didn’t make this point strongly enough in the original post–while my sideeyeing here is mighty, I’m going to do my best to give the fiction in the Hugo packet an open-hearted read. Because if I’m going to complain about this uber-pathetic deck stacking, I feel it’s then my obligation to not play into their game by letting my choices be made by anything outside what I read in the stories. I’m also well aware that I’m operating from a pretty privileged position here, so please don’t read this as a finger-shaking exhortation or some kind of judgment. (And feel free to argue with me on this one, I’m just doing my best and my best ain’t perfect.) At the end of the day you do what you have to do to be right with yourself. Relevant follow-up here.

TBH I feel a bit bad for anyone that’s gotten unwittingly caught in the crossfire of Correia’s incredibly unsubtle “sad puppy” campaign thing because it adds an unhappy shadow of doubt to the nominations, and that seems unfair. Then again, guys, you got nominated for a Hugo! It’s not like you need some random person on the internet feeling bad at you for that.

Anyway, good luck to all the nominees! And may the odds be ever in your favor.

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] 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.