Tag: liveblog

Categories
worldcon

WSFS Business Meeting – Friday Liveblog

Business meeting agenda for this year can be downloaded here for those of you playing from home.

Hey everyone, we are up and running. Meeting got going at 1000, we are currently going over procedural information. This liveblog will be updated every 5-10 minutes when something is happening.

1010: Suggested time limits for establishing debate. Old business first. E.1 E Pluribus Hugo, 20 minutes (no objection). E.2 30 Days Hath New Business, 6 minutes. Objection – but Cliff Dunn then points out that the time must be voted on first before we play fill in the blank. 6 minutes passes. E.3 The Statue of Liberty Play (12 minutes). E.4 A Matter of Days (4 minutes). E.5 Non-transferability of voting rights (20 minutes).

1013: New constitutional amendments. F.1 The Zero Percent Solution (20 minutes). Kevin Standlee reminds us via Point of Order that motions to postpone indefinitely, etc, are in order at this time.

1016: F.2 To Defuse the Turnout Bomb, Cut the Red Wire (20 minutes). Nicholas Whyte points out that F.2 (this amendment) is rendered moot by the passage of F.1. Meeting votes to take F.2 up first before F.1.

1017: F.3 If a Tree Falls in the Woods and Nobody is Around (20 minutes). F.4 Best Game or Interactive Work (30 minutes). F.5 Fan vs. Pro (30 minutes). Terry Neill moves to postpone indefinitely. I second. Cliff Dunn against the motion; the committee explicitly wants to bring this up for the purposes of feedback. Dave McCarty for – points out that attempting to perfect a measure within the business meeting is not that useful. Joshua Kronengold against – the committee could not resolve these issues. KJ for – suggests this meeting is not the correct venue for this discussion, particularly due to the limited attendance for the business meeting. Motion to postpone indefinitely fails.

1029: F.6 Clearing Up the Artist Categories Forever (No, Really, We Swear It This Time!) (20 minutes). Motion to postpone definitely until the Sunday session of the meeting. It would be the first order of business on Sunday. Martin then proposes to amend the the motion to propose definitely until Sunday and after F.5 in case F.5 is not finished before Sunday. Kate Secor points out that the person who put F.6 together is observantly Jewish and would prefer F.5 not be debated on Saturday as well. Motion to postpone definitely passes.

1034: F.7 One Rocket Per Customer, Please! (10 minutes). Terry Neil motions to postpone indefinitely. Seconded. Kate Secor against motion to postpone – this needs to be debated because Best Series has moved from the intent of the category. Nicholas Whyte for – feels this burdens Hugo administrators and circumvents the will of the voters and should not have our time wasted. Dave against – also Hugo administrator, disagrees with Nicholas. Ben Yalow against – Feels this solution is too draconian but should be debated and sent back to committee. Cassie Beach for – feels it is against the will of the votes to tie their hands in this manner. Give it more time to shake out, the category is still pretty new. Terry Ash against – again points out we need to have this debate for because the Hugo Study Committee needs the feedback.

1044: Kate Secor points out that the rules change C.1, which would allow items to be debated without passing/failing, would allow us to debate these things if passed. The Chair (Jared) points out that we could suspend the rules if C.1 passes and then allow it to come into effect immediately for this purpose. Andrew Adams moves to refer F.7 to a committee to report back tomorrow. As committee was not specified, the chair says he will call it the Hugo Awards Study Committee and put Cliff in charge of it (“Oh, thanks,” says Cliff from the back, to much laughter). Cliff asks what the committee would be deciding – answer is that since it has not been given specific instructions, the committee can do whatever they want with it. Terry wishes to instruct the committee to discuss striking “nor may any series containing an individual installment which has won a Hugo Award of any type in its nominated format.”

1050: At this point we are in the weeds. We are now discussing amending the motion to refer to committee. Joshua Kronengold against amending the motion because as guidance, it’s terrible. The committee now has the impression that this is too draconian. Let them figure that out and come back.

1055: Motion to refer F.7 to committee fails. And now we still have to set debate time. Ben Yalow moves to amend F.7 by striking “nor may any series containing an individual installment which has won a Hugo Award of any type in its nominated format.” Elspeth against since this debate could happen tomorrow. Rafe Richards for as it will provide a very clear idea of what WSFS wants. Kate Secor against, pointing out that the amendment will effectively render F.7 and F.8 the same. Perianne Lurie against pointing out that it is similar but not the same. Motion to amend fails. Now once more Jared attempts to propose a time limit for debate.

1102: F.8 A Work, By Any Other Name (20 Minutes). Rafe Richards moves to postpone indefinitely for similar reasons that people wanted to postpone F.7, for circumventing the will of the voters. Motion to postpone indefinitely fails.

1106: Onto the standing rules changes… but first we’re having a ten minute recess.

1117: Point of information, which I originally did not hear. At one point Jared thanked Jesi Lipp for keeping him straight, to which their answer was, “I’ve never kept anyone straight in my life.” Bless u, Jesi.

1119: We are back in session and onto the standing rules changes. C.1 Making Business Meeting Feedback Possible (10 minutes). If You Don’t Have to Print, Neither Do We (10 minutes).

1121: Kate Secor with a question regarding C.1; the slide with the standing rules changes notes “These items will be effective this year if passed.” Confusion regarding previous discussion. Jared clarifies that these will take effect at the end of this business meeting and the slide is a mistake. Slide is corrected in real time.

1122: Committee reports.

1123: Debate time for resolutions will be set after committee reports, per Jared, since those will be coming up today.

1123: Kevin Standlee unexpectedly gives the report from the Mark Protection Committee, as his co-chair is absent much to his surprise. Not a lot new this year. They are taking up registering Lodestar as a mark. Opens to questions, but suggests it’s better to approach him individually or come to the meeting on Monday. No questions, he escapes.

1124: Cliff Dunn asks if, though it is the preliminary business meeting, if we can do debate on standing rules changes. We can. Jared exercises his executive privilege to say we will finish out committee business, then we will do standing rules changes, then we will address resolutions.

1126: Nicholas Whyte is nominated to the Mark Protection Committee. Ron Oakes self-nominates for the MPC. They will be put in with the three people whose terms are ending. Perianne Lurie points out that we also need to move to re-nominate those whose terms are ending, which we hastily do. MPC voting will take place tomorrow.

1128: Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee. Don Eastlake says they combed through the constitution and found a number of places for improvement, but have chosen to not submit any of those this year as the meeting agenda was already quite full. They have documented in their report the changes that will have to be promulgated if E.2 passes this year.

1129: WorldCon Runners Guide Editorial Committee; Mike Willmoth reports that they have made progress. They are working on a new page for North American vs. non-North American WorldCons. Have spoken to many past con chairs to gather information for that.

1131: Jared exercises his executive privilege to re-appoint the members of the previous two committees. FOLLE Committee, Kent Bloom reports. They continue to nitpick away at various minor issues, particularly for the last two years where there has been confusion over who was where and when. Kent asked that the FOLLE committee continues and is re-formed.

1133: Hugo Awards Study Committee, Cliff Dunn reports. C.1 was proposed by members of the committee, but the committee did not have the remit to do so itself. They are working on a more clear process for issuing reports so that there is not a rush at the end. Clarifying subcommittee structure. Have set up Discord so that digests go to email to help email only people. Are taking steps to be more inclusive and transparent. The business meeting is a less than ideal way to deal with these things due to the need to travel; the committee’s accessibility via discord and email solves much of this.

1137: Nicholas Whyte objects to the continuation of the Hugo Study Committee as it has done very little. The amendments of this year are deeply imperfect and he fears it is a feature of the structure, not a bug. The committee had the time and chances to consult more widely with stakeholders and has not. The broad remit of the study committee inevitability of siloing. He suggests leaving the old structures behind and going back to forming committees as needed that will perforce need to structure themselves to be more inclusive of stakeholders.

1142: I am honestly not sure what just happened. The weeds, they are beckoning.

1144: Jared: “Is the member proposing to suggest the committee before reformed with specific instructions?” Joanie: “YES.” Jared: “What specific instructions?” Joanie: “I don’t know! Because you’ve never given us direction.”

1145: Oh god there’s a motion to go to a Committee of the Whole. Martin Pyne asks if there is a time limit. Jared: At this time… no. But we only have 45 minutes left.

1146: The nos have it, there will be no Committee of the Whole. The deputy executive officer’s elation is noted.

1147: Perianne Lurie moves to amend the resolution to reform the committee but have them elect a new chair. Which can be the same chair, but they will be directed to do an election.

1148: Kate moves that the cameras be turned off for this bit?? Seconded. Unsure what’s going on.

1150: This motion is debatable. Kate asks for the cameras to be off because since people are going to come up by name during discussion of successes and failings, we need not capture this for posterity on youtube.

1153: Against, member of the committee who believes these discussions could be useful to future WorldCons. Elspeth also for, the internet is forever.

1155: Olav Rokne against, because all records are important for further information, for historical knowledge of debate. This is important historical record for why decisions were made.

1157: Terry Ash for, on the committee and notes that the discussions at the end got nasty and she does not feel it needs to live on youtube forever.

1158: Perianne Lurie points out that turning off the record further disenfranchises people. Vote is taken, motion to turn off cameras fails.

1159: Now back to the amendment which I don’t even remember what it was… oh wait it’s the vote on the committee leadership. Martin against; rather than voting on a chairman, one should be appointed.

1201: Motion to amend the instructions to the committee fails. Motion to reform the committee also fails. The Hugo Study Committee is disbanded. Kent Bloom moves to thank the committee for its efforts over the last five years. Seconded by many. The committee is thanked for its efforts to applause.

1202: Site Selection Review Committee has no report per Jared, who is the chair. They go bye-bye.

1203: Financial reports. Martin Pyne has a question about DisCon and Chengdu and… I am not sure what this is. John here for DisCon and he apologizes for not being Mary Robinette Kowal for so many reasons. DisCon is holding the funds in trust for Chengdu but they are having a hard time getting the money forwarded. Ben Yallow, co-chair of Chengdu; because of the complexities of transferring money to China, they are in the process of setting up a new 501(2)3 corp in America that will be able to get the funds. The new corp will be located in… Wyoming.

1205: Kate Secor asks if the data for the finance will be transferred to the US or Chinese corporation, RE: data protection laws. Per John, the paper copies of the info have already been given the Chengdu.

1206: Cliff asks if there is a timeline for when Chengdu expects to open back up supporting memberships for those who were unable to participate in site selection last year. Per Ben Yalow, they are basically waiting on the banks so they can get the credit card processing in place and that’s what the holdup is.

1208: Motion to censure committee of Sasquan from Linda Deneroff: the financial reports have been functionally unchanged for years; they claim they will give $500 scholarships for SMOFCon or ConComCon but with no information on how these scholarships will be distributed. They are not contributing meaningfully to greater fandom.

1210: Mike Willmoth, vice-char of Sasquan. They had a lot of excess money due to the controversy we all know about. They sent a lot of money out after the convention. Gives examples of money that was sent out. Feels it is very unfair to censure Sasquan for these things when they have contributed a lot of other things feels like a shot in the foot. Kent Bloom indicates the WorldCon Heritage Association, which received a substantial contribution after Sasquan closed its books. Feels the remaining amount, which is really just failure to finish, does not warrant a censure, maybe just a kick in the “you-know-what.” Ben Yalow feels a resolution of censure is an extreme measure that should be applied very carefully; Sasquan has complied with the constitution.

1213: Motion to censure Sasquan fails. Linda notes that MidAmeriCon has not submitted a financial report and is strongly requested they submit theirs next year.

1215: Question from the elder Mr. Dashoff regarding LoneStarCon’s financial report.

1216: Kevin Standlee moves that we deal with the resolutions since we have only 15 minutes left in the meeting. The chair moves for unanimous consent to take the resolutions up. Asks for unanimous consent for D1-4 to approve the Hugo eligibility extensions. All pass with unanimous consent.

1218: D.5 and D.6 are given 4 minutes of debate each.

1218: Meeting is adjourned.

Categories
worldcon

[WorldCon] Main Business Meeting #1 Liveblog

AND WE ARE LIVE.

Many thanks to Eric, for letting me use his phone hotspot while I’m waiting for my friend with the hotspot to arrive.

Usual rules apply; I apologize in advance for all my misspellings. Do not be surprised if personal opinions show up. I will be summarizing at times. Newest items will be at the bottom of the post, so it’s all in chronological order. I’ll be updating every five minutes or so.

Just waiting for the meeting to be called to order.

1009: The business meeting is called to order. Introductions.

1011: Rules are suspended to elect the members to the Mark Protection Committee since the number of nominees equal the numbers of empty spots.

1012: Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee report. Proposed the amendment to define North America for the purposes of NASFIC that is before us today. No more nitpicking for now, perhaps in future, less contentious years.

1013: WorldCon Runners Guide Editorial Committee. Catastrophic failure on the conrunner website; unable to recover from backup. Mike had PDFs of the site and they have extracted data from those and are reloading.

1015: Katie Rask gives YA committee report. Majority consensus of the previous year’s committee, YA was not feasible based on wordcount (which defines all other categories). This year was focused on considering a Campbell-like award for Young Adult. A Hugo in general addresses a work. A Campbell addresses an author. A YA award would address an age group. Basics of what a YA award would look like is in exhibit 2. (Exhibit 1 is comparison of the Hugo and Campbell.) YA award would be a WorldCon-sponsored award; each Hugo Administration committee is in charge of administering YA Award as with Campbell. Dual eligibility allowed.

1019: (YA Award report continued) Some issues need to be addressed by third committee, particularly naming of award and what the award would look like. Asks that committee is extended to address these issues. A Campbell-like award does solve problems that have come up repeatedly, particularly the definitional issue, and how it would be categorized. Last year had a discussion of how YA is defined. A strong definition of YA is probably not a good idea because trends change; best to leave it to the voters. If it’s not a Hugo, we don’t have the definition problem that has loomed so hard in the past. There is a huge variety of YA wordcounts; this is not a good definition.

1023: (YA Award report continued) Talked to a number of YA authors about Campbell-like award, got a lot of positive feedback. The award would name and honor (at discretion of the meeting) up to five books a year.

1025: Question from Mr Blog. Any feelers as to long-term sponsorships?

1025: Rask–we spoke to the Hugo Committee to see if a sponsor was even necessary. The Campbell has one due to tradition; grandfathered in. Because the YA Award would be added, it would not need to be sponsored. Not included in report since this would be best addressed in the following year’s committee. All expenses associated with this award are essentially the same as you get with a Hugo Award.

1027: Question from Ben Yalow. Has there been any kind of survey of the potential nominating pool? How many people who nominate for the Hugos actually read YA and can competently address this?

1027: Rask gave this in last year’s report. Numbers from LonCon in the YA track, number of panels, authors participating, author interest. The numbers were very large; most YA panels were standing room only. Numbers are very good.

1029: No objection to re-appointing committee for this year.

1030: Best Series Hugo Committee report, given by Warren Buff. Report is on page 67, appendix two. Appendix one is MIA.

1031: Buff–committee report was put online in July. Committee feels that industry has gone from standalone novels to long series over the years. A lot of in-series novels get nominated but don’t win. It would be good for the health of the Hugo novel category. Renewed eligibility because when a work is significantly expanded to effectively be a new work, it gets renewed eligibility. Committee feels that when a series is expanded, it becomes a new work.

1033: No questions for the committee.

1033: WorldCon committee reports. Are there any questions for any of the committees.

1034: Lenore Jones–what is the distinction between the LoneStarCon Reports?

1035: Ben Yalow is not an official representative of LSC. There are two distinct reports, one for LSC and one for Alamo. If any funds are turned over to a successor organization, that successor organization is bound by the funding report rules. Funds were turned over to Alamo, so they decided they were close enough to be bound by the reporting.

1036: Terry Neil commends the granularity of Sasquan’s report.

1037: Geri Sullivan notes that there is money in two reports money is given to the video archaeology project. Thanks all contributors who have given money to this project. More info in the fan lounge.

1038: Dave McCarty this is the final report for ChiCon, the money is gone, as soon as they file the papers with Illinois the corporation is no more, bye bye!

1039: Business passed on commences. First order of business is passed on from ChiCon–Best Fancast. (McCarty, from back: “Hello!”)

1039: Kate Secor for. This category has a sufficient diversity of nominees, and also the podcasts act as great advertisement for the Hugos.

1040: Question called. Ayes have it, Best Fancast is re-ratified and remains.

1040: Bringing up The Five Percent Solution. This will strike the 5% reporting requirements for short story. Kevin Standlee has a modification. Kevin wishes to admit to the body that he made a mistake. He got rid of every reference to 5%, a few of which have nothing to do with the purpose, which is to remove the threshold for being a finalist. He wants to strike the section that has nothing to do with the threshold, is seconded.

1043: Parliamentary Inquiry–if we modify this, will we have to re-ratify? Dashoff: this is a lesser change, so it does not require ratification next year if we pass it this year.

1044: Stephanie Sullivan wanted to clarify that final numbers will still be reported. Yes.

1045: No one wants to speak against Kevin’s amendments. Question is called, his modification passes.

1046: Mr Desjardins speaking for the 5% Solution. Points out that the vote gets divided too many ways for short story and in many years we have had less than a full short list for the category. The magazine market is larger and much more fragmented now. It’s much harder for any one work to appear on 5% of the ballot. Times have changed. The rule is no longer doing any good.

1047: Mr Yalow against the motion. When you get down to that level, there’s a lot of noise and not a lot of signal. The difference between fifth and sixth place is close enough to a random number that he’s not convinced that it’s real signal and not statistical fluctuations.

1049: Mr Quinn in favor. STATISTICIAN IN THE HOUSE BOOYAH. If the difference between 5th and 6th place is a statistical fluctuation, the difference between 5% and 6% might be a fluctuation too. The way we make sure it’s not a statistical fluctuation is the second round of voting on the finalists.

1050: Daniel Rico if no one is bothering to nominate it, it might not be Hugo-worthy.

1051: Chris Gerrib it’s not that there are too few voters; it’s that we’re spreading 2000 votes over a lot of nominations.

1052: Kate Secor (who does not understand statistics, per herself) motions to add a three year sunset clause. This is a lesser change that can be allowed.

1053: Dr Adams points out we have lots of data already and we don’t need a sunset clause.

1053: Kevin Standlee moves to end the debate and call the question. No objection.

1053: We will vote on adding a sunset clause first. Motion fails, no sunset clause.

1054: Now we vote on The 5% Solution. Motion passes, we get rid of the 5% threshold!

1054: On to Multiple Nominations. This will explicitly codify that you cannot be nominated in multiple categories for the same work.

1055: No one wants to speak against. Question called. Motion is ratified.

1056: Nominee Diversity. Mr Eastlake as maker of motion and speaks first. He made a study where duplicates (multiple episodes in same series, etc) have happened throughout Hugo Awards, but this has become increasingly common over the last 15 years. This really crowds out options and limits the choices of the voters. This would limit the slots on the ballot to no more than two per category.

1057: Question from Dr Adams. How will this actually be implemented? Will you be contacting people and saying “you have four finalists, you can only have two, would you like to withdraw two of them?”

1058: Eastlake–this sounds how it would probably be administered; this will be up to the particular administrators of the awards that year. This would leave the decision of what to be on the ballot to the author deciding what is most representative for them.

1059: Mr Matthews asks if there will be instructions on the ballot saying you’re not allowed to nominate more.

1059: Answer is no. People can still nominate as much as they want, though the provisions will be in the packet.

1100: Follow-up would this be up to the creator, or up to who has the most nominations?

1100: Answer is that this would be up to the administrators(?)

1101: Dr Adams is not satisfied with the answers given. Proposes to give to a committee that will report back tomorrow to clarify these things with minor change-type language.

1102: Seconded.

1102: Inquiry–section 3.2.5 is mentioned, what does it say? This is the rule allowing authors to withdraw a work if they feel it is not representative.

1104: Mr Olson against, doesn’t want to write too many of the Hugo administration rules into the constitution. If it is necessary, it wouldn’t be a lesser change.

(There’s some more back and forth, none of the arguments particularly stand out as new.)

1108: Colin Harris points out that every year, nominees are allowed to withdraw more broadly defined than in 3.2.5.

1111: Debate time has run out with regards to referring to committee.

1112: Ben Yalow moves to extend debate time by two minutes. Does not pass vote; debate is not extended.

1113: Vote on if to send to committee. It’s close. BUCKLE UP KIDS, IT’S TIME FOR A SERPENTINE.

1117: Motion to refer to committee passes. Dr Adams will chair the committee.

1118: Ten minute recess.

1133: Meeting called back to order.

1133: Next item is Electronic Signatures.

1134: Speech for Electronic Signatures from Terry Neil. Recommends that both electronic and paper ballots be available. Recommends particularly because international WorldCons are coming up.

1135: Joanie Brill Dashoff site selection administrator for last year. They didn’t accept adobe signatures last year due to a glitch.

1136: Kate Secor for. Enormous desire from the membership for us to do this. “Why can’t I do this online like everything else?” This motion doesn’t force us to do it right away; requires agreement of all parties. But we can tell membership that we are at least working on it.

1137: Geri Sullivan against. Says this would put the pressure from site selection and onto the bid managers.

1140: Cliff against; concerned we will get a flood of votes from people who don’t know anything about the bids. Brings up specter of ballot box stuffing by bids.

1140: For: A voting flood is already possible. Electronic signing might be required in the future. And everyone wants it. Being progressive as an organization is kind of what we do.

1143: Against: electronic signatures will destroy friendships(?). (Sounded like for to me, but hey.)

1143: For: the data privacy concerns are overrated; personal information can be separated out.

1144: Kent Bloom against. The privacy concerns are real. The idea that everyone can agree on my behalf is a false idea. My rights as a member are not having my vote available for anyone else to see.

1145: Seth Breidbart for; as a professional in the field, there are several ways that privacy can be protected.

1147: Proposal to extend debate. It fails. Question is put to the floor.

1147: Motion is ratified! Electronic Signature passes.

1148: The other business passed on has been postponed definitely to Sunday, so we are on to new business.

1148: Dr Adams asks if there’s a way to delay ratification on items not next year but until the year after.

1150: The answer would be no.

1150: Kronengold asks if we can add a major change that could be removed in the next year as a minor change functionally do what we want. Yes.

1151: We’re getting into some parliamentary shit here.

1152: Ben Yalow is the only person I know who can make an entire room laugh with parliamentary procedure. I cannot explain the joke. You had to be here.

1154: “Is there any objection to that resolution?” “Yeah, because I don’t understand it.”

1157: We’re having some delayed ratification problems here, folks.

1158: “Sunrise, sunset clause.” “I made that proposal on the SMOFs mailing list and was rightly shot down as stupid parliamentary gamesmanship.”

1158: We’re referring this ????? delayed ratification thing to nitpicking and flyspecking committee. Maybe? We’re trying.

1159: Kate Secor asks that the committee meeting be open. Nitpicking and Flyspecking FOR EVERYONE.

1200: Objection from Ms Hayes because she would like her husband for at least some of the convention. :)

1201: Motion to refer to committee passes. Those opposed are mostly the members of the Nitpicking and Flyspecking committee.

1203: Next up is Best Series.

1204: Colin Harris on our committee report for yesterday. We restricted ourselves to the re-eligibility criteria. Considered a number of options on merit: 1) Everyone can be permanently eligible with new material, 2) Exclude winners but allow those who had been nominated and lost, 3) Exclude all nominees. After some discussion we got rid of #3 unanimously because it would cause too much churn, and agreed with the original committee on #1. Winners should be perpetually excluded from nomination even if new work is added. Here is the language we propose to clear up things to be more understandable.

1213: Amendment by substitution for our modified language from committee. Ayes have it. Motion has now been amended.

1213: Now let’s actually debate Best Series.

1213: Warren Buff in favor. Commends the committee for improving their language. :) This is an attempt to bring our awards in line with the state of publishing as it has been in the last few decades. Passing this will help improve the best novel category as well as reflect the state of the art.

1216: Point of information from John Dawson, who was on the committee. This does not clearly explain what would happen if an author writes multiple series in the same universe, etc.

1216: Warren Buff says that multiple series would be eligible.

1217: Kate Secor against. We know there are going to be frequent fliers. Concerned this isn’t going to be great for the Hugos with a lack of variation. Also places a massive burden on the voters.

1219: PRK speech in favor. Juror in Australian award that recognizes series. For them, the series had to be finished. Additional works became a new series. Their best series demonstrated a significant difference between best novel and best series.

1220: Question as to how series will be defined.

1221: Chris Gerrib, the answer is, you all get to figure it out. Leave it up to the voters.

1224: Mr Bloom, a speech against in the form of a question. What if series-ception happens? We are getting into some deep stuff here.

1225: Colin Harris — if we vote for this, we are going to accept the judgment of the voters. There is no way to precisely legislate the definition of the series and it’s against the spirit of how we do things in general.

1226: Mr Eastlake points out that per the constitution, all of this is ultimately up to the Hugo Administrators.

1226: Terry Neil moves to add a sunset clause. I second. Amendment passes. There is a sunset clause set to expire on 2021.

1228: Question of moving the second clause from Mr Ilingsworth. Colin Harris points out that we split it up like we did to make it easier to read, but we want to keep all the text together.

1229: Back to the matter at hand.

1230: Best Series is passes at first passage. It will be on the agenda at Helsinki.

1230: Five minute recess.

1236: Back to order, we are starting with December Is Good Enough.

1237: This is a cutoff for which members can nominate, not which works can be nominated. Further clarification on what this all means.

1239: Question gets rapidly called by 2/3 vote.

1239: December Is Good Enough receives first passage.

1239: Unanimous consent for taking up Defining North America now. Insert your continental drift joke here. (Come on people, plate tectonics. We’re not in the 80s any more.)

1241: Kevin Standlee points out that the current definition of North America would require that we had a NASFIC if WorldCon took place in Hawaii.

1242: Question from Mr Matthews.

1243: Question as to why Alaska, Hawaii, and DC? Because something to do with parliamentary stuff. Kevin explained it, I promise.

1245: Warren Buff against the motion. Does away with too much fannish silliness. He opposes this motion because he wants us to keep being silly. :)

1245: Jason Spitzer against, why is this necessary? If we want to hold a NASFIC in a year WorldCon is in Hawaii, why not.

1246: Put question to the floor. The ayes have it. Defining North America passes on to next year.

1247: Motion to adjourn. The ASL interpreter and CART person get a round of applause.

1248: Reminder that site selection closes at 6 today. Informal EPH and EPH+ Q&A immediately after this meeting.

1248: We stand adjourned for the day.

Summary to follow, but I need lunch!

Categories
liveblog worldcon

[WorldCon] WSFS Preliminary Business Meeting Liveblog

AND WE’RE LIVE.

Thanks to Corina Stark for hotspotting her phone so I can use her data for this liveblog.

Rules as usual: I will be updating this post every few minutes once the meeting starts. Newest things will be at the bottom so this will eventually be chronological. Don’t be surprised if I interject opinions occasionally. There may be some misspelled or missing names as I go along, so this post may be corrected later. Apologies in advance if I miss your name the first go round!

The agenda is rather… robust this year. 69 pages. Already hearing a lot of comments about that.

We’ll be starting… soon.

AND HERE WE GO.

1009: Just going over parliamentary procedure for the meeting via a short video…

1016: Jared Dashoff calls the meeting to order and introduces everyone. Tim Illingworth, Linda Deneroff, Donald Eastlake, Lisa Hertel. Reminder that the meetings will be recorded and then loaded to youtube as quickly as possible.

1018: Point of parliamentary code, clarification on how we will be doing serpentines if necessary.

1019: Reminder today is the preliminary business meeting, going over what the next several meetings will be. If we are not done with the agenda on Sunday. we will be in this room UNTIL WE ARE DONE. Today we will be setting debate time for all motions. Any amendments are in order on new items, no amendments in this meeting for items already passed.

1021: We can vote on any resolutions coming out of committee today. Any motions coming from a committee report have to be voted on at the main business meeting. Reminder: we can postpone indefinitely today or object to consideration.

1022: On to business passed on.

1023: Kevin Standlee question of privilege: requests that all questions be spoken or repeated into the mic for recording purposes.

1023: Business passed on. Eastlake reminding us that there is a time dilation issue, so propose brief debate times.

1024: Yes, we can reorder items today.

1026: What if it’s a tie? Jared: Then I get to vote.

1027: Best Fancast. No objection to six minutes of debate.

1027: The 5% Solution. 10 minutes suggested. 4 minutes proposed and seconded. 6 proposed and seconded.

1028: Six minutes debate set for 5% solution.

1029: Kevin Standlee serves warning that he is planning to amend the 5% solution.

1029: 10 minutes suggested for Multiple Nominations. Several other times suggested.

1030: Time set at 8 minutes.

1031: Nominee Diversity suggested at 10 minutes. Time set at 8 minutes.

1032: Josh Kronengold moves to postpone Nominee Diversity definitely until after EPH is voted on. There is no objection to moving it until after EPH.

Everyone is being so agreeable so far.

1033: Electronic Signature has a 12 minute suggested debate time. Multiple objections.

1034: Someone suggested 20 minutes. Everyone else is opposed.

1035: Debate for Electronic Signature set at 10 minutes.

1035: Cliff Dun moves to postpone EPH definitely until after 4 and 6. Multiple objections. Cliff argues that 4 and 6 is the least destructive proposal and should be considered first.

1036: Mr Dejarden is one of the makers of 4 and 6 and argues that the effect cannot be considered until we know if EPH will be in or not. If EPH passes, he will be moving to amend his own proposal.

1037: Jason Spitzer seconds the least destructive point. Also points out that some amendments are much more difficult to implement. It would be a waste of our time to consider more complicated amendments when we could just pass 4 and 6 and end it there.

1039: Motion to postpone EPH definitely until after 4 and 6. Motion does not pass. Order remains the same.

1040: 20 minutes of debate time suggested for EPH. Multiple objections. Someone suggests 30. Oh sweet Jesus.

1041: Time set at 20 minutes anyway.

1041: David McCarty moves to locate 4 and 6, EPH, and Nominee Diversity to the Sunday meeting so we can see the Hugo data. They have a report ready for us (which they presumably can’t share til after the ceremony). EPH is being tested this year; the data is being run both ways.

1044: Gary Rob questions why Nominee Diversity is related to EPH and 4 and 6.

1044: They’re not actually related, but Nominee Diversity has already been postponed definitely until after EPH, so perforce it must move. Anyway, we have five data sets of EPH processed data we can look at on Sunday.

1045: Rick Kovalcik against: we have enough data now to shoot down claims.

1049: Call the question for postponing definitely. Objection because someone has remarks against. Some debate on how this works, moving to vote on the question.

1051: Motion to postpone definitely until Sunday passes. We’ll be looking at 4 and 6, EPH, and Nominee Diversity on Sunday.

(Missed a little bit of stuff here because I had to take a phone call.)

1057: Kate Secor argues that Nominee Diversity is an issue of itself and should be debated on its own merits rather than linked to other amendments that have no direct relation.

1058: I have no idea what just happened. We’re getting into the parliamentary stuff here, baby.

1059: Mr Bloom votes to suspend the rules so we can get ourselves out of this tangle and vote to just move Nominee Diversity back.

1100: We are now going to vote to move it back. Motion passes. Nominee Diversity is no longer on Sunday.

1101: Now we have to set debate time to 4 and 6. Much objection. Such suggestions. Wow.

1103: 10 minutes of debate set for 4 and 6.

1103: Now for the new items.

1105: Meeting back in order after a brief recess.

1106: Best Series. Motion to amend by Mr Kronengold. He wants to add a Best Epic category and some other portions.

1107: Mr Buff says this is the best compromise they were able to work out.

1107: PoI from Ms Seacourt question if this creates two new categories?

1108: Mr Kronengold says this would not create a second category, but would open it up for works in other categories that get substantially longer.

1109: Amendment fails.

1110: I object to the re-eligibility portion of the amendment and move to remove that.

1111: Someone from the committee speaks for.

1112: Kate Secor shares my concerns.

1114: Speech against. Mr Kronengold points out that he wants to strike the thing that prevents the same work from being nominated again.

1115: Question of intent. If we strike this part, will that mean the series can’t be eligible again or will be every year.

1116: Striking this would make it eligible endlessly? I would hope not.

1117: Mr Olson moves to return this to committee and return tomorrow with an up or down motion showing different consequences. Colin Harris will be chairing committee. (I’m going to try to get on that.)

1118: Now we’re actually going to set debate time.

1119: Ben Yalow brings up that the motion has been referred to committee and is no longer under the meeting’s control. Eastlake points out that we are still in control of our own agenda.

1120: How can we set debate time if we don’t know what the actual item will be?

1121: Motion to set debate time independently for the amendment and the motion.

1122: Colin Harris plans to come back with something simple and concise to clear up the intent of the motion.

1124: Setting debate time for the main motion. 10 minutes set.

1126: Setting debate time on my amendment. 6 minutes.

1127: Move to postpone Best Series and amendment definitely to after EPH. On Sunday. (WHY?) Points out that series are particularly subject to slate voting; he cannot vote well without knowing how the slate voting has been addressed.

1128: Rick Kovalcik says there should be as little as possible to do on Sunday. Motion to call the question.

1129: Motion fails. Best Series stays put.

1130: 10 minute recess.

1142: Meeting called back to order. Committee about series will meet after this meeting. Informal discussion of EPH, etc, will occur after the meeting tomorrow

1144: December Is Good Enough.

1144: Motion to suspend the rules to limit debate time per person so if there is 10 minutes, you only get one minute of speaking time. Etc.

1145: Ben Yalow points out that motions are sometimes complex, “I’d rather hear a really good two minute speech than a bunch of really lousy 30 second speeches.”

1146: Kate Secor points out that a motion to extend the entire debate can be made.

1147: Gary Blog wants to hear more opinions rather than just one person dominating the debate time.

1148: Warren Buff moves to amend so that debate time is automatically extended by 30 seconds until five people get a chance to speak.

1149: Kronengold moves to amend so that if fewer than five have spoken on a given side, the voting threshold to extending debate drops to 50% rather than 2/3.

1151: Ben Yalow brings up germaneness. Jared Dashoff rules it is germane.

1151: Question is called. Motion fails.

1153: Okay, now we’re voting on the limitation of debate times per person. This motion fails as well.

1154: Back to December Is Good Enough. Time set at 8 minutes.

1155: Two Years Are Good Enough. 10 minutes debate time set.

1157: This Year’s Hugos, This Year’s Nominators. Ben Yalow speaks for it.

1158: Colin Harris is against. The future year is a moving target with new members being added all the time. The future voters only add a few hundred to an already huge pool. Makes things more game-able(?). Believes it exposes the awards to being much more easily gamed in smaller years.

1201: Mr Kovalcik is for. This would have caused more supporting member income for MidAmeriCon.

1204: I speak against. I’m interested in more participation.

1204: Kate Secor for. Very valid point that it allows nomination, not voting.

1205: Speech against; point that this cuts off people who join after the deadline and they get no shot at nominating ever even if they bought the full membership.

1206: Warren Buff for; Getting people to join early and encouraging that is very good for the planning of the WorldCons.

1207: Adrian Foster against; the reason we started the two year process is because of the cut-off date. If we take the previous years nominators off, we should remove the cut-off date as well.

1208: Ms Rudolph acknowledges that the nomination process is broken/has some serious deficits. This will help focus the nominations on the people who care the most about the outcome of the Hugos. This only impacts nominations, not voting. This will discourage people who are not invested in the process.

1211: Ms Hayes against. Anyone who joined the day of should get something for that membership. (They didn’t get a chance to nominate/vote this year, so…)

1212: Mr Kovalcik when we went from one year to two years, it was hard to buy a membership. It’s easier to buy a membership now.

1213: Debate time has expired. Vote on the amendment by substitution. The amendment fails. This Year’s Awards, This Year’s Nominators FAILS. So we will be considering “Two Years Are Enough” rather than the stricter version.

1216: Three Stage Voting comes up. There is a seconded motion to postpone indefinitely.

1217: Mr Blog really LOATHES this amendment. Points out this will just make Approval Wars basically. Additional stage of voting gives the administrators even more to do.

1218: Colin Harris asks that this at least gets open debate.

1219: Mr Kronengold moves to call the questions. Seconded. Question is called.

1222: Motion to propose indefinitely fails. Three Stage Voting stays on the agenda.

1224: Mark Protection committee nominations. Three retiring members re-nominated.

1228: Moving on to Additional Finalists. Motion to propose indefinitely. There’s some scrambling.

1230: Now a speech against Additional Finalists as anti-democratic.

1231: Ms Hayes as maker of motion. It has numerous flaws. It deserves the chance to at least be debated.

1231: Kate Secor in favor of postponement. This is completely antithetical to the spirit of the Hugos and does not even deserve open debate.

1232: Question of postponing Additional Finalists indefinitely is called. Hands are unclear. IT’S SERPENTINE TIME, KIDS. BUCKLE UP.

1236: 36 Against to 81 For. Additional Finalists is postponed indefinitely.

1236: EPH+ is next. Mr Blog moves that EPH+ is moved definitely to be after EPH and 4 and 6 on Sunday.

1238: Mr Blog declines to give a speech in favor of his motion. Ms Hayes against. Because if EPH+ is better than EPH, let’s just talk about that first.

1239: Mr Quinn even if we pass EPH+, for this year EPH still matters.

1239: Question is called. Mr Dashoff reminds us that the way to show there is no objection is with silence.

1240: Motion passes. EPH+ will be on Sunday. Now time is set for debate. 16 minutes of debate time set.

1242: Defining North America. 2 minutes of debate time!

1243: Retrospective Improvements. Ben Yalow stands to move that the question be divided. He believes that 3.13.1 and 3.13.2 are sufficiently different that they should be divided. Seconded.

1248: Parliamentary scrambling, the conclusion is this is not debatable so let’s vote. The division passes.

1249: Kevin Standlee proposes dividing so it’s three parts and now two. He asks unanimous consent. Mr Buff objects. “I tried!” –Standlee. Then we devote anyway and the division goes through.

1250: Dashoff proposes six minutes per. Objection. Dashoff says debate time will be all three at once though. Four minutes.

1251: Universal Suffrage. Six minutes is adopted with no objection.

1251: Non-transferability of Voting Rights. Eight minutes adopted with no objection.

1251: Young Adult Award. Mr Blog moves to postpone indefinitely. Seconded.

1252: Mr McCarty says he has been opposed to YA awards in the past, but he thinks this should be debated. Applause for him.

1253: Question is called. Motion fails. YA is not postponed. We set debate time now. 14 minutes set.

1254: Motion to adjourn. Seconded. Meeting comes in just under the wire.

I’ll write a summary of this a bit later, time for my committee meeting. Thanks for following!

Categories
worldcon

WSFS Meeting #3 (Saturday): Liveblog

1153: Meeting is adjourned until 1000 tomorrow.

Continue reading “WSFS Meeting #3 (Saturday): Liveblog”
Categories
worldcon

WSFS Meeting #2 (Friday): Liveblog

1247: Meeting is adjourned.

Continue reading “WSFS Meeting #2 (Friday): Liveblog”
Categories
worldcon

WSFS Meeting #1 (Thursday): Liveblog

As a note, all the business (amendments and motions) I’m talking about can be found here.

Continue reading “WSFS Meeting #1 (Thursday): Liveblog”
Categories
liveblog movie

Snowmageddon?

So the TV is on and my friencd just turned it to Syfy and Snowmageddon. I think the movie is already in progress. I don’t think it matters. A giant snowball just blew up a school bus and decapitated Santa.

LIVEBLOGGING COMMENCES.

(If only we’d started drinking. Damnit.)

1358: Commercials. A tiny woman is watching a movie on an iPhone. Bowls of fruits are covered by CGI mold.

1400: Back to the movie. Everyone keeps looking up at a mountain that’s shrouded with clouds. I think this must be their displeased god who is chucking giant snowballs with them. Aha. They are in Alaska, I think? The man just said something into the radio about Alaska. The man in flannel is also Park Ranger. You know this because his building says Park Ranger.

1402: Okay so if this actually does take place in Alaska, why is everything green at Christmas time? I thought that was when it was endless night and snow vampires ride moose through the streets.

1402: Norm’s hurt really bad. Apparently. In a green bus festooned with greenery. It has a live power line on it. Which means no one can get in, but somehow Norm and his friend can lean against the metal sides of the bus inside. Because SCIENCE.

1403: Just like that, it’s over. No, blonde girl. It has ONLY JUST BEGUN. We don’t care about your family drama. Give me more snowy death.

1403: The little boy is a fantasy nerd who plays games. CHARACTERIZATION.

1404: Are they implying that the mountain is a volcano? I mean, the ominous look at the fake volcano on the game board seems to imply that. But that mountain sure doesn’t look like a stratovolcano.

1405: What have we got? A helicopter crash, apparently. Two blonde ladies struggle against the elements. Everyone has mouth blood and a head wound because those are probably the easiest injury makeups to apply.

1407: If you don’t touch the bus and the ground at the same time, you can jump free! WHAT?

1408: Two women battle desperately against a seatbelt. Okay then. But hey, you’ve got a snazzy quilt now! AND NOW THE WRECKAGE IS ON FIRE.

1417: We are still trying to figure out where the fuck these people are located geographically. Disaster on the mountain, blah blah. Sad people with head wounds in snow. There’s a guy that’s showed up with a snow cat after maybe ten minutes, so apparently the super snow mountain is like RIGHT NEXT DOOR to the green valley where you only need a little flannel jacket and geography, how the fuck does it work.

1418: Someone is going to attempt to fix the power situation with a pair of wire cutters. Nothing could possibly go wrong.

1419: Oh, we have improved from wire cutters to a sledgehammer. BEST ELECTRICIAN. He whacks the power thing with the sledgehammer. SPARKS!

1421: DOOMY DOOM DOOM SCARY CLOSE UP OF GAME BOARD AND NOW THERE IS AN AVALANCHE

1421: hahaha the guys is driving the snowcat away from the avalanche. Oh thank fucking god the avalanche overtook them or I’d be pissed, it’s like driving a car away from a fucking pyroclastic cloud.

1422: AND NOW THE BUS IS ON FIRE BECAUSE OF COURSE IT IS. This is how this movie rolls. The situation is bad. Things happen. AND THEN IT IS ON FIRE.

1423: The bus has now exploded. I repeat. The bus has now exploded. Farewell, Norm. Norm’s scruffy friend appears to have been thrown free of the conflagration.

1430: You have been buried by an avalanche. You are not going to be able to just drive the snowcat out. Even if you alternate between forward and reverse.

1430: MORE OMINOUS BOARD GAME SHOTS IN THE RUSTIC CABIN OF DOOMY DOOM. Rudy, the nerd leaves a note saying he ruined everything, it’s all his fault. Sure. Why not. Maybe he wrote the script for this film.

1432: No one is coming to help the mysterious town. It’s like they dropped off the map. THAT’S BECAUSE NO ONE KNOWS WHERE THE FUCK YOU EVEN ARE, NOT EVEN THE WRITERS.

1436: The people who were on the giant mountain with the avalanche are, five minutes later, down in the valley that appears to be somewhere in the pacific northwest, maybe. There is no sense of distance or time in this thing. At all.

1442: Wandering around, looking for Rudy. Now it’s the people off the mountain looking for him.

1444: MAGIC SNOW GLOBE OF EVIL EVILNESS. SHAKE IT UP YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO.

1445: “You think this snow globe is cursed, or maybe the globe cursed the town.” Lines that only an actor could deliver straight-faced.

1456: And now a town meeting about the snow globe.

1458: ASK NOW FOR WHOM THE SNOW GLOBE TOLLS. Something is happening. Yes, did you hear the bass rumble of the soundtrack? HAHAHAHA WOODEN SPIKES ARE SHOOTING OUT OF THE GROUND. This is kind of amazing actually.

1459: Derrick is on the ground and bleeding. I would find this a more believable and awesome death if he was actually spitted on one of the spikes.

1500: Oh back to Rudy’s game. It’s based on Hephaestus and Pandora! Pandora’s box contained a snow globe apparently! Yeah! And now it needs to be tossed into the volcano but… where is there a fucking volcano.

1504: THE SHITTY CAR GOT SPIKED AHAHAHAHAHA okay apparently my liveblog has to end because I need to take a shower and we are going to Chuy’s. And Chuy’s? Chuy’s >>>>> shitty movie. But it’s been fun. I got to end on a hilarious note.

Categories
liveblog movie suffering for charity

Vurping my way through the 50 Shades of Grey trailer

0014: Creepy piano music starts. We see frumpy lady in the elevator, startling as the elevator goes ding. Wanna bet that by the end of the trailer she will look supersexyhotinatotallyconventionalway because creepy dude semen has magical wardrobe-improving powers?

0014: “At least everyone’s white. I know that sounds kind of weird, but no one should have to put up with this abuse but white people.” <– my Latina housemate, y’all.

0018: Everything in Mr. Grey’s office is white. Just like the cast.

0020: Sleek blond personal assistant lady in grey power suit reminds me of Portia in Better of Ted a bit, except that was funny and not fucking creepy.

0024: IMPOSING DOORS.

0036: I think this is supposed to be sexy? Apparently he’s intimidating? I guess that’s an intimidating giant hand, rendered in HD on my TV screen.

0036: By the way? Pepper Potts did a much better CEO office.

0045: Worst interviewer ever.

0047: Oh teehee Mr. Creepy Dude! I’m the empty vessel frumpy female character who is here just for you to mold into a thing you like! Teehee!

0051: “Look at me.” “I am.” Presumably not for the first time, I vomit slightly into my mouth.

0051: Also, the big reveal on what Mr. Creepy Dude looks like? He looks like a random creepy dude you might meet in college. You know. The kind you wouldn’t leave you drink unattended around. Presumably he is what is known as “hot” by… someone. I’m guessing.

0051: Also, I disapprove of his tie. With a charcoal gray suit, if he wants to make some kind of dominance statement he really should have gone for the pop of color.

0104: “I exercise control in all things, Miss Steel.” LOL (then wouldn’t you think he’d probably need to loosen the fuck up in the bedroom a bit?)

0111: This has got to be the least sexy supposed-to-be-read-as-dominant-kissing-in-an-elevator scene I have ever witnessed.

0113: OH LOOK HE GRABBED HER WRIST AND PULLED HER ARM UP OVER HER HEAD. SO DOMINANT. MUCH SEXY. VERY STILTED. WOW.

0113: BEYONCE, WHY

0114: Please note that the word “Phenomenon” quite literally only means “a thing that happened.” So yeah. This is sure a thing that happened. Sure is happening. Right now.

0115: Oh god send me help please. Or whiskey. Or pepto.

0118: He has a helicopter. Whee?

0119: As predicted, her clothing is becoming progressively more fashionable and her hair less messy.

0123: “I had a rough start on life. You should steer clear of me.” SOMEONE TURN ON THE MANPAIN SIGNAL.

0124: He’s jogging! In a grey hoodie! SUCH MANPAIN. YOU MUST RESCUE HIM, WOMAN WITH NO PERSONALITY! FIX HIM!

0127: GRRRRR HE IS TERRITORIAL ISN’T HE SO SEXYBARRRRRRF

0137: So like, the thing where he’s touching her leg under the table at dinner. This would be cute or even sexy but this entire trailer is shot like at any instant the officers from Law and Order: SVU are going to come busting through the door.

0139: Oh boy. Lip biting.

0144: He also owns a glider apparently. Double whee? HE IS A RICH, EXCEPTIONALLY CREEPY WHITE GUY. IN CASE YOU HAD NOT NOTICED. SO RICH. RICH AND FULL OF MANPAIN.

0153: “Enlighten me, then.” Could this line have been delivered with less emotion?

0202: The red room. Montage of BDSM stuff one would find doing a google search. Wants to be sexy. Fails.

0222: Bonus for the soft sighs played in the background, which would do nicely if this was a movie about serial killers, I think. Third acidic vurp.

I have no idea who the target audience was for this trailer, but I’m not it. There was nothing romantic or remotely sexy about it. Rather, it read like a tragic cautionary tale about a woman who is stalked, emotionally manipulated, and used by a rich guy who thinks he has it rough.

So fairly accurate to the source material, from what I can tell.

This nauseating creepfest might well destroy my liver next Valentine’s day if my readers hate me enough. Hahaha well considering how I generally feel about that holiday and the way abusive behavior is often depicted as romantic, the release date does seem appropriate, doesn’t it?

(PS: This one isn’t coming up for six months. Wanna make me suffer through something terrible much sooner?)

Categories
tv

[Liveblog] Sleepy Hollow episode 3

This has been fun so far, so I’m doing it again!

Later: Hrmph. This episode was really not as much fun as the first two. But I guess they can’t all be winners.

Continue reading “[Liveblog] Sleepy Hollow episode 3”
Categories
tv

[Liveblog] Agents of SHIELD

The post game commentary, generally non-spoilery:

You know what I love about this episode? They came up with some bullshit retcon to explain why everyone in Avengers during the Battle of New York was running around and talking to thin air. Nicely done, Whedon. Nicely done.

Agent May (Ming-na) is my new senpai. That is perhaps all you need to know.

But really, this first episode was everything I could have wanted. It was playful, it was full of nerdery and comic book references, there were badass fights. It followed the tone of the Marvel movies well. So if you like those movies, there you go. I also felt, weirdly, like it had a somewhat more PG Torchwood vibe to it. This is not a bad thing, trust me. I liked Torchwood a lot. I cannot WAIT until next week.

And… the Agent Coulson thing. (Oh come on, that isn’t really a spoiler. They’ve been waving that one in our faces since the first advertisements.) I still feel conflicted about it. Agent Coulson was amazing in the episode, and it’s clear that he’s going to be the heart of the team… just like he was in Avengers. If he weren’t there, they’d need someone just like him. But there is part of me that just always resents the “no one ever dies in comic books” thing. Now there’s a bare hint that there’s more to what happened than just Nick Fury being a lying dickbag, so we’ll see. I’m curious where they’re going with this and…

Ugh, I just love Coulson. I can’t help it. Damn you Clark Gregg. DAMN YOU. I can deal with the story fuckery so we can have Agent Coulson, ultimately, even if I’m mad about getting my emotions jerked around in Avengers. I know, I’m the first person ever to complain that Joss Whedon didn’t actually kill a character.

Anyway, liveblog below the fold!

 

1900: OH MY GOD IT’S STARTING MY BODY IS READY.

Continue reading “[Liveblog] Agents of SHIELD”