Tag: worldcon

Categories
convention worldcon

[Conventions] A Modest Proposal for Feminism Panels

Screen Shot 2014-08-16 at 7.21.04 PM

Proposal:

From now on, there will be one token male panelist on all feminist panels. At the beginning, as every panelist is introducing themselves, he says:

“Hello, my name is _____ and I do ______. I’m a feminist. And in the interest of presenting an example as a good ally, I will now do what male feminists ought to do at times like these: I will listen.”

And then he won’t speak again for the rest of the panel unless asked a direct question. But he will nod and make sympathetic noises without ever being tempted to mansplain/condespalin or try to tell us how to “fix” things.

Categories
convention

LonCon 3 Schedule

Subject to change, of course. (Why yes, I am sitting around in a hotel room [possibly in my underpants because I forgot to pack pajamas] and catching up on all the shit I should have been doing for the last month. Why do you ask?)

Saturday

  • 16:30 – 18:00 – Just Three Cornettos
    • The Simon Pegg/Nick Frost/Edgar Wright “Cornetto trilogy” concluded last year with The World’s End, following Sean of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. What is the trilogy’s place in British SF? The panel will discuss why the films’ endings are so unconventional, what the trilogy had to say about topics such as society and consumerism, masculinity and maturity, and the British landscape … And they’ll decide which fence gag is best.

Monday

  • 10:00 – 11:00 – Mythology and Folklore in Anime
    • Fantastical anime often have mythical or folkloric entities at their core, Japanese or otherwise: the demons of Inu Yasha, the many retellings of Journey to the West, the dragons of Spirited Away. Which tropes and stories seem to crop up most often? Which creators are most creative in their use of mythological and folkloric elements?
  • 13:30 – 15:00 – Tapped Out – from Magic to Netrunner
    • Discussing some of the best things about card games, past and present!
  • 15:00 – 16:30 – The Scientific Culture
    • Is there a scientific culture? The success of The Big Bang Theory, XKCD and PhD Comics suggest that there is, but if so, what is scientific culture? What values and attitudes can there be in common between fields as diverse as biology and cosmology? What experiences and views are shared by scientists across such disparate fields, and why are they different from the experience and views of non-scientists? Is this important, and should SF writers and fans be taking notes?

 

 

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] Long in the Tooth?

Re: What Chuck Wendig said

I actually had that conversation on several occasions throughout Worldcon, in person and on Twitter. The population of Worldcon does seem generally a bit long in the tooth. And this is coming from me, Miss 32-year-old McAuthorpants, who has not been close to the cutting edge of Kids These Days for something like ten years. I felt incredibly young compared to the general age of the con. (I wonder if this is a statistic that is tracked in any way.)

(And for the love of all that is holy, this is not a slam against older people. Some of my best friends are older people. The point is, if you want to keep what you love rolling along, young and invigorated, you kind of need some people in it who are young and vigorous both.)

The first Worldcon I ever attended was Denvention 3, because it was in Denver. I was also an undergrad at that point, and despite the fact that my then-boyfriend was working full time for decent pay and I had a ridiculously well-paid summer job, the cost of the convention almost made me pass out from stress. Worldcons are shockingly expensive when you’re a student. I can’t imagine I would have been able to cough up the money to attend when I’d been a teenager unless I’d been able to literally talk my parents out of that kind of money if Worldcon had even been in my neighborhood at the time. (Now, considering my parents are both nerds and my mom is huge into reading, I might have been able to do so, but it’s not like I can travel into the past and find out.)

So yeah, then on top of the scary You Want Me To Pay How Much To Go To A Convention You Realize SDCC and AX Are Both Like One Half This Price cost of membership, there’s really a question of just how welcome the genres that tend to cater to that demographic are—I’m talking YA specifically. Now, I actually feel encouraged that at the WSFS Business Meeting, we at least got a committee going on the idea of the YA Hugo. But I also don’t blame other people for feeling discouraged either since the level of resistance to the very idea can’t feel so great. Sure, YA books have been nominated for Hugos before—but looking at the list, I’d also argue that generally happens when the YA book is written by an author who normally focuses on adult novels, so kind of pulls their fan base in to it. Not a comforting thought for those who write YA as the rule rather than the exception.

Then you consider the other committee that was formed, regarding the Worldcon membership issues that were up for a vote. One angle of that was the fact that the cost of participating in Worldcon is really prohibitive for anyone under a certain age or under a certain level of income. Seeing those issues coming up for votes (before they were sent to committee), particularly since they purported to address problems that had not yet occurred, came across as a little hostile toward *hypothetical* efforts to bring in fresh blood.

I remember my first SF/F convention—a Mile Hi Con sometime when I was in my early twenties. I felt pretty awkward and out of place at times because I was new to it, and felt very young compared to everyone else. And that one, I attended with a friend and we cosplayed as anime characters, which got us some very strange looks. (This was like ten years ago, please remember.) I honestly didn’t feel like I belonged there, like I wasn’t quite the right kind of nerd, and very little of the programming had any relevance to me at the time because those weren’t the books I was reading. I didn’t go back for years, and then I went because I was friends with gamers at the convention, and then because I began to write seriously. (It also helped that I’d lost interest in anime fandom completely at that point and needed somewhere else to get my nerd on.)

Feeling welcome at a convention is a major factor in getting someone to come back, year after year after year. And this is true whether we’re talking about young people or any other group that may be underrepresented. It’s easy to point out that, say, people can suggest new programming, but keep in mind a lot of young attendees will have no idea what they can and cannot do; they just come and fumble their way through and hoped they have a good time. Hell, I wasn’t a young attendee last year at Worldcon and I had no idea I could or should go to the WSFS meetings until Mur told me, for example.

A convention is an investment of time and money, and if you don’t have a good time and don’t find things that interest you, you’ll go elsewhere. Worldcon is a *huge* investment of money particularly. You have to feel like you’re getting something pretty special out of it to want to spend that much on a convention on top of travel and hotel expenses. If there isn’t programming of interest, people will go where they can find it. And from the Twitter chatter, I’m getting the impression that YA writers (our at least the ones talking to me) feel that Worldcon isn’t worth it, which then leads to the question of if their fans would think it was worth it.

I did meet some younger people there, though I’m total shit at judging ages and I can’t really come up with much beyond a nebulous sort of “appreciably younger than me” as a guess. And they were all writers—and being a writer in Scifi or Fantasy is a darn good reason to go to Worldcon no matter what age you are. I’m just wondering how many fans of, say, age 25 or below we had in attendance, and how they felt with the experience. If you’re out there, I’d love to hear from you.

Personally, I want more people of all ages because first, I love Worldcon, and second, I want more people to potentially buy my darn books. Get ’em young and keep ’em reading, right? Thoughts?

Categories
clothing worldcon

[Worldcon] Photos and wrap-up

IMG_20130829_173052_047
This was also my most dapper Worldcon ever.

This Worldcon was really different for me than last one. Last one, remember how I attended approximately a brazillion panels and took notes in all of them and posted them later? Yeah, this year not so much. I made it to a couple of panels–and nearly all of the WSFS business meeting–and took a few notes that I will eventually post. I also got to have a quick reading in the Broad Universe Rapid Fire Reading–thank you to everyone who came!

 

This year I was mostly focused on… sitting behind tables. I did that a lot. But the tables enabled me to meet a lot of very interesting people. And also let me actually talk about my books without feeling like an awkward jerk. Because hey, if someone actually comes up to your table, they actually want to know a little about what you do.

Though I’ll admit, a lot of my sitting behind a table was done with a glass of scotch or whiskey in hand because I was the fearsome DOOR DRAGON guarding the SFWA suite. It felt like my own personal party, because people hung out in the hall with me all night and my minions kept bringing me drinks. I loved it.

IMG_20130830_225942_452
So at five glasses of scotch, I turn into a drunken salaryman.

Definitely looking forward to my next convention–Fencon! And there, I’ll hopefully be on some panels as well.

Oh, and? I got to be very good friends with the Iron Throne.

Thursday
Thursday
IMG_20130830_123126_916
Friday
IMG_20130831_180740_749
Saturday
IMG_20130901_145706_369
Sunday

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] A couple quick WSFS notes

Guys at Worldcon, there is one more WSFS business meeting left for the weekend. Which is (oh god technically today, being Sunday) at 10:00 AM. This one is largely to do with site selection, but I’m guessing there’s a bit more business going on as well, perhaps?

Anyway, the reason I bring this up is that I’m not going to be able to be at the first hour of the meeting, because I am taking part in the Broad Universe rapid-fire reading which is also at 10:00. So if you’re not interested in the WSFS business meeting, you should totally come support us broads. Our dulcet tones and awesome stories cure hangovers, I swear.

But the other point is I WILL NOT BE LIVEBLOGGING THE SUNDAY WSFS MEETING. Or at least not the first hour. I’m planning to head over there after the RFR is done, and if anything interesting is still going on I’ll pick up with the liveblog there, but Donald’s been keeping things ticking right along so for all I know it’ll all be over with.

If you’re interested in more detailed information about what’s been going on, you should go to Kevin Standlee’s livejournal. Since he knows what he’s talking about (unlike me) he has much more coherent write-ups of the business than what you’ll find on my minute by minute attempt to keep track of what the hell was happening. He also has links to the various videos of the meeting, uploaded onto youtube.

For a roundup of other related issues, there’s a good set of links at File 770. I want to specifically mention Jo Rhett’s criticism since it came up in a conversation I had today withShaun Duke and Jen Zink of the Skiffy and Fanty show. From where I was sitting, staring at the backs of everyone’s heads and typing furiously in a futile attempt to keep up with the rapid fire of what was happening at the meeting, I… did not observe this at all. And apparently neither did the woman mentioned. I actually felt like Donald did a pretty good job of answering questions as they were brought up; I just found the meeting pretty overwhelming in generally because it was conducted at a very rapid clip (there was a lot of business) and it was also kind of like watching a D&D game when you have only a passing acquaintance with the rules. But obviously YMMV, we don’t all hear with the same ears.

Yet again, I would like to renew my call for volunteers to participate in the committees that have been formed to research various issues, most importantly the YA Hugo and the Worldcon memberships. I cannot give you definitive answers on who is and is not qualified to be on various committees, but guys, the only way to have a chance of effecting the course of these issues is to be involved. Contact info for the chair here. I’m not sure if at this point it’s too late to volunteer, but the worst you can get is a no, hey?

And also remember this, guys, for future Worldcons. If you are in favor of a particular issue, even if you are not financially (etc) able to attend Worldcon you can still roll up your sleeves and try to make a difference. The biggest determining factor for anything is who can actually be bothered to show up to the WSFS business meetings. Considering the number of people at Worldcon, there is a relatively small percentage that actually goes to the meeting (a bit over 100 people were there yesterday, for example, in a convention over well over 1000 people) and from what I hear this year it was even unusually well attended. You have the chance to make a huge difference just by lobbying your fellow fans who are attending Worldcon and will therefore be WSFS members, and most importantly convincing them to attend the meeting to support your cause.  (And not just once, but two Worldcons in a row since any amendment passed in Worldcon must be ratified at the next before it can take effect.)

I know particularly the YA Hugo issue gets a lot of people frustrated, because it feels like an uphill slog and people are passionate about it. But just with how I saw the news being spread this year I think we could all do a much better job of raising awareness and making compelling arguments. It’s actually a very, very positive step that a committee has been formed on the matter, and there’s now basically another year ahead where support for such a measure could actually be organized for next Worldcon.

I’m planning to attend the WSFS meetings from now on whenever I’m at Worldcon because they are important, vital even, when it comes to shaping the future of the convention and this part of the fandom. I’m hoping that next time around it’ll be a little less dizzying as far as the rules go.

Categories
worldcon

[Worldcon] Main WSFS Business Meeting Liveblog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1016: No objections to agenda as stated.

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

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

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

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

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

1022: Amendment passes with simplified language.

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

1023: Motion is passed.

1024: Now on to No Representation Without Taxation amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1041: New text read a second time by Donald.

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

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

1043: Expansion of Best Fan Artist category.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1055: Donald reads the new language…

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

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

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

1058: New language for the amendment passes.

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

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

1059: Moving on to candidate elections.

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

1102: Next, the amendments proposed by the committees.

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

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

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

1105: Merkel (???)

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

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

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

1107: Debate is up. Motion passes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1119: Debate exhausted, motion to extend debate fails.

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

1122: Financial reports.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1132: And then the new amendment passes.

1134: Meeting is adjourned.

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

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

Categories
worldcon

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

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

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

1016: No objections to following agenda as stated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
worldcon

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

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

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

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

1) The YA Hugo

2) The “No Cheap Voting” motion

3) Trying to kill the fan category Hugos

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

* * *

THE WSFS BUSINESS MEETING: HOW DOES IT WORK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[They use Roberts Rules of Order]

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

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

Mark: WSFS does allow the point of irrelevant interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

Unanimous consent

Aye and nay are rarely used: people started shouting

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

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

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

Sunday is for site selection questions.

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

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

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

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