Gatekeeping and the Hugo Awards, and why we all need to attend the Business Meeting this year.

I thought, for a while, that it was a bad idea that people like Jim (and Jim is a lovely person) won the Best Fan Writer, when "Real fans" didn't.

I managed to be convinced at a CONVergence panel this year that my beliefs needed to be re-examined. Writers (like you, or Jim or John Scalzi) are fans too.

If I was going to Worldcon, I would definitely be at that business meeting. The "take our ball and go home" vibe of this proposal needs to be squashed. Hard.

It boggles the mind. It takes all sorts to build and sustain a community. Trashing the Best Fan Writer and Best Fan Artist categories is like trashing the Best Student Film category at the Oscars. It doesn't diminish any of the more professional awards--rather, it demonstrates that hard work and vision are to be honored and recognized at all levels of participation in the sci-fi creative culture, which enriches the community as a whole.

Plus, it's downright hypocritical bullshit. This is a group of people for whom many were ostracized and excluded in youth, and even in adulthood. It's intolerable that many of them are so committed to ostracizing and excluding others as soon as they possess a glimmer of power themselves.

That pretty much hits it on the head, right there.

I'm not a fan of the old style of fan writing and fan art and fanzine that currently takes up 60% of the nominee slots in those categories, but ffs, I don't want to see the category eliminated. I want to see more people like Mark and Tansy being nominated, see it change as fandom evolves.

There are always people who want fandom to be preserved in formaldehyde, in a jar on their trophy shelf, the exact way it was in 1970 or 1980 (or, in some cases, 1950). Let's hope they don't win.

Yes, this. To both of these. I do have the money now to go to the occasional con, but I don't have the time unless they are job-related*, and most of my friends aren't literary SF fans, so I'm more likely to head to an anime or media con with them. And, to be honest, big cons like WorldCon are a bit intimidating.

I don't care if I get all the printed WorldCon material -- it would probably save both myself and the con-runners some cash to not send me them -- but I do want to vote in the Hugos. I want to nominate books and blogs and comics and people who make fandom awesome. I'll tune in to the livecast to watch the Hugo awards and squee along with the audience.

If I was going to WorldCon, I'd vote against any attempt to gatekeep fandom. Fandom is bigger than that. (What that? Any that!)

* Which tends to mean 'astronomy' not 'science fiction', though if I get better at outreach maybe I could run some 'science of SF panels'.

I know that some SF cons have science tracks, and even Science GOHs. Windycon has repeatedly been host to Chris Ready (formerly of JPL) who brings amazingly accessible lectures and presentations on astronomy that are always packed. So contact your local con(s) and ask. Please.

I am not going but I shall beam good mojo waves to ensure good and fairness triumph.

Without fans, there wouldn't be new fans of work... that doesn't feel like it makes any sense; please pardon, I'm quite tired.

But let's take Mark Oshiro & also your work (as Mira Grant for me so far).

Without the Mark Reads community, I would not have picked up Feed. Ever. I'm not traditionally a horror fan, and zombie books generally go in that category for me. Without Mark's infectious (ah-ha, sleepy puns) enthusiasm about this work, I wouldn't have done it. His fan writing literally generated more attention to your work, and is also quite skillful itself.

It just seems to me that celebrating that really sets the Hugos apart in an incredibly positive way.

I used to read Mark's blog and I lost the e-address - and now I have it back!
Because of arguemnts about Fanzines andFan works!

Fate, she is on my side.

Interesting, isn't it, how far from our roots sf/f has come? The Fan awards used to recognize the old, original fanzines, back in the days of First Fandom, when the idea of "fanfic" was pretty much unknown, and featured long impassioned articles about ray guns and FTL. They were the products of the folks who invented conventions.

I can't for the life of me see the reasoning behind getting rid of Fan awards-- "Hey, I know! Let's stop recognizing ourselves!"-- as Scalzi points out, there are several pro categories that attract less input. What does Stevens think the Hugos are for, after all? Does he want WorldCon to be the exclusive domain of the people who earn money from sf/f? It's gonna be a small con, in that case.

I don't know if you're following kevin_standlee's LJ, but he and I have been discussing this proposal over there. And not in any sort of way that's favorable to the proposal.

One idea that I had that he also shared was that the easiest solution to the problem would be to do away with the requirement that supporting members get printed copies of all publications, giving them electronic versions instead. If you eliminate the expense of printing and mailing, you can drop the cost of supporting memberships / site-selection balloting so that you'd end up making the cost of voting for the Hugos cheaper without needing to create a new membership tier.

This is, in my opinion, a lovely bit of jiu-jitsu and one that deserves to succeed. :)

I approve of this, since I'm not clear how many Supporting Members are members who want more than voting rights. I normally recycle all the printed material I get with my Supporting Membership. Heck, one could offer print publications for an added fee (to cover costs) for those people who do want them.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept of "A group organizing a set of awards, where the mechanism for selection is a popular vote by fans, thinks that they should no longer recognize work by fans".
Because that seems lacking in sense-making. ( Also the continuing issue that people who imagine the possible for a living want to stick to old-fashioned methods of production of content)

I honestly favor the expansion of fan categories, and like the idea of Dramatic Presentation having a Fan category - and not just speaking as a member of the Moebius Theatre cast whose Chicon 5 production of R.U.R. was nominated a while back. With the advent of the internet and access to production methods that allow for wider distribution of "fan-made" works, why not recognize them? Again with the lack of sense-making.

I don't really know what one does at Worldcon and have been wondering what I would be doing with all my time, but apparently going to a business meeting and voting this shit down is one thing because come on seriously.

And, you know, some rich asshole could easily buy a Hugo right now, and it hasn't happened to my knowledge. Hell, it would only have taken a few thousand dollars to buy enough memberships to get Mark on the ballot—by which I mean memberships for actual people who couldn't afford them, not sockpuppets—but I didn't do it because I have integrity, and we should trust the community to have such integrity. I joke about trying to buy Mark a Hugo because we did pool together money to buy memberships—and this was all done publicly, not behind closed doors—but you know? We made sure that memberships only went to people who were in it for the Hugos, not just for Mark. And at least one person has specifically said that she enjoyed the Hugo voting process so much that she's going to participate next year.

We created new Hugo voters.

That is a good thing. Full stop. I want the Hugos to represent the wider community, not just the same 2,000 people. That makes them more meaningful, not less.

- go to the business meeting
- go to panels
- sit in the various bars meeting people and joining in the various free-floating ongoing discussions with people you are interested in talking to
- go to the different room parties and meet lots of interesting people
- go to more panels and talks
- go to some of the 'big' events in the evenings

Really, my problem with Worldcons is rarely how to fill my time.

Sadly I took a decision that as I'm going to London I can't go to Texas.

Hm. At some point, you may need to think about security. What if Donald Trump self-publishes a SF book and sock-puppets X number of memberships (whatever level) and votes himself a Hugo?

I don't think Donald Trump really cares about having a Hugo.

Has he even heard of the Hugos?

This is the question that we should be asking ourselves.

Does anyone else find it interesting how this discussion seems to parallel ones regarding voter ID laws? Down to the 'We need to restrict this to prevent fraud and/or abuse' reasoning?

Ha, I was just about to respond to yarram's comment above because it reminded me of voter ID laws, and here you go making the same point. "Let's restrict voting to prevent voter fraud, despite the fact that voter fraud has not been a problem."

I went to one Worldcon and got freaked because I don't like crowds. I also don't have the money to travel. But I've been a fan for forty years, and picked up my first fanzine at a con in the 1980's and was delighted.

I don't think the money and willingness to travel one con should be the gateway allowing nominating and voting on the best of fan-based and professional sf/f. That's a tremendous form of elitism.

Should we mention that there seems to me no mechanism for members to vote at business meetings if they aren't physically present? Another form of excluding voices and votes.

I agree the fan categories should continue, and supported the including of a best fan dramatic presentation.

I'm firmly in the camp that I don't have a particular problem that the Hugo administration and WSFS operations side of things needs face-to-face engagement. Running any kind of organization which has lots of people involved is a big enough pain and moving everything to an online model isn't necessarily more inclusive either, at least not yet.

Plus the Hugo awards are the award of the Worldcon. They have the prestige because they've been operated in a fairly consistent manner for a long time and have history. Creating a 'best fan based and professional sf/f' award is perfectly fine a thing to do, but it wouldn't be a Hugo.

Yes it sucks not to be able to to go. I can't this year. And I'd like to see a mechanism for more online involvement and ways to engage better. But having run various clubs and organizations over the years, without an actual general meeting where people engage and you have people participate, it's really hard to come up with a structure that actually functions outside of creating some nebulous 'committee' who actually are more like the comic book SMOFs people talk about.

I'd strongly recommend reading kevin_standlee's LJ - he's run a Worldcon and goes lots with the business meeting. He's posted at length on what is involved in running a convention and how the business side of things works, with a lot of, robust, discussion on the nature of running a participatory democracy.

Is there anything someone who isn't physically attending WorldCon can do? Because our policy is to get one supporting membership for the nominating/voting rights for the years we can't go. This (for a number of reasons) is a year that we can't be there. The proposals freak me out and I want to do something.

Tell anyone you know who is going. I shared this link on facebook, because I know some of my friends are going (I'm not; I'll be at DragonCon). One of them is going with ten people, and he's going to tell all of them. Other friends aren't going, but shared the link for their friends who are going.

Getting the word out always helps.

IMO, I believe the 'eliminate the fan Hugos' thing will go down in flames, though it would be nice to be sure. The 'no cheap voting' one is less certain.

So, there's a two-step process here. First, go to the business meeting on Friday morning (probably at 10am to noon, but I haven't seen the schedule). Don't panic if you're late; these items won't be the first things on the agenda, though you might lose out on a seat. At this meeting, we aren't supposed to debate the actual amendments, but we can dump them ("objection to consideration," which requires a 2/3rds vote) and set debate time limits for the next day.

On Saturday (again, 10am is likely), the real meat of the matter begins, and that's where all the debate and voting will happen. So if you can't make Friday, don't sweat it, but do make Saturday. (The newsletter will have a report of the previous day's meeting results, so you can see if you item was objected to & dropped.) Debate may continue into Sunday, but it's unlikely. On Sunday, the business meeting generally gets reports, including the official report from the Site Selection committee.

For those who require it, the business meeting is usually provided with a coffee service. I can't guarantee it, though, as that's LSC's choice, and at $100/gallon, those things are pricey. Bringing coffee (or even a quick breakfast) is quite acceptable. Also, I suggest that people brush up on Robert's Rules of Order (http://www.robertsrules.com/) and read the WSFS constitution before attending. (The constitution is on the LSC website, or in your last big publication from LSC.) And come armed with patience: rules-making is never pretty.

One more thing for my list of reasons I wish I could make it to Worldcon this year rather than just being a supporting member. I hope enough people who are there show up to vote these proposals down in flames as they deserve. Metaphorical only, as real flames will likely have problematic consequences. :)

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this.

While there are a couple of other proposals that I'd like to vote on, this is the one that has me "this close" to figuring out a way to actually use my LoneStarCon 3 attending membership, even if it takes driving from San Diego to San Antonio and sleeping in my car.

I do not see the Fan Hugo motion getting anywhere; it may be be dismissed under an "Object to Consideration" on Friday. I see a head of steam building up online for people to attend the meeting to defend the ramparts and can only say that if the broader membership believes that the "Business Meeting regulars" support this proposal, I am sure they are mistaken.

The "price of voting" motion is more complex (declaration of interest: I am a seconder of the motion). I think it's important to recognize some deeper questions here: IMO a lot of people are making some significant assumptions in jumping straight to an advocation of low-priced "Hugo rights" memberships. Some quick thought experiments help to bring these assumptions into the open where they can be properly debated. But before I start - I see a lot of quoting of the LoneStarCon 3 $60 supporting rate. This is actually anomalously high. The average is around $50, and for Loncon 3, it's $40. Just something to bear in mind when deciding what "fair value" would/should be here.

REDUCING THE COST OF PARTICIPATION

I see many posts arguing that we should lower the cost of participation to raise inclusiveness. Let's take that to a logical conclusion. A pure Hugo rights membership could be FREE if administered properly.
Would this be a good thing? If $40 is better than $60, and the aim is to maximize the interest / participation in the awards, why not $20, $10, or ZERO. I would argue that if we really want to minimize the barrier, we should remove it. In fact I would argue that anyone who argues for a much lower rate to encourage participation and would not want a zero cost rate if it was possible, is being somewhat inconsistent.
Which means the Hugo Awards would no longer be the awards given by Worldcon members but an award administered by Worldcon on behalf of the whole SF community - something closer to the Locus Awards, say. Which leads to ....

WHO OWNS THE HUGOS?

The Hugos originated as awards given by the Worldcon member - a group coming from a particular heritage, which has its core built around Worldcon attendance. Worldcon membership evolves (slowly, but it evolves) and so do the Hugos. Anyone can pay the fee, join the convention and participate - but the current model and the way it is promoted provides a degree of resistance which tends to keep the Hugos oriented towards the will of Worldcon members. For me the fundamental questions here are (1) should the Hugos continue to be the "Worldcon members awards" or have they outgrown the Worldcon and (2) do the members of the Worldcon have the right to say "no, these are our awards - anyone can participate, but it's our right to set the (reasonable) terms." After all, I'm not a writer, so I can't vote on the Nebulas - should I have the right to demand a say in those?

My personal take on this is that I do feel the Hugos are given by the members of Worldcon; and we make it easy for anyone to participate through supporting memberships. Those memberships provide publications, contact with the convention, the right to vote on the future Worldcon sites, as well as the Hugo voting rights and Hugo Packet.

I welcome anyone who wants to "join the family" and be a part of Worldcon - and I've actively promoted the constitutional changes which enabled London to take the Supporting membership cost back to $40. But I feel that the Hugos do belong to Worldcon and it's reasonable that we ask people to invest a little in that (intellectually and emotionally, rather than financially!) when they participate. I'm concerned at a line of argument that confliates a simple recognition that these are awards selected and awarded by the Worldcon members, with an attempt to exclude. I simply see that recognition as respecting the origin and history of the awards. It may be that the Hugos could become an independently managed genre award, no longer connected to Worldcon, with massive online participation and 10000s of votes cast per year - but if that is what we want let's be clear that (a) that's not really the Hugos any more and (b) I don't think one can demand from the outside that the Worldcon membership has some obligation to go down that route, or to cast a resistance to that direction as elitist or excluding.

Colin Harris

I feel that the Hugos do belong to Worldcon and it's reasonable that we ask people to invest a little in that (intellectually and emotionally, rather than financially!) when they participate.

"intellectually and emotionally, rather than financially" is what I was thinking. But how would you measure that?

YES! YES! YES!


(This is me agreeing violently with you)

I've shared this around. That's all I can do - except hope.

I'm not attending the con as it is a little too far away for me, but I am all kinds of on your side.

There are lots of awards for SF/F--there are online awards, there are awards from romance readers (national level, regional level..), romance writers, promo blog/websites, etc. The Hugos are Worldcon community awards, limited to members of the Worldcon.

I constantly see on email lists "Go to URL [URL] and vote for my cover/my book!" for the promo sites and blogs and websites. Some even have directions on Hogu-type voting early and often--generally that is not from writers, but from fans enthusiastic about books by their favorite writers--about how frequently one can log in and vote! Some offer "premiums" to people who have gone and voted, presumably for them, in the competitions for who gets the most votes and gets the promotion thereby..

There is nothing external stopping anyone from setting up their own awards with their own particular categories and rules for entry. If someone dislikes how much it costs to join a Worldcon as a supporting member, which membership includes nomination and voting rights for Hugos, publications, rights for voting for the Worldcon two years in the future, and -supporting- the Worldcon which is expensive to put on and operate and organize, they can organize their own SF/F awards/organization set up for making awards. Again, lots of people have done exactly that.

The Hugos didn't come into permanent existence until rather more than a decade after the establishment of the Worldcon--that is, the Worlcon existed for years before it started awarding Hugos. The Worldcon did not come into existence as a consequence of there being Hugo Awards, the Hugos exist because the Worldcon members decided there should be awards, given out by the Worldcon, as community awards. Opening up the Hugos up to a fee level where generally it's noise level for the majority (yes, there are people who are in red ink territory. At the moment, $40 - $50 in the USA is the about the price of filling a car with a tank of gasoline) means that 'stake" in the outcome likely will be missing--anyone can join, and what criteria other than "I want my favorites to win and who cares about the Worldcon community?. There have been outright cases of fraud, even, in the nomination phase, even back before the Internet, when people had to actually mail in checks for membership, and when the price of a supporting membership was more than the cost of a tank of gasoline.

Well said, this is certainly my perspective too. I'm not too worried about fraud, but the loss of "stake" is significant.

This is, unfortunately, the unsquarable-circle when dealing with access for people with less financial means. If you lower the price enough to ensure the poorest people have access, it becomes so low that large numbers of more (financially) average people will see the price is trivial and will act accordingly. And I do think the price is meaningful - if you send a message that something has little value, people will treat the thing that way.

I believe that about $25 is the lowest we can/should go on voting rights before they get devalued.