But What If We Didn't?
On January 7, 2021, John Scalzi wrote an article entitled, "But What If We Didn't?" In it, he pointed out how the US Republican Party
...recognized there was a suite of political conventions and traditions that were designed to make it easier for things to get done, and that this suite of conventions and traditions were exploitable by denial.
They then proceeded to simply ignore conventions and traditions, and in some cases bright-line laws, and said, when challenged, "So what? Make me."
I am coming to the conclusion that on a much smaller scale, we're seeing this happen with Worldcon. Maybe not all Worldcons - not those run by people who actually care about the long history of the convention and its traditions and practices - but certainly by people who think that you're a fool to care about such things, and that Worldcon and the Hugo Awards are merely things to be captured and exploited.
I'm not solely speaking of the current year's Worldcon. I've seen this attitude among some conrunners in the past few years, and I've seen signs of it among people running Worldcon bids, where they openly scoff at things like WSFS, its rules, and its traditional practices and traditions. They don't care, and they think that anyone who does care is a fool.
If an individual Worldcon runs onto the rocks and doesn't have the sense to call for help before the ship goes down, WSFS can survive, albeit with damage to the ship of state. But if all would-be Worldcon runners think of the convention as a prize to be captured, rules be dammed, then I really don't know what happens after that. Auctioning off Hugo Awards to the highest bidder? Ignoring the WSFS Constitution and daring anyone to stop them?
It's not just the people bidding to hold Worldcon that worry me. The growing number of people who, since at least 2015 (and probably earlier, although I may not have noticed it at the time) who insist that if they don't like the results (of the Hugo Awards, or the Worldcon site selection), then those results should be ignored, the nominations or selections canceled, and the "right" people/sites selected. Who would actually do that and make those decisions isn't clear. But those people demanding Action Now are convinced that they are right, and I don't think they realize the harm they can cause by demanding that the rules be burned and decisions overturned just because they don't like them personally. Such calls for destructive action are just as bad structurally as an incompetent or venal Worldcon committee or people who want to hijack the Hugo Awards for their own ideological reasons.
In practical terms, if the members of Worldcon want to create an entity that would have the authority to unseat a Worldcon for defined causes, or to override the results of the Hugo Awards, they can do so, by changing the organization's rules. And if you say, "but that's too much work and it takes too long," well, I would remind you that by design, constitutions aren't supposed to be easy or quick to change. If you really can convince enough people in enough places that you're right, you can make changes. Ideally, you should be considering how to secure the barn doors before the horses escape and not depend upon "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But you had better be really sure you know for what you're asking. If you propose a new structure, ask yourself, "How easy would this be able to be turned against things I personally like?"
...recognized there was a suite of political conventions and traditions that were designed to make it easier for things to get done, and that this suite of conventions and traditions were exploitable by denial.
They then proceeded to simply ignore conventions and traditions, and in some cases bright-line laws, and said, when challenged, "So what? Make me."
I am coming to the conclusion that on a much smaller scale, we're seeing this happen with Worldcon. Maybe not all Worldcons - not those run by people who actually care about the long history of the convention and its traditions and practices - but certainly by people who think that you're a fool to care about such things, and that Worldcon and the Hugo Awards are merely things to be captured and exploited.
I'm not solely speaking of the current year's Worldcon. I've seen this attitude among some conrunners in the past few years, and I've seen signs of it among people running Worldcon bids, where they openly scoff at things like WSFS, its rules, and its traditional practices and traditions. They don't care, and they think that anyone who does care is a fool.
If an individual Worldcon runs onto the rocks and doesn't have the sense to call for help before the ship goes down, WSFS can survive, albeit with damage to the ship of state. But if all would-be Worldcon runners think of the convention as a prize to be captured, rules be dammed, then I really don't know what happens after that. Auctioning off Hugo Awards to the highest bidder? Ignoring the WSFS Constitution and daring anyone to stop them?
It's not just the people bidding to hold Worldcon that worry me. The growing number of people who, since at least 2015 (and probably earlier, although I may not have noticed it at the time) who insist that if they don't like the results (of the Hugo Awards, or the Worldcon site selection), then those results should be ignored, the nominations or selections canceled, and the "right" people/sites selected. Who would actually do that and make those decisions isn't clear. But those people demanding Action Now are convinced that they are right, and I don't think they realize the harm they can cause by demanding that the rules be burned and decisions overturned just because they don't like them personally. Such calls for destructive action are just as bad structurally as an incompetent or venal Worldcon committee or people who want to hijack the Hugo Awards for their own ideological reasons.
In practical terms, if the members of Worldcon want to create an entity that would have the authority to unseat a Worldcon for defined causes, or to override the results of the Hugo Awards, they can do so, by changing the organization's rules. And if you say, "but that's too much work and it takes too long," well, I would remind you that by design, constitutions aren't supposed to be easy or quick to change. If you really can convince enough people in enough places that you're right, you can make changes. Ideally, you should be considering how to secure the barn doors before the horses escape and not depend upon "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But you had better be really sure you know for what you're asking. If you propose a new structure, ask yourself, "How easy would this be able to be turned against things I personally like?"