Possible WSFS Proposals

Aug 07, 2015 12:49


First, a proposal I’m very tempted to tack onto B.1.4:

I move to amend B.1.4 by adding {somewhere} “provided that the Hugo Award Subcommittee of a Worldcon can elect to continue the previous process of counting nominations until one of the following conditions is met:
- A prior Worldcon has used the revised method.
- They have received and accepted ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 3

billroper August 7 2015, 22:12:39 UTC
I think I see what you're trying to do here (i.e., make it cheaper for semi-regular Worldcon members to nominate for the Hugo), but isn't it self-defeating by making it cheaper for people who are sympathetic to Sad Puppies to do the same?

Reply

rono_60103 August 7 2015, 23:52:35 UTC
Actually, I'm wanting all of the persons nominating having at least a bit of a stake in the outcome. Since the nominating only memberships are available only to the same people who can nominate now without some kind of membership in the administering Worldcon, it doesn't really make it any easier for anyone to nominate.

Personally, I'm torn between two, almost mutually incomparable, desires: making it easy for more people - especially the largely younger crowd at anime cons, gaming cons, pop-culture events, who read and enjoy SF but don't feel that they can participate because of the costs involved (ignoring the chunk that feel any cost is too high); and to ensure that the process is not as subject to hijacking by outside influences for their own purposes. This proposal addresses the second at the expense of the first.

Reply


kevin_standlee August 8 2015, 00:55:57 UTC
Interesting! Note that I've tried to point out to people that have grumbled about any proposals that reduce the franchise by removing Hugo-nominating rights from the members of the previous and following Worldcons that those people are not WSFS members unless they also happen to have a membership in the current Worldcon. They are people who either were or will be WSFS members and who WSFS is granting a privilege (not a right) as a courtesy. Thus, IMO removing that privilege is different from, say, allowing only attending members the right to vote.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up