Paying to vote in the Hugos: why it has to happen, and why we should acknowledge that.

[seanan_mcguire]

All right: we're getting some semi-heated discussion about the idea of a "Voting Membership" for the Hugo Awards. This proposal assumes the following

Comments

[agrumer]

I was bothered by a couple of people in the earlier comment thread who seemed to be saying that they want to vote in the Hugos, but don’t care about the rest of the Worldcon. Why should the Worldcon care about them back?

(And I say this as a someone too poor to afford even a Supporting Membership. That cheap voter packet might be handy for me, but that doesn’t mean that I deserve to have it.)

[jennygriffee]

Personally, I didn't have it straight until a few months back that there was any connection between the Hugos (which I just typed as "Hugs." Hah. A hug to all nominees!) and Worldcon AT ALL. I was deliberately looking up Hugo-winning authors years before I ever knew that convention existed. So it's entirely possible that someone invested in the awards and interested primarily in the literature would kind of shrug at the con side of it, or even be confused and kind of push back at the idea of it being forcibly connected. I don't think it's malicious/careless so much as "the con isn't what's on my radar here; the books/etc. are."

(and I don't mean any of that to dis the con -- I really don't. It's just a matter of perception I'm poking at here. :)

[cortneyofeden]

I fall under this. The Hugos impact the literary world. Just because I'm a fan who doesn't find cons much my cup of tea, should I be penalized?

Instead of dissing WorldCon, I'm instead trying to support and applaud their contributions, even if I'm not interested in the actual con....

[agrumer]

The Hug Awards! Best Dramatic Hug (Long Form)! Best Semiprofessional Hug! Best Hugcast!

I’m sure there are people out there unaware of the connection between the Hugos and Worldcon - the award is mentioned on book covers, and the convention isn’t. But do you think there’s anyone who’s gotten to the point of agitating for changes to the WSFS Constitution without learning about it?

[darcy807]

My objection to the price restriction amendment has little or nothing to do with the possible pros and cons of additional membership tiers. My problem is with tying the hands of future WorldCons, giving them less flexibility to deal with changing economic, legal, and publishing climates. It's the same issue I have with politicians who make promises or pass laws about budgets or taxes which paint them into a corner when it hits the fan.

[seanan_mcguire]

YES THIS.

[cortneyofeden]

I've been getting a supporting membership for the past 2 years, and am SO far from being interested in the program they send. If there were a way to opt out of killing extra trees for that I totally would. So I would LOVE for there to be a voting membership. I am very conscientious about my voting, and only vote on the things which I know about. It being a less expensive membership, and better fitting what I'm interested in, wouldn't change that. I have a feeling a LOT of folks would rather not get the program, and would appreciate a way to get the voting packet without it, which would greatly reduce costs for WorldCon

[seanan_mcguire]

Silly, silly people.

[lauredhel]

It's not a matter of a simple epub->mobi conversion or similar; two novels were password-locked PDFs, which are not readily converted to anything else. (And the password had to be entered every time, not just once.) Some (a lot?) of us can't sit down and read a whole novel on an LCD screen.

The whole point of the voter packet is so that people can read and evaluate the nominated works. I didn't see anyone say "This isn't my preferred format so I shall huffily not vote for it as retaliation"; I did see some people say "I can't evaluate this novel, which makes it hard to vote for it". I had already bought Seanan's book, so happily voted for it, but Saladin's book just wasn't happening for me.

[bemused_leftist]

1) That the potential for voter fraud would increase with the reduction in initial price (IE, someone who was trying to vote-fix could buy three $40 memberships for the cost of two $60 memberships, thus allowing for a higher number of false/purchased votes).

Reducing the price might make damage by fraud LESS likely. Damaging fraud for a Hugo would come from some source rich enough to buy enough sock-puppets to actually affect the outcome. For example, a publisher trying to promote a mediocre book into a best seller, or a movie producer trying to get credibility for a mediocre or criticized movie. Sources with that kind of budget, won't be deterred by a $20 difference in price.

However the $20 reduction would mean a lot more people could vote -- to vote against that mediocre book.

The limiting factor on the publisher's fraud wouldn't be the cost, it would be how to escape notice. The more votes he'd have to buy, or hack, the more risk of getting caught.

[seanan_mcguire]

True.

[jillheather]

Or there can be smaller -- no novels -- packets for voting members. I have, generally, read all the novels on the ballot (or all the ones I want to read) but not even close to all the shorter works and I doubt I am that far out of the norm. Maybe this isn't feasible for other reasons, but it's another way to separate out a supporting and a voting membership.

[seanan_mcguire]

Yeah, but the packet is not a thing being sold; it's free, or the publishers would stop it.