![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
renay posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
ladybusinessJust one year I would like for the Hugo nominations to open without controversy. Is that so much to ask? (Apparently, yes.)
Nominations for the 2024 Hugo Awards are open, although to nominate you need to be a member of the WSFS, either as a Chengdu member or a Glasgow member, by January 31. On BlueSky, the concom wrote:
I've seen some commentary about how easily we "caved" once nominations opened (these opinions sure made me feel awesome). The problem for me is that I start investing in each award about 9-11 months before that Worldcon opens its nomination cycle due to the Hugo Rec spreadsheet I and other fans build each year. That's gotten earlier and earlier each cycle, as more people who use review copy get involved in the project and want a place to record media.
Because of this, my investment in this year's nominations is already locked in. I've been managing rec lists for almost a year. I could throw that away, but I'm not sure what that would accomplish. Of course I folded like a wet rag; the work is already done, I'm tired, and want to wring a tiny amount of joy out of the whole cursed situation. But because of all of that, this statement from Glasgow is not strong enough for me. What I want to see:
I don't think it's reasonable to ask Glasgow to release statements lambasting individuals by name even if it would feel great, for me, personally. It could create lots of bad feelings for the current concom and it's more productive for them to move forward and make this year's Hugo process run as smoothly as possible. I can tell the Chengdu Hugo Admin they're a bunch of ethically hollow weirdos and that I will be haunting their future Hugo concom life like an angry poltergeist in perpetuity just fine myself.
Glasgow can release statements introducing their current team members and discussing their experience, like any concom might introduce their important department heads. Since I'm no one I doubt the Glasgow leadership would do this, but…I have been doing free advertising for their con since I set the 2024 spreadsheet to live. I have walked tons of people through how to get memberships. Given these things, it would be nice if leadership could find it within themselves to tackle these very small asks.
Elsewhere on the Internet, there's been rumblings of how to "fix" the award by simply disallowing people who have never attended a Worldcon in person from participating in the Hugo Awards as Supporting members. I know this is a niche suggestion that very few people are ever going to take seriously. However, every time something goes wrong with the award, this suggestion is trotted out by one or two people. I've been participating in this award for decades and did so before the idea of being able to attend the host convention was ever a twinkle of an idea. In fact, when I first started taking part more publicly, I was resigned to never being able to attend. I lived in poverty. I didn't see a way out of that poverty for the foreseeable future. But even back then during controversy that was a suggestion pulled from the closet of terrible ideas and waved around as if it could solve problems. I guess it sounds better than, "I don't want these undesirables with their IDEAS and OPINIONS to participate in the administration of MY AWARD."
Now that we live in a world where SARS-CoV-2 spikes set the terms for when disabled people can travel or be in spaces where the temporarily abled are fine rawdogging rebreathed air, the fact this suggestion is still being presented as a legitimate recourse to problems is not only weird, but actively bigoted. Instead of making it harder to participate in the process, maybe these folks could join us in the 21st Century and instead advocate for making the con more inclusive for Supporting members.
After years of work by a committed group of fans who followed all the extremely particular rules/customs around Worldcon Business Meetings and changes to the WSFS Constitution, the Hugo Award for Game/Interactive Fiction will be given as a full award in 2024. This is another reason I'm gutted about *gestures to everything*. This should have been a celebratory moment where we got to welcome new SFF fans who primary engage via gaming to the award. That's been made much harder now that the award has been given a legitimacy body blow, so thanks, Dave McCarty + Chengdu Hugo Admin!
The Hugo Rec spreadsheet has a sheet with a lot of big video games on it, but very few board games. The category was specifically built to accommodate a wide variety of game mediums. Regardless of whether folks plan to nominate/vote in the Hugo Awards (now or ever), I hope everyone goes and adds their favorite eligible board games and indie video games to the list. These sheets live on as general rec list and according to my stats they remain very popular.
This is one of the reasons I don't want to give The Hugo Awards up as if other awards could replace it. Very few other awards allow fans to change/add award categories. The process is unbelievably difficult, but it is possible. I'm also not sure what other multi-medium SFF awards beyond the Nebula are recognizing games?
For now, I've chosen to give the benefit of the doubt to Glasgow on the front end, with hopes for clarification as we ask for additional accountability. I've been in their position with huge projects full of moving parts that don't stop going because someone on another team decided to blow a hole in their credibility without consideration of the ripple effects. Maybe I'll regret it in 2025.
Luckily, that's a problem for future me. 🤪
Nominations for the 2024 Hugo Awards are open, although to nominate you need to be a member of the WSFS, either as a Chengdu member or a Glasgow member, by January 31. On BlueSky, the concom wrote:
Glasgow 2024 is delighted to announce that nominations are now open for the 2024 Hugo Awards, Lodestar Award and Astounding Award. The nomination period will close at 4.00 p.m. (GMT) on Saturday, March 9th, 2024. More info about the Hugo Awards, including full instructions on how to complete and submit a nominating ballot can be found on glasgow2024.org.
We also have a PDF version of the paper ballot which can be downloaded by members who prefer to submit by post.
All ballots, whether submitted electronically or by postal mail, must be received by the deadline of 4.00 p.m. (GMT) on Saturday, March 9th, 2024.
Instructions have been sent to all eligible WSFS Members by email. We encourage members to check their junk/spam/promo folders for this email. Worldcon members uncertain of their status or experiencing problems with the online form should email hugo-help@glasgow2024.org.
The Hugo Awards are fan-run, fan-given, and fan-supported. The works and creators with sufficient nominations will move onto the final ballot for the 2024 Hugo Awards, which will be announced later this year after the close of nominations.
At the time of announcing the final Hugo ballot, we will also publish the reasons for any disqualifications of potential finalists, and any withdrawals of potential finalists from the ballot.
The winners will be announced at a formal ceremony to be held in Glasgow on the evening of Sunday, August 11, 2024. Full voting results will be published at that time.
While members of both the 2023 and 2024 Worldcons can nominate for the 2024 Awards, only members of the 2024 Worldcon are eligible to vote on the final ballot.
If you are not yet a member of Glasgow 2024, see our Membership Page for information about joining the convention: https://glasgow2024.org/get-involved/memberships-and-tickets/
I've seen some commentary about how easily we "caved" once nominations opened (these opinions sure made me feel awesome). The problem for me is that I start investing in each award about 9-11 months before that Worldcon opens its nomination cycle due to the Hugo Rec spreadsheet I and other fans build each year. That's gotten earlier and earlier each cycle, as more people who use review copy get involved in the project and want a place to record media.
Because of this, my investment in this year's nominations is already locked in. I've been managing rec lists for almost a year. I could throw that away, but I'm not sure what that would accomplish. Of course I folded like a wet rag; the work is already done, I'm tired, and want to wring a tiny amount of joy out of the whole cursed situation. But because of all of that, this statement from Glasgow is not strong enough for me. What I want to see:
- An explicit statement that any disqualifications will come paired with the citation of the section of the WSFS Constitution the Hugo Admin believes makes that work ineligible. They almost hit this, but I want them to own it in concrete terms.
- A formal release introducing the current Hugo Admin team members, their experience with Worldcon and conrunning, and which of them have experience with our voting system.
- A formal statement on what they will do if the current Hugo Admin team members with experience in our voting system are unable to perform their duties. Who will we call on and what are their names/experience?
I don't think it's reasonable to ask Glasgow to release statements lambasting individuals by name even if it would feel great, for me, personally. It could create lots of bad feelings for the current concom and it's more productive for them to move forward and make this year's Hugo process run as smoothly as possible. I can tell the Chengdu Hugo Admin they're a bunch of ethically hollow weirdos and that I will be haunting their future Hugo concom life like an angry poltergeist in perpetuity just fine myself.
Glasgow can release statements introducing their current team members and discussing their experience, like any concom might introduce their important department heads. Since I'm no one I doubt the Glasgow leadership would do this, but…I have been doing free advertising for their con since I set the 2024 spreadsheet to live. I have walked tons of people through how to get memberships. Given these things, it would be nice if leadership could find it within themselves to tackle these very small asks.
Classism and Ableism? In My Fandom? It's More Likely Than You Think!
Elsewhere on the Internet, there's been rumblings of how to "fix" the award by simply disallowing people who have never attended a Worldcon in person from participating in the Hugo Awards as Supporting members. I know this is a niche suggestion that very few people are ever going to take seriously. However, every time something goes wrong with the award, this suggestion is trotted out by one or two people. I've been participating in this award for decades and did so before the idea of being able to attend the host convention was ever a twinkle of an idea. In fact, when I first started taking part more publicly, I was resigned to never being able to attend. I lived in poverty. I didn't see a way out of that poverty for the foreseeable future. But even back then during controversy that was a suggestion pulled from the closet of terrible ideas and waved around as if it could solve problems. I guess it sounds better than, "I don't want these undesirables with their IDEAS and OPINIONS to participate in the administration of MY AWARD."
Now that we live in a world where SARS-CoV-2 spikes set the terms for when disabled people can travel or be in spaces where the temporarily abled are fine rawdogging rebreathed air, the fact this suggestion is still being presented as a legitimate recourse to problems is not only weird, but actively bigoted. Instead of making it harder to participate in the process, maybe these folks could join us in the 21st Century and instead advocate for making the con more inclusive for Supporting members.
The Game/Interactive Fiction Category
After years of work by a committed group of fans who followed all the extremely particular rules/customs around Worldcon Business Meetings and changes to the WSFS Constitution, the Hugo Award for Game/Interactive Fiction will be given as a full award in 2024. This is another reason I'm gutted about *gestures to everything*. This should have been a celebratory moment where we got to welcome new SFF fans who primary engage via gaming to the award. That's been made much harder now that the award has been given a legitimacy body blow, so thanks, Dave McCarty + Chengdu Hugo Admin!
The Hugo Rec spreadsheet has a sheet with a lot of big video games on it, but very few board games. The category was specifically built to accommodate a wide variety of game mediums. Regardless of whether folks plan to nominate/vote in the Hugo Awards (now or ever), I hope everyone goes and adds their favorite eligible board games and indie video games to the list. These sheets live on as general rec list and according to my stats they remain very popular.
This is one of the reasons I don't want to give The Hugo Awards up as if other awards could replace it. Very few other awards allow fans to change/add award categories. The process is unbelievably difficult, but it is possible. I'm also not sure what other multi-medium SFF awards beyond the Nebula are recognizing games?
This Too Shall Pass
Any large scale change takes time. Will the WSFS survive? Who knows?! It's going to be decided by the people with the money, time, energy, and health capacity who can attend in-person Business Meetings. Fans like me who care about the Hugo Award (I know, but I can't just turn it off) but can't attend Worldcon two years in a row are at the mercy of Business Meeting attendees. Frankly, some of the talk I've seen from people that say they attend those meetings does not make me hopeful for the future of the WSFS. Until the Business Meetings are more inclusive of both con attendees with conflicting schedules and virtual attendees, no amount of bleating about Robert's Rules of Order will make them truly democratic.For now, I've chosen to give the benefit of the doubt to Glasgow on the front end, with hopes for clarification as we ask for additional accountability. I've been in their position with huge projects full of moving parts that don't stop going because someone on another team decided to blow a hole in their credibility without consideration of the ripple effects. Maybe I'll regret it in 2025.
Luckily, that's a problem for future me. 🤪
no subject
Date: 2024-02-01 12:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-02-14 03:21 am (UTC)