Hugo Awards controversy

[gban007]

NOTE: People who are being told that they're awful, incompetent, that they and the thousands of people they know or know of are corrupt . . . decades of work, on their own time and own dime, and they don't matter until the one year something doesn't work.

They're people. People get hurt. They lose their temper. Dave McCarthy is impatient, gets fed up, and spouts before he thinks. I happen to be calm, patient, and I spend a lot of time and energy writing, talking with people. But my patience isn't endless, then I explode. I just don't say anything until I can keep my feelings in check long enough to respond. (Fortunately I have a lot of non-Worldcon friends I can blow up to.) No responses needed, folks just appear to need more data about Worldcon runners.

I guess the question for me is if they do know what they're doing, and have all this experience, why this year did they choose to override prior / established procedures to remove certain pieces of literature from the voting process? Why is this the only year with these apparent issues, when they say the prior number of years don't have these same issues? I could understand that more if it was new people, but existing people, who have run it for years, suddenly do things differently one year and breach their own regulations?

If it is all fine and just a one off, why did WIP censure Dave McCarthy / others for actions undertaken - and not just public statements but 'actions undertaken by the administration committee'? Why did a couple of them end up resigning if it is all just ?

Unless I'm misreading you, and you're saying that yes 2023's one was a scandal / issue, but it is a one off, and not some ongoing conspiracy as such, in which case I apologise.

 

[Bohandas]

The con should never have been held in China in the first place, as the voting for the locale was already highly suspect. When the first thing you do is change the rules to account for irregularities, you've already started on the downhill slope. And that's setting aside China's record as a totalitarian regime that routinely violates human rights. Just stop hosting world events in one party states.

Agreed. I will never understand what could possibly posess anyone to go to a place like China, or Russia, or Saudi Arabia or whatever by choice

 

[Bohandas]

Well, I have learned that there was a bit of a problem avoiding it.

Worldcon is becoming the Olympics of sci-fi and fantasy fandom. It is a big thing, expensive to put on, and often only marginally financially solvent. It is getting harder and harder to get anyone to volunteer to host the con. Many years, bids run unopposed.

I'm told that, two years ago, the bid from China ran unopposed. Protesting holding the convention there was understandable, but nobody offered an alternative.

Couldn't they have done the whole thing virtually over zoom or something? Or at least done the Hugo Award ceremony over Zoom? It's not optimal but it's better than China.

 

[Clint_L]

Agreed. I will never understand what could possibly posess anyone to go to a place like China, or Russia, or Saudi Arabia or whatever by choice

Make your own individual decisions for yourself. I object to offering support to tyrannical regimes by giving them PR coups, like running international conferences for sports or the arts. Granted this is small potatoes compared to the Olympics, but the principle is the same. And once you've made the decision to cooperate with totalitarian regimes, you start making other accommodations, as we see time and again.

 

[Bohandas]

What implication? All I meant is grat there's some people who have to be there because they're already there and can't leave, either because of travel restrictions or not having enough money to move. Contrast this with people who are from other places; they don't need to be there, if they find themselves in a totalitarian country it's because they made a questionable decision somewhere along the line.

 

[EKovarr]

I guess the question for me is if they do know what they're doing, and have all this experience, why this year did they choose to override prior / established procedures to remove certain pieces of literature from the voting process? Why is this the only year with these apparent issues, when they say the prior number of years don't have these same issues? I could understand that more if it was new people, but existing people, who have run it for years, suddenly do things differently one year and breach their own regulations?

If it is all fine and just a one off, why did WIP censure Dave McCarthy / others for actions undertaken - and not just public statements but 'actions undertaken by the administration committee'? Why did a couple of them end up resigning if it is all just ?

Unless I'm misreading you, and you're saying that yes 2023's one was a scandal / issue, but it is a one off, and not some ongoing conspiracy as such, in which case I apologise.

I guess the question for me is if they do know what they're doing, and have all this experience, why this year did they choose to override prior / established procedures to remove certain pieces of literature from the voting process? Why is this the only year with these apparent issues, when they say the prior number of years don't have these same issues? I could understand that more if it was new people, but existing people, who have run it for years, suddenly do things differently one year and breach their own regulations?

If it is all fine and just a one off, why did WIP censure Dave McCarthy / others for actions undertaken - and not just public statements but 'actions undertaken by the administration committee'? Why did a couple of them end up resigning if it is all just ?

Unless I'm misreading you, and you're saying that yes 2023's one was a scandal / issue, but it is a one off, and not some ongoing conspiracy as such, in which case I apologise.

Thank you for the courtesy, the reason I could calm down.

That is exactly what I'm saying. 2023 was a scandal, but it was a one off, the conjunction of a number of things. The administration committee was honorable: they took full responsibility for what happened on themselves, including Dave having lost his temper online. People resigned from Worldcons and other things for the sake of them, if they were associated it would do damage. It's basic: Worldcons matter.

"Let's play a LARP": You can't run a Worldcon without people who know Worldcons. People learn the skills to work on a Worldcon by working on Worldcons. You need a number of people who know what they're doing and overall knowelge at the Division, sometimes Department, levels. It's not just co-heads, advisors, whatever: managment is putting in people you trust and letting them work. Folks will switch around levels, working for someone who'd worked for them. A lot of us know about trashcans; if your department head doesn't you tell them.

Plus everyone, everyone, is a volunteer with a day job. Working on or being involved in a Worldcon is a hell of a lot of work. Forget that of course there isn't a conspiracy and no reason for one. The simple fact is who would have the energy?

 

[EKovarr]

The con should never have been held in China in the first place, as the voting for the locale was already highly suspect. When the first thing you do is change the rules to account for irregularities, you've already started on the downhill slope. And that's setting aside China's record as a totalitarian regime that routinely violates human rights. Just stop hosting world events in one party states.

So what followed, as detailed in that report, is shocking but not surprising. Inevitable seems like a better word.

This needs to be debunked, yet again, to get it out of the way so people can talk.

The voting was suspect until the basics were sorted out. It was a problem with translation and how different cultures handled email. A person handling memberships has confirmed that they matched the votes. The big thing was the number of votes coming from China.

What no one had grasped is that China has more fans per capita than any other country. They're fans, they wanted East and West to be introduced to each other, the outside world doesn't know much about the amazing fiction coming from China, and, obviously, they can't travel to meet us. Just the possibility spread all across China the fans voted.

The losing bid attempted to change the rules after the vote, that it was "stolen'. Yes, the head of site selection presented it to the Business Meeting, but that's required of him. What's left are people who insist the vote was stolen, where it's been accepted as fact, and really boring facts.

 

[Clint_L]

This needs to be debunked, yet again, to get it out of the way so people can talk.

The voting was suspect until the basics were sorted out. It was a problem with translation and how different cultures handled email. A person handling memberships has confirmed that they matched the votes. The big thing was the number of votes coming from China.

What no one had grasped is that China has more fans per capita than any other country. They're fans, they wanted East and West to be introduced to each other, the outside world doesn't know much about the amazing fiction coming from China, and, obviously, they can't travel to meet us. Just the possibility spread all across China the fans voted.

The losing bid attempted to change the rules after the vote, that it was "stolen'. Yes, the head of site selection presented it to the Business Meeting, but that's required of him. What's left are people who insist the vote was stolen, where it's been accepted as fact, and really boring facts.

What needs to be debunked? My argument is that you should not be offering de facto support to one party regimes by bringing international events to them. I assume we agree that China is a one party state.

In addition, the Chengdu Worldcon was heavily criticized because it was being held under the auspices of an authoritarian regime which regularly spied on, discriminated against or jailed political dissenters, religious minorities, writers, artists, booksellers and publishers. There were also allegations that the government was colluding with business interests to build the venue the convention would be held in.

Emails and files released by one of the administrators of the 2023 Hugo Awards indicate that authors and works deemed “not eligible” for the awards were removed due to political considerations. In particular, administrators of the awards from the United States and Canada researched political concerns related to Hugo-eligible authors and works and discussed removing certain ones from the ballot for those reasons, revealing they were active participants in the censorship that took place.

emails and files released by another member of that Hugo administration team, Diane Lacey, shows that the rules “we must follow” were in relation to Chinese laws related to content and censorship.

In an apology letter released to this report’s authors, Diane Lacey wrote “Let me start by saying that I am NOT making excuses, there are no adequate excuses. I am thoroughly ashamed of my part in this debacle, and I will likely never forgive myself. But the fans that have supported the Hugos, the nominees, and those that were unfairly and erroneously deemed ineligible in particular, deserve an explanation. Perhaps the only way I can even begin to ease my conscience is to provide one.”

After discussing technical details of the work in the June 5th email, McCarty wrote “In addition to the regular technical review, as we are happening in China and the laws we operate under are different…we need to highlight anything of a sensitive political nature in the work. It’s not necessary to read everything, but if the work focuses on China, taiwan, tibet, or other topics that may be an issue in China…that needs to be highlighted so that we can determine if it is safe to put it on the ballot (or) if the law will require us to make an administrative decision about it.”

In the post, the Propaganda Department of the Sichuan Provincial Committee of the Communist Party of China stated that “Three special groups reviewed the content of 1,512 works in five categories, including cultural and creative, literary, and artistic, that were shortlisted in the preliminary examination of the Chengdu World Science Fiction Convention, conducting strict checks on works suspected of being related to politics and ethnicity and religion, and putting forward proposals for the disposal of 12 controversial works related to LGBT issues.”

I could continue, but I think the obvious issues are obvious. If you are in a place where you have to worry about what is "safe" to put on the ballot for political reasons, then you shouldn't be having a convention that is nominally dedicated to the principles of free speech and artistic expression in that place.

China should never have even been considered as a venue for this event, regardless of the problematic voting process.

Or are those facts too "boring" for you?

 

[EKovarr]

What needs to be debunked? My argument is that you should not be offering de facto support to one party regimes by bringing international events to them. I assume we agree that China is a one party state.

That the voting was suspect. China won, fair and square.

I could continue, but I think the obvious issues are obvious. If you are in a place where you have to worry about what is "safe" to put on the ballot for political reasons, then you shouldn't be having a convention that is nominally dedicated to the principles of free speech and artistic expression in that place.

China should never have even been considered as a venue for this event, regardless of the problematic voting process.

China wasn't "considered", China bid for a Worldcon. That's the way this works: the only "you" is you and anyone else who wants to bid. I'll add that the voting process wasn't problematic, it was the same voting process as always.

I'm not saying that China was a great place to host a Worldcon. I'm giving you the facts.

 

[Gradine]

If only someone in charge had the idea to disqualify them ahead of time.

You know, for this vote