Hugo Awards controversy

[EKovarr]

Got to the very, very end then came up to a provide an introduction:
My posts belong solely to me and may not be shared in any way or fashon without my permission.

Which I usually will. But the second point is chilling.

I have a couple of issues with this.

First, what you are describing is very literally "they". We understand that there is less formal/strict leadership, which means that there is no one person in charge. Just groups of people, just a bunch of fans. Which means that the organization is, de facto, "they". That's the word we use in English to cover exactly the situation you are describing.

Oh! Once I got down to “we have names” I realized that I’ve been making an assumption, that everyone knows about conventions. To me Worldcons are put together by a bunch of fans who enjoy doing this. To you those folks are "as in" not us. I'm sorry we didn't figure each other out earlier.

So, I'll talk about a different "bunch of fans", one I was part of years ago.

Back in the 80's or something a bunch of fans/gamers/people thought too much etc. would get together at various conventions, somehow broken mainly into the Boston Contengent and the DC Contengent. The Boston guys lived close enough together to game and, well. Anyway. Being what they were like naturally sitting around a table got boring. someone said they should act things out, then Oh! index cards for actions. Wait, a conspiracy! Okay, needs a lot more people, hey people won't know what other people know, we need to weave it all together by Sunday. The DC contingent had it easier: someone had a house so tons of floor space to sort index cards, and inflatable beds. On the other hand my partner in crime was alergic to my cat.

Is this starting to sound familiar? Because one day a bunch of us DC folk were up in Boston, for some reason always in that cut up apartment, clumping working on various things (I was testing the tensile strength of wet paper), when someone mentioned we really needed a name for the roll playing. Full stop. Then noise. And eventually someone figured out that what its was an acronym: Live Action Roll Playing. No one was told to use it, they simply did.

As it happened most of the Boston and DC folks graduated/got their degrees at about the same time and went different directions. And there were rumors up in Boston that someone was going to come in and run them for profit, the exact opposite of why we did it. (then again it might have been Kitty but the overall group was breaking up.) My Partner in Crime and I ran some in Baltimore, a brilliant one in DC, but eventually we went our different ways as well. But it kept going. People who'd helped the folks then overlapping folks knew what they were doing.

We were just a bunch of fans and that's what I mean when I say it. People involved in or who work on Worldcons are the say. They aren't "they" as in "not us". There aren't any castle walls.

Second, we have names. Dave McCarty, Diane Lacey, Chris Barkley, Jason Sanford, just to start. We have emails. You can't claim there's just some amorphous blob of anonymous people when we literally have the correspondence of some of the individuals responsible, discussing the choices they made and actions they personally took. We know the list isn't complete. We know these people weren't responsible for everything. We know there were others involved at multiple levels. But the fact that there are other people involved doesn't absolve any of these individuals of the roles they played.

Third, this is not a solution. It offers no hope, no direction for change. It does not help. Frankly, this is just more minimizing.

Finally, the situation you are describing is what I meant in my last post when I said these were systematic issues that will require systematic responses. If there was a single person in charge, we could point to that person, or to a specific failure. The fact that the organization is just "a bunch of fans" is why the entire process needs to be re-examined if you want to stop this from happening again. But if you try to hide behind the anonymity of "just fans", if you want to just pretend this was a "one off", it guarantees the situation (or a worse one) will eventually happen again.

There weren't people involved at multipul levels. There were less than 10 - 12 Westerners. If you want to look to systemic failure it's there are thousands of people who pitch in on Worldcons - even the year the Denver bid chair was so certain they'd lose they had a noon checkout. Because I happened to be walking by and saw a need, at 10:00 I was handling the crowd wanting memberships. The forms from the losing bid with the name crossed out. Somehow they were even processing credit cards.

And that's why this is a one off: everyone, well more than 1,000, trusted to help turned their backs. I can't imagine a reason for that happening again and hope to go it never does. I'm not saying it's "just fans", I'm saying get over the concept of "them". And I'm not hiding behind some anonymous fans, thank you very much. I'm here, not to mention that I can't hide behind myself. I understand the belief that there are many layers, that it's widespread and systematic. The thing is, it isn't. So stop assuming that everyone and everything we put our effort into is the same.

So. You have four names. Two of them worked on a Chengdu. McCarty resigned from the one standing committee WSFS because he knows it would cause damage. he knew his name attached would bring doubt. Punishment? Being shunned. Shunned by his community. And he's dedicated years of his life to Worldcon and will never work on any convention. again. I think Diane's going to be okay, just going back to working on other conventions. Which is a good thing: I like working with her. There were actually about three more.

That’s about 5 out of the less than 12 Westerners who worked on it. The only systematic problem is the 100’s, 1,000s of people always step in didn’t. Which is not defending the Chengdu folk, it’s part of the reason this is a one-off. It never happened before and God help us, I hope it never happens again.

Chris isn't part of it or Worldcons. He used to, with some really interesting Hugo ideas worth considering (I got one passed) but as a lone wolf.) I don’t remember how long ago that was but he’s turned to writing a column every month, quite good ones.

As far as I can tell Janson Shepard has no connection to Worldcons at all, just to Chris.

I started to post links to a couple of Worldcon committees to give you a sense of scale, and that under each of those are more people, even people who sit by a door checking badges, but I've accepted that being concerned by your "I have a list" is not paranoia.

 

[EKovarr]

On the other hand, the only well-organized bid for 2026 is in Uganda. Which, to put it mildly, the source of some other problems. Including capital punishment for being queer.

Nope. They dropped out, LA stepped in.

 

[gban007]

There weren't people involved at multipul levels. There were less than 10 - 12 Westerners. If you want to look to systemic failure it's there are thousands of people who pitch in on Worldcons - even the year the Denver bid chair was so certain they'd lose they had a noon checkout. Because I happened to be walking by and saw a need, at 10:00 I was handling the crowd wanting memberships. The forms from the losing bid with the name crossed out. Somehow they were even processing credit cards.


I started to post links to a couple of Worldcon committees to give you a sense of scale, and that under each of those are more people, even people who sit by a door checking badges, but I've accepted that being concerned by your "I have a list" is not paranoia.

Just getting a bit confused between these two - you talk about different committees, and under each more people, even people who sit by a door checking badges - isn't that multiple levels as such?

If less then 10-12 Westerners, I imagine they weren't all doing the same sort of job / at same level of responsibility as such?

For the 'they' part - even if all from same pool, there can be groupings. I was part of a Lego fan group for a number of years, but never on the committee as such - I could go to AGMs and vote, but here were some decisions made purely by the committee - powers we vested them with - but any decision made by the committee I could say 'they made the decision, I wasn't part of that' even if I was part of the wider fan group. At times the committee members would have separate meetings that others weren't able to join, and then certainly couldn't be held directly responsible, if still indirectly for giving them the power in the first place. Other times it may be just choosing not to make use of opportunities available, in which case at least partly responsible for choosing not to take any action. Then there would be fans not part of the fan group who may go along to various brick shows, who could refer to 'they' as the whole fan group, but not include the fans not part of the fan group as such, so I think 'they' can be applied. There may not be castle walls, but if different groups have different / powers / responsibilities then can be segregated as such. Some WSFS members may feel they had no opportunity to have a say in some of the decisions, so wouldn't consider themselves included in any groupings taking the blame as such. Other people may be fans of the Hugos, but not members of WSFS, so certainly wouldn't feel responsible for any issues, but could feel aggrieved at issues that did arise due to the actions of others.

Anyway, from what you've said, if I'm understanding correctly:

WSFS(?) membership itself has some 1,000 members or the like who participate in voting, but can also participate in helping administrate / help out with the con.

Most years, we have lots of volunteers helping out in addition, who may or may not be members, but last year's worldcon, potentially due to location, didn't have as many fans helping out in general with the level of experience that prior years had. This put more responsibility on the shoulders of the few as such, creating a greater likelihood that things could go wrong / be missed / be misadministered as the normal people who could be helping / peer reviewing etc and may have caught / prevented issues in the past, weren't there this time, and so to help prevent this occurring in future need more of that fan support base in place?

 

[Autumnal]

Nope. They dropped out, LA stepped in.

I am very happy to hear it. Thanks!

 

[Autumnal]

For those closer to WC organizing: is it possible that the backlash for this WorldCon is not creating fertile ground for sites/cities/fandoms to step up to host future WCons?

While not salting the earth, it's more like open tillage. Unless someone's going to add a bunch of fertilizer, is it possible in a few years WCs may die for lack of sites?

Not because of this in particular. Demographics are, right now, not in Worldcon’s favor: its fandom is aging, as groups tend to do. It’s not completely stagnant, new folks do come in, but the median age slides up. There are folks within it who are actively hostile to younger sf fans with their tiktoks and hula hoops and ebooks and all, just as there are younger sf fans who are actively hostile to groups of old people far too comfortable with white patriarchal hetero norms and visions of futures whose sell-by date passed before a lot of the younger folks were born.

This has been a concern for decades. Heck, it was a topic of occasional discussion when I wandered into LA fandom in late 1970s. There doesn’t seem to me to be any very good solution to the whole spread of contributing issues, but I like being pleasantly surprised. The Chengdu mess could even up being part of the solution, if it gives weight to reform efforts that need help.

 

[MNblockhead]

My posts belong solely to me and may not be shared in any way or fashon without my permission.

Good luck with that. Anyway, carry on.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Nope. They dropped out, LA stepped in.

Also happy to hear because LA is only a 2 hour drive from me, maybe I'll be able to attend my first WC!

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Not because of this in particular. Demographics are, right now, not in Worldcon’s favor: its fandom is aging, as groups tend to do. It’s not completely stagnant, new folks do come in, but the median age slides up. There are folks within it who are actively hostile to younger sf fans with their tiktoks and hula hoops and ebooks and all, just as there are younger sf fans who are actively hostile to groups of old people far too comfortable with white patriarchal hetero norms and visions of futures whose sell-by date passed before a lot of the younger folks were born.

This has been a concern for decades. Heck, it was a topic of occasional discussion when I wandered into LA fandom in late 1970s. There doesn’t seem to me to be any very good solution to the whole spread of contributing issues, but I like being pleasantly surprised. The Chengdu mess could even up being part of the solution, if it gives weight to reform efforts that need help.

Sad really, China fandom being as robust and enthusiastic as it is, that this will be the legacy instead of "Wow, freaking China SF Fandom ROCKS!" which is what I was hearing from most attendees between the end of the con and the onset of this controversy

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Also, looking at the WorldCon website, looks like these are the upcoming bids (yeah, not sure wha'ts up with 2073 - maybe it's a 100 year anniversary? Also looks like Uganda is still bidding, but for 2028

 

[EKovarr]

Just getting a bit confused between these two - you talk about different committees, and under each more people, even people who sit by a door checking badges - isn't that multiple levels as such?

If less then 10-12 Westerners, I imagine they weren't all doing the same sort of job / at same level of responsibility as such?

For the 'they' part - even if all from same pool, there can be groupings. I was part of a Lego fan group for a number of years, but never on the committee as such - I could go to AGMs and vote, but here were some decisions made purely by the committee - powers we vested them with - but any decision made by the committee I could say 'they made the decision, I wasn't part of that' even if I was part of the wider fan group. At times the committee members would have separate meetings that others weren't able to join, and then certainly couldn't be held directly responsible, if still indirectly for giving them the power in the first place. Other times it may be just choosing not to make use of opportunities available, in which case at least partly responsible for choosing not to take any action. Then there would be fans not part of the fan group who may go along to various brick shows, who could refer to 'they' as the whole fan group, but not include the fans not part of the fan group as such, so I think 'they' can be applied. There may not be castle walls, but if different groups have different / powers / responsibilities then can be segregated as such. Some WSFS members may feel they had no opportunity to have a say in some of the decisions, so wouldn't consider themselves included in any groupings taking the blame as such. Other people may be fans of the Hugos, but not members of WSFS, so certainly wouldn't feel responsible for any issues, but could feel aggrieved at issues that did arise due to the actions of others.

Anyway, from what you've said, if I'm understanding correctly:

WSFS(?) membership itself has some 1,000 members or the like who participate in voting, but can also participate in helping administrate / help out with the con.

Most years, we have lots of volunteers helping out in addition, who may or may not be members, but last year's worldcon, potentially due to location, didn't have as many fans helping out in general with the level of experience that prior years had. This put more responsibility on the shoulders of the few as such, creating a greater likelihood that things could go wrong / be missed / be misadministered as the normal people who could be helping / peer reviewing etc and may have caught / prevented issues in the past, weren't there this time, and so to help prevent this occurring in future need more of that fan support base in place?

You're confused because I've been being confusing! Extremely, because I keep mixing things. I'll see about doing it properly when I get my paying work done.