Hugo Awards controversy

[trappedslider]

So until you rise up and overthrow your government you're not allowed to host events.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure. I don't know that this changes the point much.

I mean, the fans of science fiction, supposedly forward-looking, after already having seen attempts to manipulate voting, didn't take steps to prevent ballot stuffing? When the point was raised at the time, DisCon allowed those ballots.

In the electronic age, if you're going to be naive about accepting ballots, you don't really get to whine that the bad guys did it to you. Own the error and fix it.

It is not that simple though... You ALSO have to have a technical approach to taking those steps. I don't see what that would be in this case, except to completely reject the entire concept of a community vote. Or do we now all have to present our birth certificates and DLs in person at an approved polling place in order to vote? While I don't IN PRINCIPLE disagree with your point, it is moot since there isn't any practical way to prevent bad actors from playing these games that doesn't entail effectively removing everyone else's ability to vote.

What I think all this REALLY reveals is that society only works on a basis of mutual respect and at least SOME trust. When you have bad actors there's actually only one way to deal with them, which is the ancient and time-honored way, you expel them! I mean, that may also be impossible...

 

[billd91]

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.

Even if 2023 was a one-off year of scandal, it still sets off red flags galore because it seems to be a two-faceted scandal.
1) They compiled dossiers on likely nominees without even being asked - exactly what any police or surveillance state would love them to do - to disqualify works from being nominated. Apparently a very radical departure from normal procedure and weren't transparent about it until cornered.
2) There's a weird voting pattern in that suggests votes were excluded because they looked like they were based on slate voting.

If either of these are true, it's a big problem and undermines any trust in the process as well trust in the experienced hands who were involved. It's another black eye (or two) for the Hugos that they do NOT need.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I saw where McCarty mentioned laws, not exactly the gov't. I have been following since the awards as people who were there mentioned some irregularity. Though I can also imagine that some vitriolic speech might not have gone down well with the fans either. I know people who have lived in China, and said the gov't is a lot less intrusive than the news makes it seem, however the people are. The general feelings are that the west has treated them badly, esp during "the century of humiliation".

Ehhhh, that sure doesn't jibe well with my experience, and my wife is entirely Chinese, so is my daughter. The government does not tolerate ANY sort of dissent, whatsoever. You MIGHT get away with making a speech like that, maybe, but it would not be a wise thing to do, at best. As for the Chinese public, its a very large country and there are undoubtedly various opinions. In general however there isn't a ton of anti-western sentiment in China. Given that there is no great love for the CPC in China, generally speaking, very few people there are likely to have a problem with someone, westerner or not, disliking or disagreeing with the CPC/PRC as a general thing. They're likely to think you are pretty stupid to voice those kinds of opinions though as, contrary to what you are saying here, the gov't is VERY VERY intrusive and even the most casual speech is likely to end up getting you in trouble!

Edit: I'm not defending anyone or anything either, though tbh it looks like all speculation, Scalzi is the only one who has come out, and he seems to be blaming McCarty. I'm a big fan of science fiction, I remember Aldiss saying that Hugo Gernsback was the worst thing to happen to science fiction, not sure I agree. Though the way of peacefulness is through understanding, and that takes listening to what others have to say.

Yeah, it kind of feels like there's a lot of smoke here, but maybe not so much fire. I mean, I can see why it would piss people off if works were excluded from the ballot for political reasons. There should probably be some rules on that! But what do I know? I just read the stuff, I don't go to cons.

 

[Deset Gled]

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.

To call this a "one off" is misrepresenting the scope of the problem to a dangerous level.

This was not "one" thing in any way. It was a systematic and pervasive level of dishonesty, mishandling of the voting process, censorship, coverup, and inappropriate responses on social media. Sure, some people are focused on the China angle. Others are focused on the manipulation of the voting process. Others are focused on the outcome of the Hugos, or Dave's inappropriate Facebook posts. The problem is that any way you try and frame this as a "one off" can only focus on one small view of the problem. Which means you are inherently minimizing large swaths of completely valid complaints. This kind of minimizing philosophy can only drag down the Hugos and Worldcons further.

Systematic issues like this require systematic responses. You will never to able to point to a specific one thing that caused this controversy, and you will never be able to point to one specific fix, or one day that it is over. Assuming Worldcons continue, this is a shadow that will cloud it for a long time, and that will have to be addressed for a long time if they want to rise to their previous level of legitimacy.

 

[Clint_L]

So until you rise up and overthrow your government you're not allowed to host events.

Yes. Not if they are international events dedicated to free artistic expression (e.g. the Hugos) and you live in a state that is opposed to those principles. Which, as the report shows, led to the event improperly censoring writers and their work.

To me this is a common sense stance: unfree states should not be allowed to host events that are about freedom of expression. And when they do, it should not be surprising that the freedom of expression is quashed. As the report documents, the thought police (e.g. the ministry of propaganda) were actively investigating and interfering with the process. Which, shocker. What's more disappointing is how the con's organizers basically voluntarily facilitated the censorship.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

Well, China is a great country, filled with fine people, and lots of stuff to do and see. I also happen to have relatives there (by marriage, but they're still nice people that I like). There are plenty of reasons to go there. Nor are people visiting from other countries likely to run into any problems, unless they act like total idiots. Being an idiot can get you in trouble in most places. Honestly the US is a bit special in that regard, it is generally HARDER to get in trouble here, but you most certainly can!

 

[trappedslider]

Yes. Not if they are international events dedicated to free artistic expression (e.g. the Hugos) and you live in a state that is opposed to those principles. Which, as the report shows, led to the event improperly censoring writers and their work.

To me this is a common sense stance: unfree states should not be allowed to host events that are about freedom of expression. And when they do, it should not be surprising that the freedom of expression is quashed. As the report documents, the thought police (e.g. the ministry of propaganda) were actively investigating and interfering with the process. Which, shocker. What's more disappointing is how the con's organizers basically voluntarily facilitated the censorship.

Mindless Capitalism wins the day again or something like that

 

[Waller]

To me this is a common sense stance: unfree states should not be allowed to host events that are about freedom of expression.

What do you mean by "allowed"? How are you (or anybody else) going to stop another country from hosting an event? Especially a country the size of China?

 

[demoss]

There are ways to host events in problematic countries that are less problematic. These ways center around listening to the voices of the locally disempowered, and asking how such an event can make their lives better.

An international event in China has way more freedom than a national one: international events are always projections of soft power, and you can use that. An international visitor can say and do things a local cannot. An international event can provide a place for locals to say and do things they cannot normally do. (They are the people who will need to decide how much leeway they get, outsiders cannot make that judgement call.) There have been academic conferences in China that have done this - for sure not all of them, but this is absolutely possible.

What you don't do is making favors to the oppressive regime without locals asking you to do so, which is what this Hugo committee did.

Even if you were encouraged to do this, you could have set up a canary beforehand. If you face an issue like this and didn't prepare, you can leak a rumour to an outsider. You can come clean after the fact.

The Hugo committee did none of this. They weren't asked. The didn't prepare. They didn't leak. They didn't come clean, until after their actions were discovered - and it's not clear they've actually come fully clean still.

They were active participants in an oppressive regime without being even asked by anyone. Their actions can only be interpreted as either active collusion, playing at being white saviors, or making sure the shortlist was filled with English fiction instead of Chinese.

If the Chinese hosts had asked them to do this, and if they had not actively tried to hide their actions... then I could understand people defending them.

When people defend them now, all I hear is "they're actually nice", "they're one of us", "you need them", etc.

These have never been and never will be valid defences of anyone's actions.

EDIT: I don't think we need to crucify or shun anyone, but we should also not hand out forgiveness by default.