Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Hugo Awards controversy
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="demoss" data-source="post: 9281042" data-attributes="member: 6690191"><p>There is a huge risk of falling into a "technological fixes for social issue" fallacy here, but I would go for something like:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Require use of specific vote tallying software, including a voting website. No more DIY, or at the very least require it to be open source and available.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Require documenting specific reasons for ineligibility.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Require publishing results, reasons for ineligibility that dropped works from shortlist, and statistics all at the same time. (Possibly even full voting data? Would be nice, but it gives me an itchy feeling.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Allow publishers and authors to file protests for their ineligibility. (With same con? With next con? With the society board?) If the protest is accepted after the fact, then the work is automatically shortlisted the following year.</li> </ol><p>I don't think any of 1-3 is an onerous requirement.</p><p></p><p>#4 is borderline, because it is a substantive change that creates new work, instead of just adding transparency to existing work. While the number of "would have been shortlisted, but was deemed ineligible" works is limited, and presumably most would not be protested, the channel for protests still needs to be created, monitored, protests studied, decisions made and published... all of which takes time and effort.</p><p></p><p>I would also dearly like some pseudo-objective human rights benchmark for hosting countries, but there are no easy universally acknowledged metrics, so I don't think that is going to happen. Giving <em>some</em> body the option to refuse a bid for human rights reasons would be an option, but I don't think anyone wants to be in that seat. (Personally I think "allows death penalty" would be a pretty good proxy for human rights, but even if it was written in a way that distinguishes states from countries I don't think it would pass.)</p><p></p><p>At the end of the day, the bids that convince the fans will win, and human rights will matter exactly as much as the fans care about them. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" alt="😞" title="Disappointed face :disappointed:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61e.png" data-shortname=":disappointed:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="demoss, post: 9281042, member: 6690191"] There is a huge risk of falling into a "technological fixes for social issue" fallacy here, but I would go for something like: [LIST=1] [*]Require use of specific vote tallying software, including a voting website. No more DIY, or at the very least require it to be open source and available. [*]Require documenting specific reasons for ineligibility. [*]Require publishing results, reasons for ineligibility that dropped works from shortlist, and statistics all at the same time. (Possibly even full voting data? Would be nice, but it gives me an itchy feeling.) [*]Allow publishers and authors to file protests for their ineligibility. (With same con? With next con? With the society board?) If the protest is accepted after the fact, then the work is automatically shortlisted the following year. [/LIST] I don't think any of 1-3 is an onerous requirement. #4 is borderline, because it is a substantive change that creates new work, instead of just adding transparency to existing work. While the number of "would have been shortlisted, but was deemed ineligible" works is limited, and presumably most would not be protested, the channel for protests still needs to be created, monitored, protests studied, decisions made and published... all of which takes time and effort. I would also dearly like some pseudo-objective human rights benchmark for hosting countries, but there are no easy universally acknowledged metrics, so I don't think that is going to happen. Giving [I]some[/I] body the option to refuse a bid for human rights reasons would be an option, but I don't think anyone wants to be in that seat. (Personally I think "allows death penalty" would be a pretty good proxy for human rights, but even if it was written in a way that distinguishes states from countries I don't think it would pass.) At the end of the day, the bids that convince the fans will win, and human rights will matter exactly as much as the fans care about them. 😞 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Hugo Awards controversy
Top