Sasquan Replaces Two Ineligible Nominees on Hugo Ballot

Sasquan, the 2015 Worldcon, has made changes to the final Hugo ballot to reflect  eligibility rulings by Hugo administrator John Lorentz.

  • “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus” by John C. Wright was previously published on a web site in 2013 prior to its inclusion in The Book of Feasts & Seasons in 2014, so it is not eligible for the 2015 Novelette Hugo.
  • Jon Eno did not publish any qualifying artwork in 2014, so he is not eligible for the 2015 Professional Artist Hugo

Replacing Wright’s novelette on the ballot is “The Day The World Turned Upside Down” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt (Lightspeed Magazine, April 2014).

Kirk DouPonce has been elevated to take Eno’s place in the Best Professional Artist category.

Lorentz also reviewed the eligibility of two other works and allowed them to stand:

Both Big Boys Don’t Cry (Kratman) and One Bright Star to Guide Them (Wright) were previously published in much shorter versions, and were significantly expanded to novella-length in their 2014 publication.  Following previous precedents, for the purposes of the 2015 Hugos they are designated as new works.

Here is the new final ballot incorporating all these changes:

BEST NOVEL (1827 ballots)

  • Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie (Orbit US; Orbit UK)
  • The Dark Between the Stars by Kevin J. Anderson (Tor Books)
  • The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison (Sarah Monette) (Tor Books)
  • Lines of Departure by Marko Kloos (47North)
  • Skin Game by Jim Butcher (Roc Books)

BEST NOVELLA (1083 ballots)

  • Big Boys Don’t Cry by Tom Kratman (Castalia House)
  • “Flow” by Arlan Andrews, Sr. (Analog, Nov 2014)
  • One Bright Star to Guide Them by John C. Wright (Castalia House)
  • “Pale Realms of Shade” by John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
  • “The Plural of Helen of Troy” by John C. Wright (City Beyond Time: Tales of the Fall of Metachronopolis, Castalia House)

BEST NOVELETTE (1031 ballots)

  • “Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Earth to Alluvium” by Gray Rinehart (Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show, May 2014)
  • “Championship B’tok” by Edward M. Lerner (Analog, Sept 2014)
  • “The Day The World Turned Upside Down” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt (Lightspeed Magazine, April 2014)
  • “The Journeyman: In the Stone House” by Michael F. Flynn (Analog, June 2014)
  • “The Triple Sun: A Golden Age Tale” by Rajnar Vajra (Analog, Jul/Aug 2014)

SHORT STORY (1174 ballots)

  • “Goodnight Stars” by Annie Bellet (The End is Now (Apocalypse Triptych Book 2), Broad Reach Publishing)
  • “On A Spiritual Plain” by Lou Antonelli (Sci Phi Journal #2, Nov 2014)
  • “The Parliament of Beasts and Birds” by John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
  • “Totaled” by Kary English (Galaxy’s Edge Magazine, July 2014)
  • “Turncoat” by Steve Rzasa (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)

BEST RELATED WORK (1150 ballots)

  • “The Hot Equations: Thermodynamics and Military SF” by Ken Burnside (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)
  • Letters from Gardner by Lou Antonelli (The Merry Blacksmith Press)
  • Transhuman and Subhuman: Essays on Science Fiction and Awful Truth by John C. Wright (Castalia House)
  • “Why Science is Never Settled” by Tedd Roberts (Baen.com)
  • Wisdom from My Internet by Michael Z. Williamson (Patriarchy Press)

BEST GRAPHIC STORY (785 ballots)

  • Ms. Marvel Volume 1: No Normal written by G. Willow Wilson, illustrated by Adrian Alphona and Jake Wyatt, (Marvel Comics)
  • Rat Queens Volume 1: Sass and Sorcery written by Kurtis J. Weibe, art by Roc Upchurch (Image Comics)
  • Saga Volume 3 written by Brian K. Vaughan, illustrated by Fiona Staples (Image Comics)
  • Sex Criminals Volume 1: One Weird Trick written by Matt Fraction, art by Chip Zdarsky (Image Comics)
  • The Zombie Nation Book #2: Reduce Reuse Reanimate by Carter Reid (The Zombie Nation)

DRAMATIC PRESENTATION (LONG FORM) (1285 ballots)

  • Captain America: The Winter Soldier screenplay by Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely, concept and story by Ed Brubaker, directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo (Marvel Entertainment, Perception, Sony Pictures Imageworks)
  • Edge of Tomorrow screenplay by Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, and John-Henry Butterworth, directed by Doug Liman (Village Roadshow, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, 3 Arts Entertainment; Viz Productions)
  • Guardians of the Galaxy written by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman, directed by James Gunn (Marvel Studios, Moving Picture Company)
  • Interstellar screenplay by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan, directed by Christopher Nolan (Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures, Legendary Pictures, Lynda Obst Productions, Syncopy)
  • The Lego Movie written by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, story by Dan Hageman, Kevin Hageman, Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, directed by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller (Warner Bros. Pictures, Village Roadshow Pictures, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, LEGO System A/S, Vertigo Entertainment, Lin Pictures, Warner Bros. Animation (as Warner Animation Group))

DRAMATIC PRESENTATION (SHORT FORM) (938 ballots)

  • Doctor Who: “Listen” written by Steven Moffat, directed by Douglas Mackinnon (BBC Television)
  • The Flash: “Pilot” teleplay by Andrew Kreisberg & Geoff Johns, story by Greg Berlanti, Andrew Kreisberg & Geoff Johns, directed by David Nutter (The CW) (Berlanti Productions, DC Entertainment, Warner Bros. Television)
  • Game of Thrones: “The Mountain and the Viper” written by David Benioff & D. B. Weiss, directed by Alex Graves ((HBO Entertainment in association with Bighead, Littlehead; Television 360; Startling Television and Generator Productions)
  • Grimm: “Once We Were Gods” written by Alan DiFiore, directed by Steven DePaul (NBC) (GK Productions, Hazy Mills Productions, Universal TV)
  • Orphan Black: “By Means Which Have Never Yet Been Tried written by Graham Manson, directed by John Fawcett (Temple Street Productions, Space/BBC America)

BEST EDITOR (SHORT FORM) (870 ballots)

  • Jennifer Brozek
  • Vox Day
  • Mike Resnick
  • Edmund R. Schubert
  • Bryan Thomas Schmidt

BEST EDITOR (LONG FORM) (712 ballots)

  • Vox Day
  • Sheila Gilbert
  • Jim Minz
  • Anne Sowards
  • Toni Weisskopf

BEST PROFESSIONAL ARTIST (753 ballots)

  • Julie Dillon
  • Kirk DouPonce
  • Nick Greenwood
  • Alan Pollack
  • Carter Reid

BEST SEMIPROZINE (660 ballots)

  • Abyss & Apex Wendy Delmater editor and publisher
  • Andromeda Spaceways In-Flight Magazine Andromeda Spaceways Publishing Association Incorporated, 2014 editors David Kernot and Sue Bursztynski
  • Beneath Ceaseless Skies edited by Scott H. Andrews
  • Lightspeed Magazine edited by John Joseph Adams, Stefan Rudnicki, Rich Horton, Wendy N. Wagner, and Christie Yant
  • Strange Horizons Niall Harrison Editor-in-Chief

BEST FANZINE (576 ballots)

  • Black Gate edited by John O’Neill
  • Elitist Book Reviews edited by Steven Diamond
  • Journey Planet edited by James Bacon, Chris Garcia, Alissa McKersie, Colin Harris and Helen Montgomery
  • The Revenge of Hump Day edited by Tim Bolgeo
  • Tangent SF Online edited by Dave Truesdale

BEST FANCAST (668 ballots)

  • Adventures in Sci-Fi Publishing Brent Bowen (Executive Producer), Kristi Charish, Timothy C. Ward, Shaun Ferrell & Moses Siregar III (Co-Hosts, Interviewers and Producers)
  • Dungeon Crawlers Radio Daniel Swenson (Producer/Host), Travis Alexander & Scott Tomlin (Hosts), Dale Newton (Host/Tech), Damien Swenson (Audio/Video Tech)
  • Galactic Suburbia Podcast Alisa Krasnostein, Alexandra Pierce, Tansy Rayner Roberts (Presenters) and Andrew Finch (Producer)
  • The Sci Phi Show Jason Rennie
  • Tea and Jeopardy Emma Newman & Peter Newman

BEST FAN WRITER (777 ballots)

  • Dave Freer
  • Amanda S. Green
  • Jeffro Johnson
  • Laura J. Mixon
  • Cedar Sanderson

BEST FAN ARTIST (296 ballots)

  • Ninni Aalto
  • Brad Foster
  • Elizabeth Leggett
  • Spring Schoenhuth
  • Steve Stiles

Award for the best new professional science fiction or fantasy writer of 2013 or 2014, sponsored by Dell Magazines (not a Hugo Award).

CAMPBELL AWARD FOR BEST NEW WRITER (851 ballots)

  • Wesley Chu *
  • Jason Cordova
  • Kary English *
  • Rolf Nelson
  • Eric S. Raymond

*Finalists in their 2nd year of eligibility.

Update 04/14/2015: At 4 p.m. PDT. The official Sasquan press release follows the jump.

MEDIA RELEASE #2015-2 Sasquan, the 73rd World Science Fiction Convention
19-23 August 2015 at Spokane WA USA
http://www.sasquan.org
pressrelease@sasquan.org
Hugo Awards Final Ballot — REVISED

Spokane, 14 April 2015

The nominees that follow were chosen by popular vote of members of Loncon 3 (the 2014 Worldcon), Sasquan (the 2015 Worldcon) and MidAmeriCon II (the 2016 Worldcon). Note that this is revised from the first ballot which was released on 4 April 2015. In particular:

In the  Best Novelette  category,  “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus” by John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)  was originally published online in 2013 prior to its appearance in that collection.  It has been  replaced by “The Day the World Turned Upside Down” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt (Lightspeed Magazine, April 2014) ;

In the Best Professional Artist category, Jon Eno was replaced by Kirk DouPonce.
We also misnamed Adventures in SciFi Publishing.

A total of 2122 valid nomination forms were received (2119 online and 3 paper).

A list of the top 15 nominees in each category, along with the number of nominations received by each, will be released after the Hugo Awards Ceremony on Saturday, 22 August, 2015 at Sasquan.

Best Novel (1827 nominating ballots)

  • Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie (Orbit US; Orbit UK)
  • The Dark Between the Stars by Kevin J. Anderson (Tor Books)
  • The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison (Sarah Monette) (Tor Books)
  • Lines of Departure by Marko Kloos (47North)
  • Skin Game by Jim Butcher (Roc Books)

Best Novella (1083 nominating ballots)

  • Big Boys Don’t Cry by Tom Kratman (Castalia House)
  • “Flow” by Arlan Andrews, Sr. (Analog, Nov 2014)
  • One Bright Star to Guide Them by John C. Wright (Castalia House)
  • “Pale Realms of Shade” by John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
  • “The Plural of Helen of Troy by John C. Wright (City Beyond Time: Tales of the Fall of Metachronopolis, Castalia House)

[Both Big Boys Don’t Cry and One Bright Star to Guide Them were previously published in much shorter versions, and were significantly expanded to novella-length in their 2014 publication.  Following previous precedents, for the purposes of the 2015 Hugos they are designated as new works.]

Best Novelette (1031 nominating ballots)

  • “Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Earth to Alluvium” by Gray Rinehart (Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show, May 2014)
  • “Championship B’tok” by Edward M. Lerner (Analog, Sept 2014)
  • “The Day The World Turned Upside Down” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt (Lightspeed Magazine, April 2014)
  • “The Journeyman: In the Stone House” by Michael F. Flynn (Analog, June 2014)
  • “The Triple Sun: A Golden Age Tale” by Rajnar Vajra (Analog, Jul/Aug 2014)

Best Short Story (1174 nominating ballots)

  • “Goodnight Stars” by Annie Bellet (The End is Now (Apocalypse Triptych Book 2), Broad Reach Publishing)
  • “On A Spiritual Plain” by Lou Antonelli (Sci Phi Journal #2, Nov 2014)
  • “The Parliament of Beasts and Birds” by John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
  • “Totaled” by Kary English (Galaxy’s Edge Magazine, July 2014)
  • “Turncoat” by Steve Rzasa (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)

Best Related Work (1150 nominating ballots)

  • “The Hot Equations: Thermodynamics and Military SF” by Ken Burnside (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)
  • Letters from Gardner by Lou Antonelli (The Merry Blacksmith Press)
  • Transhuman and Subhuman: Essays on Science Fiction and Awful Truth by John C. Wright (Castalia House)
  • “Why Science is Never Settled” by Tedd Roberts (Baen.com)
  • Wisdom from My Internet by Michael Z. Williamson (Patriarchy Press)

Best Graphic Story (785 nominating ballots)

  • Ms. Marvel Volume 1: No Normal written by G. Willow Wilson, illustrated by Adrian Alphona and Jake Wyatt (Marvel Comics)
  • Rat Queens Volume 1: Sass and Sorcery written by Kurtis J. Weibe, art by Roc Upchurch (Image Comics)
  • Saga Volume 3 written by Brian K. Vaughan, illustrated by Fiona Staples (Image Comics)
  • Sex Criminals Volume 1: One Weird Trick written by Matt Fraction, art by Chip Zdarsky (Image Comics)
  • The Zombie Nation Book #2: Reduce Reuse Reanimate by Carter Reid (The Zombie Nation)

Dramatic Presentation (Long Form) (1285 nominating ballots)

  • Captain America: The Winter Soldier screenplay by Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely, concept and story by Ed Brubaker, directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo (Marvel Entertainment, Perception, Sony Pictures Imageworks)
  • Edge of Tomorrow screenplay by Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, and John-Henry Butterworth, directed by Doug Liman (Village Roadshow, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, 3 Arts Entertainment; Viz Productions)
  • Guardians of the Galaxy written by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman, directed by James Gunn (Marvel Studios, Moving Picture Company)
  • Interstellar screenplay by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan, directed by Christopher Nolan (Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures, Legendary Pictures, Lynda Obst Productions, Syncopy)
  • The Lego Movie written by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, story by Dan Hageman, Kevin Hageman, Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, directed by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller (Warner Bros. Pictures, Village Roadshow Pictures, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, LEGO Systems A/S Vertigo Entertainment, Lin Pictures, Warner Bros. Animation (as Warner Animation Group))

Dramatic Presentation (Short Form) (938 nominating ballots)

  • Doctor Who: “Listen” written by Steven Moffat, directed by Douglas Mackinnon (BBC Television)
  • The Flash: “Pilot” teleplay by Andrew Kreisberg & Geoff Johns, story by Greg Berlanti, Andrew Kreisberg & Geoff Johns, directed by David Nutter (The CW) (Berlanti Productions, DC Entertainment, Warner Bros. Television)
  • Game of Thrones: “The Mountain and the Viper” written by David Benioff & D.B. Weiss, directed by Alex Graves (HBO Entertainment in association with Bighead, Littlehead; Television 360; Startling Television and Generator Productions)
  • Grimm: “Once We Were Gods”, written by Alan DiFiore, directed by Steven DePaul (NBC) (GK Productions, Hazy Mills Productions, Universal TV)
  • Orphan Black: “By Means Which Have Never Yet Been Tried” written by Graham Manson, directed by John Fawcett (Temple Street Productions; Space/BBC America)

Best Editor (Short Form) (870 nominating ballots)

  • Jennifer Brozek
  • Vox Day
  • Mike Resnick
  • Edmund R. Schubert
  • Bryan Thomas Schmidt

Best Editor (Long Form) (712 nominating ballots)

  • Vox Day
  • Sheila Gilbert
  • Jim Minz
  • Anne Sowards
  • Toni Weisskopf

Best Professional Artist (753 nominating ballots)

  • Julie Dillon
  • Kirk DouPonce
  • Nick Greenwood
  • Alan Pollack
  • Carter Reid

Best Semiprozine (660 nominating ballots)

  • Abyss & Apex Wendy Delmater editor and publisher
  • Andromeda Spaceways In-Flight Magazine Andromeda Spaceways Publishing Association Incorporated, 2014 editors David Kernot and Sue Burtsztynski
  • Beneath Ceaseless Skies edited by Scott H. Andrews
  • Lightspeed Magazine, edited by John Joseph Adams, Wendy N. Wagner, Stefan Rudnicki, Rich Horton and Christie Yant
  • Strange Horizons Niall Harrison (Editor-in-Chief), Brit Mandelo, An Owomoyela and Julia Rios (Fiction Editors), Sonya Taaffe (Senior Poetry Editor), Abigail Nussbaum (Senior Reviews Editor), Rebecca Cross (Columns Editor), Anaea Lay (Podcast Editor) and Tim Moore (Webmaster)

Best Fanzine (576 nominating ballots)

  • Black Gate, edited by John O’Neill
  • Elitist Book Reviews edited by Steven Diamond
  • Journey Planet edited by James Bacon, Chris Garcia, Alissa McKersie, Colin Harris, and Helen Montgomery
  • The Revenge of Hump Day edited by Tim Bolgeo
  • Tangent SF Online, edited by Dave Truesdale

Best Fancast (668 nominating ballots)

  • Adventures in SciFi Publishing Brent Bowen (Executive Producer), Kristi Charish, Timothy C. Ward, Shaun Ferrell & Moses Siregar III (Co-Hosts, Interviewers and Producers)
  • Dungeon Crawlers Radio Daniel Swenson (Producer/Host), Travis Alexander & Scott Tomlin (Hosts), Dale Newton (Host/Tech), Damien Swenson (Audio/Video Tech)
  • Galactic Suburbia Podcast, Alisa Krasnostein, Alexandra Pierce, Tansy Rayner Roberts (Presenters) and Andrew Finch (Producer)
  • The Sci Phi Show Jason Rennie
  • Tea and Jeopardy Emma Newman and Peter Newman

Best Fan Writer (777 nominating ballots)

  • Dave Freer
  • Amanda S. Green
  • Jeffro Johnson
  • Laura J. Mixon
  • Cedar Sanderson

Best Fan Artist (296 nominating ballots)

  • Ninni Aalto
  • Brad Foster
  • Elizabeth Leggett
  • Spring Schoenhuth
  • Steve Stiles

The John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer (851 nominating ballots)  Award for the best new professional science fiction or fantasy writer of 2013 or 2014, sponsored by Dell Magazines (not a Hugo Award).

  • Wesley Chu*
  • Jason Cordova
  • Kary English*
  • Rolf Nelson
  • Eric S. Raymond

*Finalists in their 2nd year of eligibility.

Direct administrative questions about the 2015 Hugo Awards to the Sasquan Hugo Administrators.

The Hugo voting ballot will be available to members of Sasquan online and by mail later in April.

For more information about the Hugos, please see http://sasquan.org/faq-hugos/

Full details of how to become a member of Sasquan are available at https://sasquan.swoc.us/sasquan/reg.php

ENDS For general media enquiries about Sasquan please contact media@sasquan.org.

To unsubscribe, click here: pressrelease-request@sasquan.org?subject=unsubscribe

ABOUT THE WORLD SCIENCE FICTION CONVENTION
Founded in 1939, the World Science Fiction Convention is one of the largest international gatherings of authors, artists, editors, publishers, and fans of science fiction and fantasy. The annual Hugo Awards, the leading award for excellence in the fields of science fiction and fantasy, are voted on by the Worldcon membership and presented during the convention.
Sasquan is organized under the banner of the SWOC: http://swoc.org/contact.php

“World Science Fiction Society”, “WSFS”, “World Science Fiction Convention”, “Worldcon”, “NASFiC”, “Hugo Award”, the Hugo Award Logo, and the distinctive design of the Hugo Award Trophy Rocket are service marks of the World Science Fiction Society, an unincorporated literary society.

— Pressrelease mailing list Pressrelease@sasquan.org http://lists.sasquan.org/mailman/listinfo/pressrelease

82 thoughts on “Sasquan Replaces Two Ineligible Nominees on Hugo Ballot

  1. Reasonably Neutral Observer:

    I could see a case for making a rule that was clear and enforcible – but I think the + 1/3 rule is unsuitable – if for no other reason that one should also allow works that have been shortened by 1/3 or more.

  2. “Notice how it’s ALWAYS the same name that keeps appearing at the center of the Hugo-related controversies?”

    Yes, Mr. Day. I do notice that.

  3. @Neutral,

    I understand the reluctance but I would happy with at least a reasoning of the decision that could be argued. Right now it is Scaliz iz GOODZ JCW iz BADZ!

    I can’t really work with that other than to be skeptical of the decision.

  4. GKC: “So Glenn, “putting down” sad puppies was a threat of violence and not an incitement to false ratings? Fascinating.”

    No, I said you put down rabid puppies. You have to; if they infect you, you get inflammation of the brain. The symptoms include anxiety, insomnia, confusion, agitation, abnormal behavior, paranoia, terror, and hallucinations, progressing to delirium and eventually death.

    Hey, I didn’t pick the name. That would be Mr. Beale. Surely he was aware of the connotations.

  5. keranih: Fine by me. But it has to be objective plus or minus word count, not “change.” I could change nearly every word in a story and have exactly the same story. While I could theoretically cut out a third or add a third and do the same, it would be tricky. 🙂

  6. I would think that, say, taking a very rough journeyman level first draft and converting it into a polished jewel of a story would probably count as a substantial enough reworking of a story to pass muster, even if the length were approximately the same.

  7. James: I could accept that argument.

    As long as it was me deciding which was which.

    Since it won’t be, and far more importantly since I think it is *monumentally* unfair and unreasonable to ask the Hugo committee to make such an involved and subjective judgment, I don’t think it’s a very practical approach to framing some actual objective rules.

    Furthermore, I said I could accept it, not that I thought it was a great argument. I’ve changed the nature of an entire novella by adding or subtracting a few paragraphs. In my mind, it became a *completely* different story. Is that less of a change than taking the same story and “polishing it up?” I don’t think it is. But that’s my opinion. Yours may be different. And that’s why I think this isn’t a very practical approach to framing objective rules.

  8. GK: This is one of the few areas where Administrators have freedom of action. In my opinion, there is no objective way to define “substantially revised.” There’s no bright-line definition.

    Note that there were two other works that made the ballot that were not disqualified inasmuch as they were substantially revised. One of the revised works is by the author of the other work that was disqualified. There’s no reasonable case to be made, in my opinion, that the decision was the result of any animus toward the author or publisher.

    Administrators are not omnipotent, and it’s not surprising that there end up being eligibility oversights. This isn’t the first time it has happened, and as the field continues to expand and fracture, I don’t expect it will be the last.

    I think would be helpful if there was a way to “crowdsource” eligibility checking, where a longer list of potential finalists was published at some point so that the power of the crowd could track down any potential eligibility issues. But how could one do that without influencing the final result?

  9. @Glenn,

    “No, I said you put down rabid puppies. You have to; if they infect you, you get inflammation of the brain. The symptoms include anxiety, insomnia, confusion, agitation, abnormal behavior, paranoia, terror, and hallucinations, progressing to delirium and eventually death.”

    It’s ok we already know you are a liar. So .

    @Kevin,

    “This isn’t the first time it has happened, and as the field continues to expand and fracture, I don’t expect it will be the last.”

    I agree. And I’m not inclined to believe this is an intentional spite as in, a sort of premeditated attack. I do think friends brought the issue up and a snap decision was made…which is now probably being regretted based on the Scalzi information. Proof? I have none, but I think it is a better explanation of the facts and how the information for disqualification was generated.

    And, I’ll thank you for the information you provided.

  10. @ Kevin Standee “I think would be helpful if there was a way to “crowdsource” eligibility checking, where a longer list of potential finalists was published at some point so that the power of the crowd could track down any potential eligibility issues. But how could one do that without influencing the final result?”

    Oh, *I* dunno. Maybe if groups of people talked about what sorts of things they had seen or read during the year and made a list of the best ones that they thought should get a Hugo, and then put that list on the internet for other people to see?

    Maybe?

    Policing the eligibility of “the other guy” has been done by candidates of various elected offices in the USA for quite some time. I am *not* saying that failing to establish basic eligibility is the fault of anyone except the fan nominating that person…but you’d think someone (ie non-Puppy) would have taken it a bit more seriously, and done some checking. I suspect that won’t happen again…

  11. GKC: “It’s ok we already know you are a liar. So .”

    1. Check your original comment. You asked about sad puppies, I have only been discussing rabid puppies.

    2. “We?”

    3. Liar? How do you know to make such a claim?

    4. Liar? I’m not the one using an obviously fake name. Now I’m curious if your IP address matches up with any other IDs on here, or if you just came here with a bunch of other folks at the same time.

    To quote your namesake: “The thing I hate about an argument is that it always interrupts a discussion.”

  12. ‘Proof? I have none, ‘

    You could translate this into Latin and use it as the RP/SP motto.

  13. GK and others: It’s probably not obvious in this short-attention-span age, but the constitutional situation of electronically-published works was murkier a decade ago than it is today. Not too long ago, there were people insisting that works that were not issued in tangible physical form were not eligible for anything at all.

    For example, when Cheryl Morgan’s fanzine Emerald City won a Hugo Award in 2004, there were individuals in the fanzine community (by no means a majority, but loud and annoying — sound familiar?) who decried the intrusion of works that weren’t “real” fanzines because they weren’t printed on paper and sent through the post. (Ansible, by that time mostly electronically distributed, got a pass because it started as a paper fanzine. Emerald City had a paper version from the start, but the paper distribution was always negligible. I am not an unbiased observer of this situation.)

    I have no inside information regarding the interpretation of e-publication in 2006, and there’s nothing definitive in the WSFS Constitution in force at that time. (WSFS Constitutions are dated as of the end of the Worldcon where any amendments that affected that constitution were ratified, so 2005’s constitution governed the 2006 Worldcon.) I think it a plausible conclusion that the administrator’s interpretation in 2006 was that e-publication didn’t count; however, the world has changed sufficiently over the past decade that the exact same person could decide that e-publication does now constitute “publication” for award eligibility purposes. That’s not antagonism toward an individual or his publisher; that’s an acknowledgement that the way in which works are distributed has changed.

    I’ll not deny that we’re not that great at preserving “case law” with the Hugo Awards. It would be nice if we did so, but nobody, not even rules-obsessive me, has taken up the challenge of documenting all of the cases. But even then, while Administrators are expected to stick to precedent, there’s also a principle that when a past precedent is wrong or the situation is changed, the rulings need to change.

    As an example of the rules themselves changing, note that there’s an amendment up for ratification this year that explicitly states that audiobook publication counts for a “story” category, which explicitly overturns an administrator decision of two years ago. It wouldn’t be the first time that the WSFS Business Meeting has amended its rules to overturn an administrator’s precedent, and I doubt it will be the last.

  14. Regarding the crowdsourcing of eligibility: One possibility would be to initially announce the top fifteen nominees (call them “semi-finalists”) after nominations close, announcing that the finalists will be drawn from this pool. You could do this before contacting them (current rules require you give people a chance to decline a finalist position). Then you spend some time contacting semi-finalists to ask “If you make the shortlist, would you accept?” and giving everyone, not just a small group of overworked Hugo Administrators, a chance to confirm eligibility and turn up prior publications. After a reasonable period, you could then announce the top five nominees who didn’t decline and who appeared to be eligible as the actual shortlist.

    One feature of this: finalists couldn’t break embargo even if they wanted to, because they wouldn’t know they’d made the shortlist themselves until the final announcement.

  15. RNO: That’s why there is a Hugo Administrator who is given those powers by the WSFS constitution, which in turn is determined by the membership.

    Artistic works often exist (sometime deliberately) between the cracks of rules. It’s necessary to maintain a human in the loop, because nearly every case that comes up is a special one,. Those cases that aren’t special are subject to rule revision, but you’ll never eliminate new special cases with rules.

  16. Do – ignore the last, Kevin’s post came in while I was typing and I mistakenly thought is was the end of RNO’s post, and I also only read the last par. (Because I thought I’d read the first part).

    My apologies

  17. @Kevin,

    I’m aware of the dispute and favor acceptance of electronic publication. I’m not sure posting a draft on your blog counts though anymore than printing a draft does. There is some magic meta-thing that makes it “published” that I don’t think qualifies here. And like I said it would be nice to have the reasoning on why this is different from Scalzi.

    BTW not a stare decisis fan I take it? If so neither am I. Most conservatives aren’t.

  18. Having observed and sometimes participated in the process for over 50 years, I’ve always been of the opinion that it should be:

    A) nominate the best, award the best of the best, or
    B) nominate the best, award the favorite of the best.

    Sadly, now POLITICS has subsumed the Hugo Awards, making them meaningless as a gauge of quality, or even popularity with the majority of readers of the genre. But then, the voters have in the past reflected that majority, and that is no longer the case. The “puppy people ” have made a mockery of what was the most respected SF award. What a shame.

  19. “now”? Like last year when the No Award campaign was launched the first time?

  20. Steven McKoen, April 4th, ~8am, asked where he can get the short stories, novellas, etc. that were nominated, to read before voting.
    The last few years, the Hugo committee has put together a reading package for eligible voters, that has electronic versions of most of the nominated works in reasonably portable formats. (Sometimes a work’s publisher doesn’t want it included, or only provides an excerpt, as Orbit did with three novels last year, and obviously it doesn’t include the movies or usually the short dramatic presentations.) It usually includes at least the shorter works, the novels (Hugo and Campbell nominees), graphic novels, art samples (or pictures of art samples, depending on the medium), and samples or lists of work that nominated editors have edited.

    Assuming that all happens this year, since you’re a member, you’ll get the package a couple of months before the voting deadline. I usually start by reading the short stories and graphicals and art, and working my way up to longer pieces. Normally I’ll try to read the Campbell nominees, if there’s time; I don’t always get to the novels. (I certainly didn’t finish the Entire Wheel Of Time series before voting last year, but since three of the novels only had excerpts, I read those and similar-length samples of WoT and Correia’s book.)

  21. In what way is it winning (or losing) when the outcome of the Hugo awards is front loaded by a group bent on burying the award in their dirt? Think the Cincinnati Reds were thrilled with their ‘win’ in 1919? Maybe the voters can give everyone who publishes a participation prize just because, hmm? Want a lollypop, you pathetic pack of sad sacks, you … puppies.

  22. To all Puppy People who think that they are the only ones who have ever been picked upon: There was a concerted campaign some years ago by self-styled traditional fanzine fans to vote No Award in Best Fanzine because they said the category had been overtaken by things that weren’t really fanzines. They worked pretty hard at it (by the standards of that pre-Internet time), too. As I recall, No Award placed second overall, meaning that the voters considered 4/5 of the finalists not worthy of being on the shortlist. In the end, the majority of the voters expressed their opinion, which is something that the final-ballot voting system supports in a way that the five-highest-pluralities nominating ballot does not.

    I have ideas for reforming the system that would cover lots of interlocked issues (including finalists breaking embargo and administrators missing eligibility issues), but as this year’s Business Meeting Chair, I’m going to hold my tongue and see what happens this year with all of the expected overlapping and conflicting proposals.

    I’m fascinated by how we can generally find people earnestly declaring that we should make nominating very cheap or free and a corresponding group who are certain that the only solution is to raise the cost very high, including eliminating supporting memberships entirely and only allowing attending members to participate in any way. If partisans of both sides turn up, the debate should be … interesting.

  23. A couple of details I’d hate to see left out of Kevin’s reminiscence are:

    He’s talking about the 1986 Hugos;

    That year I had declared File 770 out of contention, after winning consecutive Hugos in 1984 and 1985. So I would have been annoyed by a couple of veteran fanzine fans trying to kill somebody else’s chance to win at any time, but especially that year.

    Lan Laskowski’s Lan’s Lantern won anyway. Ansible reported, “‘No Award’ dominated the first count, only to fall back during the Australian-ballot elimination system and wind up in second place.”

  24. The WSFS constitution provides:

    Section 3.4: Extended Eligibility. In the event that a potential Hugo Award nominee receives extremely limited distribution in the year of its first publication or presentation, its eligibility may be extended for an additional year by a three fourths (3/4) vote of the intervening Business Meeting of WSFS.

    http://www.lonestarcon3.org/wsfs/constitution.pdf

    It seems abundantly clear that the constitution contemplates this sort of situation, and that publication of Mr. Wright’s short story on his blog for the last 8 days of 2013 is exactly what is meant by “extremely limited distribution.”

    The Sasquan Hugo Administrators have evidently overlooked this provision of the constitution, and should reconsider – and reverse – their decision. Further, in the interests of fundamental fairness, Mr. Heuvelt’s story should also remain on the ballot.

  25. Righty Feep: This just in. Publication on the internet is not “extremely limited distribution.”

  26. Well, Mr. Glyer, if that is the case, then that provision of the constitution really has no use, does it? I mean, in this day & age, what would constitute “extremely limited distribution.” Mimeograph?

    I think Mr. Lorentz & his fellow administrators should reconsider.

  27. A small press hardcover edition of 400 autographed copies?

    Open the hatch on your Slan-like mind and you might think of a few examples yourself.

  28. I’m sure John Lorentz would have been quite willing to extend eligibility for any work which met the provisions of that clause. Perhaps Mr. Feep is aware of some action taken by the business meeting at Loncon (i.e. “the intervening Business Meeting of WSFS”) which didn’t make it into the business meeting minutes. If so, he should immediately bring this to the attention of Sasquan.
    Or maybe get into his time machine, go back to last August, and try to convince the 2014 WSFS Business Meeting to extend (by a 3/4 vote) Hugo eligibility for a story by the poor neglected Mr. Wright, who otherwise wouldn’t be on the ballot. Good luck with that.

  29. As I thought, mimeograph.

    Read the constitution. Not just that single section, but all of the article. In context, it’s clear that this sort of situation fits into the exception, or at least, that possibility should have been considered. I’ll bet it wasn’t, and I’m not sure I’m willing to believe that it was inadvertence rather than intention.

    But I read on the Sasquan site that they’ve sent the ballot to the printer. I have, in the past, regarded the Hugo as an award worth paying attention to. So I think I’ll just have to conclude that they’ve had their little victory.

    I’m an outsider to all this, though I’ve been reading SF since the early fifities, when my old man got me a subscription to the Science Fiction Book Club. Spent the next 15 years or so doing full tilt SF reading. Had to quit when I went to law school, because I found myself unable to engage the stories with the right mindset. But slowly, I came back.

    This year, I accidentally stumbled over the Sad Puppies campaign, & it convinced me to buy a voting membership, though I did not participate in making nominations since I have the odd notion that one ought to read the things one nominates, and I didn’t have time to do that. I will have time for the voting, though.

    But the dustup around the SPs has pretty much convinced me that their complaints have some validity. No one seems to be confronting them or their nominations on the merits. Instead, it’s all weeping & wailing, & knashing of teeth. Not to mention ad hominems.

    As for Slan, I know you were trying to be insulting, but frankly, I can’t work out where the insult lies. I read that book, oh, nearly 60 years ago, so a lot of it is no longer in my memory. But I refreshed my recollection, and am pleased to be considered Slan…

  30. @ Righty Slan: “As I thought….” You thought? Please enter evidence in support of that claim.

    First, internet publication is not “extremely limited.” Consider that the The Martian was treated as fully eligible when it was self-published in 2011. (And even if somebody had requested an eligibility extension that would not have lasted past 2012.)

    Second, here is the rule for extending eligibility:

    3.4.3: In the event that a potential Hugo Award nominee receives extremely limited distribution in the year of its first publication or presentation, its eligibility may be extended for an additional year by a three fourths (3/4)two-thirds (2/3) vote of the intervening Business Meeting of WSFS.

    No one interested in extending the eligibility of John C. Wright’s 2013 story presented the request to the 2014 business meeting. Why didn’t you contact the LonCon 3 committee and arrange for that?

Comments are closed.