DisCon III Declines to Comment on Code of Conduct Issue About Hugo Finalist

Soon after the 2021 Hugo Awards finalists were announced, Chris Logan Edwards asked in comments here, “How is ‘George R.R. Martin Can Fuck Off Into the Sun’ not a violation of the DisCon III Code of Conduct?” That eye-catching phrase is attached to a Best Related Work finalist whose complete title is “George R.R. Martin Can Fuck Off Into the Sun, Or: The 2020 Hugo Awards Ceremony (Rageblog Edition)”, Natalie Luhrs (Pretty Terrible, August 2020).

The specific issue is that DisCon III disseminated this phrase on its website, in press releases, and on YouTube – and in doing so the committee itself (not Natalie Luhrs’ blog publication) violated their own Code of Conduct.

The applicable parts of DisCon III’s Code of Conduct are —

We do not tolerate harassment of convention attendees in any form. Behavior that will be considered harassment includes, but is not limited to…

Comments directly intended to belittle, offend, or cause discomfort including telling others they are not welcome and should leave…

We require attendees to follow the CoC in online interactions with the convention (including the volunteer mailings, wiki, and other online facilities), at all convention venues and convention-related social activities.

I sent Edwards’ question to several committee members together with the request, “If your immediate thought is that the Hugo voters can trump your Code of Conduct, please explain why you think that.”

DisCon III’s decision to broadcast this phrase on their own platform means they also are committing to having it repeated over and over again in all their venues. As Elio M. García, Jr. explained in another comment here:

Websites around the world have amplified that a member of the WSFS should fuck off. Every official publication that lists the nomination is telling a member of the WSFS to fuck off. The Hugo Nominees discussion panel will have people talking about how GRRM (and Robert Silverberg) should fuck off. On the night of the ceremonies, the screen, the presenter, the sign language interpreter will be announcing to an audience of hundreds that specific members of the WSFS should fuck off.

(Garcia is webmaster of Westeros, a George R.R. Martin fan site not run by the author.)

Tonight Adam Beaton, the Worldcon’s Outreach Division Head, emailed the committee’s reply to my question:

Our response for publication is, “DisCon III does not publicly comment on potential Code of Conduct matters.”

Have a great day, Mike!

The leadership is going to find out how hard it is to administer a Code of Conduct they are unwilling to publicly account to themselves.

Screencap of Malka Older announcing the 2021 Best Related Work Hugo finalists on April 14.

772 thoughts on “DisCon III Declines to Comment on Code of Conduct Issue About Hugo Finalist

  1. Jeanne (Sourdough) Jackson: Instead, they chose otherwise, with results that, like Tet in 1968, proved to be offensive.

    The nomination also had the entirely predictable effect of causing a heated controversy that completely overshadowed the accolades and celebrations for the Hugo Finalists; I wish the people who nominated it had bothered to think about the harm and disrespect they were going to cause the Hugo Finalists before they did so.

  2. Yeah, no, this is nonsense, and I’ve read all the comments to this point.

    I was one of those people offended by GRRM’s wholesale trashing of the Hugo Award Presentation last year, I’d been looking forward to the ceremony so much, stayed up long past my bed-time, and that was what I got for my troubles.

    I remember when I read Natalie’s blog post, and it just encapsulated so much of how I felt, the wretchedness of the entire evening, the sheer voluble entitlement it displayed.

    So when time came to pick a BRW this year, you can bet your ass I put that down, unprompted by anything other than continued rage at the treatment of women, the treatment of people of colour, the treatment of people who weren’t part of GRRM’s little club of people he deemed worthy. I was proud of the fact that I did, and I remain so at this point. SF Fandom isn’t a special little flower for GRRM and Silverberg, it belongs to all of us.

    This weaponisation of the CoC on display here is as disgusting, in many ways. A Code of Conduct designed to protect members of marginalised and disadvantaged communities from the actions of primarily wealthy white american men is now being used by primarily wealthy white americans to attack the nomination of Natalie’s post about being attacked and marginalised by a wealthy white american man.

    For pity’s sakes, check your damned privilege.

  3. I’ve read the nominee under discussion. I rarely use the “No Award” option when voting for the Hugos but will do so wrt this nominee, because I don’t consider it deserving of an award.

    Natalie Luhrs has every right to title posts as desired, nominators have every right to select their nominees within the parameters of the award category, the nominee has every right to accept or decline any nomination according to their own lights. Observers have every right to take exception with said title, nomination, nominee, et cetera, in the manner they so choose.

    As for the matter of violating the convention’s own CoC by the publicizing of a nominee for the award connected with the con, which is part of its purpose, that’s a no-win situation for the committee. I feel sorrier for them than I do anyone else.

    As for the nominee which triggered all of this Sturm und Drang, one, I am disabled and have been since birth. The physical world I inhabit makes me feel “gross and unwelcome” every time I have to venture forth for any purpose. I am reminded of how little someone like me matters every time I come upon something as seemingly insubstantial as gravel instead of sidewalk. One has the option of simply not continuing to watch something one has chosen to watch if it offends. I wish the world afforded me that simple and easy an option.

    Two, life has a 100% mortality rate. When I was born, my mom was basically told that I probably wouldn’t live a year. That was more than 60 years ago. So beating the odds is something I understand quite well. I want to publicly congratulate Natalie Luhrs for beating the odds and hope she continues to do so.

    Me, I would have simply chosen to express the joy I felt for the winners and presenters and left it at that. But that would have made for a very short blog post and would never gotten nominated for a Hugo.

    Further Deponent Saith Not.
    Here in 0002, our feline overlords have yet to deign to notice us, as there are no cans or can openers.

  4. @Jonathan Crowe

    You know, I’m pretty sure that George, whose net worth is in the high eight or even low nine figures, can take the punch. He doesn’t need an unpaid squadron of flying monkeys to come rushing to his defence.

    I think Shakespeare probably gave a good answer to this

    Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing; ‘Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands: But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him And makes me poor indeed.

    An attack on someone’s character makes their possible wealth irrelevant. If someone’s character is attacked then to say that character cannot be defended is ridiculous.

    Also

    he’s an anomaly in that celebrities of his level don’t—frankly aren’t able to—attend fan-run conventions

    I guess I must have imagined that time I was on the committee of a small local convention and Arthur C Clarke agreed to come along as a guest.

  5. evilrooster: There’s no reason on earth for a nominee to reject the nomination because some people here allege, entirely without evidence, that the nomination votes were cast for the wrong reasons, and were therefore somehow invalid.

    You know who has standing to make a CoC complaint? GRRM. Let him make it, or not. This ill-tempered rules-lawyering is insidious.

    Hear hear!

  6. rcade: I don’t think the concerns about GRRM’s solar fornication invitation are going to go away. If the title was revised to “The 2020 Hugo Awards Ceremony (Rageblog Edition)” it would have a better chance of being considered on the merits by Hugo voters.

    I believe that’s known as concern trolling.

  7. Martin Easterbrook: You are this close to saying that a person who has done good should never be critiqued when they do a visible bad. I also dispute that this is gratuitious, as Luhrs was far from the only person that enraged, which is made clear in her very nomination.

    Whether it qualifies as a personal attack is exactly why this may be a CoC issue, but calling it gratuitious is as much as claiming there’s no basis for complaint.

  8. As someone only more recently involved in this fandom (my first Worldcon was Sasquan), I am super excited to attend in person this year. I didn’t really follow the Hugo’s or do much Hugo reading the last 2 years (am only now reading A Memory Called Empire), but I watched the livestream of the nominations this year and have already started planning out my reading to try and read as much as I can (mainly looking at the Series being the biggest challenge, and reading the prequels to the nominees this year). All I know is that I find the title of the GRRM piece to be offensive. The content is what it is, regardless of whether I think it was worthy of being nominated. I just wish that the Hugo committee or the author of the piece would’ve altered the title, that’s all. I think, in my opinion, it reflects poorly on the awards as a whole.

  9. There’s a common phenomenon around here, any time there’s a big controversy, for a few non-regulars to show up convinced that their words are so original and profound that no one else could have possibly thought of saying it already, and they cover things that have already been hashed and re-hashed and wonder why most other people don’t want to engage with it

    Thankfully you are here to engage with them in a condescending manner.

  10. GRRM’s behavior last year was bad. It was disrespectful and unwelcoming and deserving of critique.

    That chicken has come home to roost.

    The code of conduct is there to promote an atmosphere of respect and safety.

    Trying to use the CoC to tone police a work that exists for the purpose of highlighting bad behavior, and calling for people to hold themselves accountable and do better, is saying “We care more about the language used than the behaviors called out.”

    There are legitimate critiques of the work. “It’s harassing GRRM” ain’t one of them.

  11. @JJ

    The nomination also had the entirely predictable effect of causing a heated controversy that completely overshadowed the accolades and celebrations for the Hugo Finalists; I wish the people who nominated it had bothered to think about the harm and disrespect they were going to cause the Hugo Finalists before they did so.

    I wish the people heatedly controversying away here would think about how their actions are overshadowing the accolades and celebrations for the Hugo Finalists. About the harm and disrespect they’re causing the Hugo Finalists by doing so.

    More straightforwardly, but no less seriously:

    I find myself thinking about what happens to vulnerable people who are unexpectedly thrown into a political spotlight. The press blames their carers for subjecting said vulnerable people to the inevitable hounding that they will suffer from…the press.

    It’s not an exact parallel, but it does seem kind of iffy to me to complain that the nominators have unleashed this controversy on the world in comment threads that are actively and energetically spinning up the controversy. And blaming them for not honoring the nominees in comment threads where honoring the nominees has faded almost entirely away in the midst of the controversy.

  12. As I’ve said elsewhere, even if the title were perfectly innocuous, the post itself is directly and specifically unwelcoming to GRRM and Robert Silverberg (“let us shoot George R.R. Martin and Bob Silverberg into the sun where they shall bother us no longer.”), and as such is a clear unambiguous violation of the CoC: “Behavior that will be considered harassment includes . . . Comments . . . telling others they are not welcome and should leave.”

    Further, the CoC prohibits “Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior”, and as such, it’s difficult to see how nominating the post, accepting the nomination, or voting for the post aren’t all violations of the CoC as well.

    @Martin Easterbrook

    We neither support nor criticize any such works provided they do not promote hate groups or incite violence”

    The last decade has made it clear that fans want much more restrictive limitations in convention Codes of Conduct.

    @Jonathan Crowe “he’s an anomaly in that celebrities of his level don’t—frankly aren’t able to—attend fan-run conventions”

    I guess I must have imagined that time I was on the committee of a small local convention and Arthur C Clarke agreed to come along as a guest.

    This comes up in other fandoms as well. I see Lance Burton (net worth ~$100 million) and David Copperfield (net worth ~$1 B) regularly at magic conventions, interacting with fans and generally being friendly.

    @alexvdl

    There are legitimate critiques of the work. “It’s harassing GRRM” ain’t one of them.

    By the clear language of Discon’s Code of Conduct, it is.

  13. As Meredith said in another thread, this is cruel. The fact that George Martin is rich won’t in any way insulate him from the effect of that cruelty.

  14. @Lenora Rose

    It’s reasonable to critique someone’s behaviour or performance. In this case I think the criticism crossed over into personal abuse.

    The article in question is right on the edge of breaking the CoC. I think it escapes the CoC because George is a “public figure” but it is still on the edge which is why we have this article and subsequent discussion.

  15. evilrooster: I wish the people heatedly controversying away here would think about how their actions are overshadowing the accolades and celebrations for the Hugo Finalists. About the harm and disrespect they’re causing the Hugo Finalists by doing so.

    Oh, no. Put the responsibility where it rightly belongs: on the people who thought it was a brilliant idea to put a big middle finger on the Hugo ballot. They made that choice. They need to own the responsibility for it.

  16. I believe that’s known as concern trolling.

    Since you wouldn’t call your own comment concern trolling, how do you think it’s going to do in the voting under the current title, given the reaction it has gotten thus far on one of the most Hugo-obsessed SFF communities?

  17. By the clear language of Discon’s Code of Conduct, it is.

    rolls eyes Only if you completely ignore context.

  18. Oh, no. Put the responsibility where it rightly belongs: on the people who thought it was a brilliant idea to put a big middle finger on the Hugo ballot. They made that choice. They need to own the responsibility for it.

    Oh, no. Put the responsibility where it rightly belongs: on the guy who thought it was a brilliant idea to put a big middle finger on the Hugo Awards Ceremony. He made that choice. He needs to own the responsibility for it.

  19. rcade: Since you wouldn’t call your own comment concern trolling, how do you think it’s going to do in the voting under the current title, given the reaction it has gotten thus far on one of the most Hugo-obsessed SFF communities?

    LOL. How the nominee does or doesn’t do is not relevant to the fact that your statement was concern trolling. Nice change of subject though.

    Considering that you said that you didn’t see anyone on “one of the most Hugo-obsessed SFF communities” say that they would nominate this to the ballot, and plenty of others here have expressed surprise on some of the things that made it to the ballot, I hardly think that File770 is the be all and end all of what will be nominated/win.

  20. Naah, we’re each responsible for our own actions. Every individual involved in a controversy is responsible for their part in furthering it (yes, including me).

    Assuming arguendo that this is the reaction the nominators wanted (and there’s yet no evidence of what their motivation was, no matter how much it is asserted), you are the one(s) choosing to give it to them.

    What you’re saying amounts to “they made me post all these comments here on File770, about which I will now complain” and that…well, see what you made me do is an infamous sentiment for a reason.

    Rolling your eyes at this one nomination and going on to laud the nominees that excite you is also a choice you could make.

  21. Ron Payne: Thankfully you are here to engage with them in a condescending manner.

    Since that comment was posted after Mr. Crowe told me to “fuck off into the sun”, I think the plainspokenness and condescension of my reply is pretty understandable.

  22. JJ: Since that comment was posted after Mr. Crowe told me to “fuck off into the sun”, I think the plainspokenness and condescension of my reply is pretty understandable.

    And the condescension in your comments for the couple days prior to that?

  23. Nice change of subject though.

    I don’t think it’s a change of subject to talk about the subject I was talking about when you said I was concern trolling.

    But since this is another question you don’t want to answer, I’ll just give mine: I think under the present title it finishes below No Award.

  24. alexvdl: Put the responsibility [for the big middle finger on the Hugo ballot] where it rightly belongs: on the guy who thought it was a brilliant idea to put a big middle finger on the Hugo Awards Ceremony.

    evilrooster: well, see what you made me do is an infamous sentiment for a reason.

  25. alexvdl: And the condescension in your comments for the couple days prior to that?

    I’m still waiting for you to go back and and actually read my post where I explained the harms caused by the nomination, and then engage honestly with what I’ve said. Whenever you’re ready to do so, I’ll be happy to respond.

    Instead, you’ve continued to post the same strawman arguments in this comment thread over and over again, and you wonder why people are rolling their eyes and condescending to you.

  26. evilrooster: Back to the present: If people then make trouble about the nomination, say by trying to weaponize the CoC against it, then the best way to reduce the amount of trouble is for those people to stop making it. Rather than asking a nominee to reject a nomination because the troublemakers hate it.

    It’s not Natalie Luhr’s job to do anything in this situation. And if DisCon III hadn’t adopted a Code of Conduct it wouldn’t be theirs either.

    But count me among those who think the having a Code of Conduct is a valuable addition to conrunning. When a community writes down and publicizes a specific list of unacceptable behaviors, fewer people will engage in them, even if they already seem obviously wrong to many in the community. But a Code of Conduct should not be adopted if it will not apply to the most powerful people in the community — in this case, the committee themselves. And the Hugo Awards are not a suicide pact that require a committee to utter Code of Conduct violations simply because voters have put that title phrase among the finalists.

  27. Mike, I agree that It’s not Natalie Luhr’s job to do anything in this situation. This puts me at odds with those elements of the commentariat that has been saying she should change the name or withdraw from consideration. The implicit threat is that if she doesn’t she’ll be tarred as being on the side of people that the commentariat have–without evidence–decided are “disrespecting the Hugo finalists”. Do this or be like the Puppies, in almost so many words, on the nomination announcement thread.

    I think this is a complex situation. But I’m uncomfortable about the number of people who have maintained both that it is unworthy to be nominated and that the CoC should be used against it. As I said earlier in this thread, the last group of people who tried to use the rules to shape the shortlist to their liking were justly excoriated for it. I’m disappointed to see F770 regulars treading that same path.

  28. @JJ, you’re being disingenuous.

    GRRM’s bad behavior is the reason that people are calling out GRRM’s bad behavior. Putting a critique of GRRM’s bad behavior on the ballot is not “see what you made me do”.

    You already said that GRRM acted poorly. I’ve already asked you once to explain how the work being on the ballot is a giant middle finger. You declined to answer. Now I’m asking you again. Why are you arguing so vociferously against Luhrs’ critique being on the ballot?

  29. Instead, you’ve continued to post the same strawman arguments in this comment thread over and over again, and you wonder why people are rolling their eyes and condescending to you.

    Yeah, I asked you to name the strawman arguments, too. I’m still waiting for that response also.

  30. alexvdl: I’ve already asked you once to explain how the work being on the ballot is a giant middle finger. You declined to answer.

    I did indeed answer that already, at great length, but you declined to read it and engage honestly with it. Let me know when you’re ready to do so.

  31. JJ: I did indeed answer that already, at great length, but you declined to read it and engage honestly with it. Let me know when you’re ready to do so.

    LOL. “You just didn’t read it!” This is the third time I’m asking you to answer the question of “how is it a giant middle finger?” Asking you three times should be a pretty good sign that I’m ready to read the answer, eh?

  32. alexvdl: LOL. “You just didn’t read it!” This is the third time I’m asking you to answer the question of “how is it a giant middle finger?” Asking you three times should be a pretty good sign that I’m ready to read the answer, eh?

    You can’t possibly be “ready to read the answer” if you haven’t bothered to read them.

    https://file770.com/2021-hugo-awards-finalists-announced/comment-page-2/#comment-1307622
    https://file770.com/2021-hugo-awards-finalists-announced/comment-page-2/#comment-1307696
    https://file770.com/2021-hugo-awards-finalists-announced/comment-page-2/#comment-1307716
    https://file770.com/2021-hugo-awards-finalists-announced/comment-page-2/#comment-1307729
    https://file770.com/2021-hugo-awards-finalists-announced/comment-page-4/#comment-1308059
    https://file770.com/2021-hugo-awards-finalists-announced/comment-page-4/#comment-1308064

    I’ve got to go deal with some real-world things right now. I’ll check back later and see if you’ve managed to actually read what I posted and have responded in good faith, instead of making more strawman arguments.

  33. @Kjel,
    I agree with you. Replacing the offensive language in the title with “[take a flying leap]” would have been the responsible thing for the concom to do. Sportswriters do this all the time. Example: Interview with the manager who just lost a baseball game badly. “We [stunk]. Our offense was totally [messed] up. Our defense was really [rotten].” Sportswriters know well that their words are often read by kids as well as adults. It is my opinion that, regardless of the content of the nominated works, the list of Hugo nominees should be readable in a family setting.

    Incidentally, “taking a flying leap into the Sun” is hyperbole on my part–anyone who knows anything about celestial mechanics knows that is a very, very difficult thing to do. Consider all the maneuvers the Parker Solar Probe has to to do get anywhere near the Sun.

  34. @JJ

    If nothing else, You’ve done a great job at convincing me that you don’t know what a strawman argument is.

  35. Daniel Goldsmith on April 15, 2021 at 8:07 am said:
    This weaponisation of the CoC on display here is as disgusting, in many ways. A Code of Conduct designed to protect members of marginalised and disadvantaged communities from the actions of primarily wealthy white american men is now being used by primarily wealthy white americans to attack the nomination of Natalie’s post about being attacked and marginalised by a wealthy white american man.

    Ah, so it does turn out that Codes of Conduct don’t apply as long as it’s an old white dude you want to harass from the convention.

  36. I don’t see why the concom was unable to edit the title of the offending screed, as responsible journalists do–something like “George R.R. Martin Can [Take a Flying Leap] Into the Sun, Or: The 2020 Hugo Awards Ceremony (Rageblog Edition)”.

    That wouldn’t address the issue that people have with the title. I don’t think many people are objecting to the use of “fuck off”, because that’s not what the CoC would potentially find problematic. The CoC element that potentially applies is this:

    “including telling others they are not welcome and should leave”

    Telling someone to take a “flying leap into the sun” is no different in sentiment than telling someone to “fuck off into the sun”. They are both saying someone is not welcome and should leave.

    I am in an odd position here, because Natalie is a fairly good friend of mine, and I am very happy to see her nominated. I am also not a member of Discon’s staff, although I once was, and may be again in the future (long story). That said, this poses a conundrum for the Discon organizers, because of the title.

    I am pretty sure it would be a bad idea for Hugo administrators and con staff to get into policing the actual finalists – coming up with reasons to “remove” finalists for being offensive or improper is a path that just seems fraught with problems best to be avoided.

    On the other hand, having the finalist being named “George R.R. Martin can fuck off into the sun” does seem to have the effect of making Martin seem unwelcome, which is also a problem. Is it a bigger problem then giving Hugo administrators the right to remove or change the name of Hugo finalists? I don’t know. I don’t think there is a really good solution here, at least not one that anyone in this comment thread has suggested.

  37. @alexvdl

    Who was writing in reply to @JJ

    Why are you arguing so vociferously against Luhrs’ critique being on the ballot?

    Luhrs has every right to have the article on the ballot (IMHO). However, as the saying goes, “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should”.

    I think she should withdraw it because while it may genuinely represent the emotional feeling of the moment it is not something that should be immortalised in our awards system.

    I think it tends to bring the Hugo Awards into disrepute. A lot of people have spent a great deal of time and effort into trying to recruit people into voting for the Hugo’s. I think a significant number of potential voters will find this affair sufficiently distasteful to persuade them that they do not want to be involved in the Hugos.

  38. evilrooster: I think this is a complex situation. But I’m uncomfortable about the number of people who have maintained both that it is unworthy to be nominated and that the CoC should be used against it. As I said earlier in this thread, the last group of people who tried to use the rules to shape the shortlist to their liking were justly excoriated for it. I’m disappointed to see F770 regulars treading that same path.

    Ranting blog posts are a kind of performance that would have no meaning if they didn’t upset part of the audience, and when people are upset they’re likely to express that. Saying this example is unworthy to be nominated is really nothing more than an extrapolation of the negative side of the reaction to the performance.

    However, it’s also true that some commenters here understand how a CoC is supposed to operate, some others don’t, some are trying to figure it out and decide whether the example under discussion is really a violation, and a few just wish trouble on the author of the finalist. Your finding some of the comments make you uncomfortable makes sense to me.

    It’s a pejorative phrase to ask someone “What were you thinking?” however I did try to ask that of the DisCon III committee in a non-pejorative way because there was no sign that they even recognized the conflict between their announced Code of Conduct and — for example — what was presented in the Hugo finalists video announcement, or will be presented at the convention. They refused the opportunity to explain the decision on their own terms, deflected what they had done as only a “potential” violation, and have wrapped themselves in the cloak of privacy that is afforded the parties under actual CoC complaints.

  39. alexvdl: Oh, no. Put the responsibility where it rightly belongs: on the guy who thought it was a brilliant idea to put a big middle finger on the Hugo Awards Ceremony. He made that choice. He needs to own the responsibility for it.

    I know that a lot of people were disappointed and a small (but noisy) handful were enraged by the way GRRM hosted, but are you alleging that he deliberately, with malice aforethought, tried to tick people off? To be purposely disrespectful to the Worldcon community? In other words, that he was trying to be an a-hole? If so, that seems like a real stretch.

  40. Ah, so it does turn out that Codes of Conduct don’t apply as long as it’s an old white dude you want to harass from the convention.

    No one is trying to harass GRRM from the convention. This is a good example of a strawman argument.

  41. @alexvdl

    I believe this is exactly the explanation in JJ’s replies, that you are currently denying JJ gave:

    Luhrs’ rant is not any more remarkable than a lot of the other rants I saw posted. It was less well-researched and less articulate than some of the other rants that I read. The reason it was nominated wasn’t because of its quality as an essay, it was nominated because its title was a way for some people to get themselves right down to the childish, petty level of GRRM and passive-aggressively fuck things up.

    Now, you may disagree with JJ’s opinion that the nominees who chose this PARTICULAR critique of GRRM’s behavior over others that DIDN’T include a “fuck off and die” in the title were intending to gleefully use the nomination to deliver that FU to GRRM personally. You may instead opine that the nominators were ALL acting in sober judgement that Luhrs’ critique was THE best critique on its merits.

    Myself, I’d likely think there are nominators with both motivations. Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that you’re both expressing your OPINIONS. And your repeated insisting that JJ didn’t explain their opinion when they clearly did so begins to smack of bad faith on your part.

  42. @alexvdl I don’t think anyone is deliberately trying to harass GRRM from attending but it’s not hard to see how he might feel unwelcome when one of the nominated works is a hateful screed about what a horrible person he is.

    My main takeaway from this debacle is that there are enough hateful Worldcon members that the (arguably libelous) rant in question got nominated at all. A real eye-opener. Can’t we cut a garrulous old man some slack? Geez.

  43. I know that a lot of people were disappointed and a small (but noisy) handful were enraged by the way GRRM hosted, but are you alleging that he deliberately, with malice aforethought, tried to tick people off? To be purposely disrespectful to the Worldcon community? In other words, that he was trying to be an a-hole? If so, that seems like a real stretch.

    No, I am not alleging that he deliberately, with malice aforethought, tried to tick people off. Intentions aren’t magickal. He DID tick people off by his poor behavior, some of which were decisions he made prior to the ceremony.

  44. Can’t we cut a garrulous old man some slack? Geez.

    Lord knows it’s about time that garrulous old men got some slack, right?

  45. alexvdl: At the risk of crossing the streams, I’ve read this “strawman argument” phrase so many times this morning that I went and looked it up to be sure I really knew the definition. Then I thought a few others might like to be reminded. An excerpt from the Wikipedia:

    The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and the subsequent refutation of that false argument (“knock down a straw man”) instead of the opponent’s proposition.

  46. @Aaron

    I am pretty sure it would be a bad idea for Hugo administrators and con staff to get into policing the actual finalists – coming up with reasons to “remove” finalists for being offensive or improper is a path that just seems fraught with problems best to be avoided.

    I wish this were true but in the case of a title which was libelous or hate speech they would have no alternative. There don’t even have to be bad actors involved. I can think of several versions of an “X is a Y” statement that a majority of nominators would probably agree with but which are still actionable and which the adminstrators would have to remove.

    I think we ought to ask for a legal opinion on how this should be handled so that we are legally bomb proof

  47. @alexvdl it is difficult if not impossible to read your comment stating that GRRM “…put a big middle finger on the Hugo Awards Ceremony. He made that choice.” as anything other than alleging active bad faith on his part.

    In a vacuum publishing the title of this nominee is a CoC violation. However, given the obligation of the committee to faithfully publish the valid nominees there is an implied exception to the CoC’s ban on “Comments directly intended to belittle, offend, or cause discomfort including telling others they are not welcome and should leave…” when it comes to acknowledging which works Worldcon members have chosen to nominate.

  48. Here are answers to a few points, that made me angry in this tread.

    I will answer to Dann’s post on the page before, because it is rubish.
    George is a fan, the question if he is a member of this special worldcon is irrelevant (I personally would be not suprised if he is a supporting member)

    A Code of Conduct should protect everyone. The goal is to have a safe and fun convention. The fact that some groups need it more than ofters is important but clearly not relevant to the question if it is broken, that a Con should act. (And this is a statement that is independent to the current isue)

    I am now more and more in the they should have just call it, The 2020 Hugo Awards Ceremony (Rageblog Edition) camp but I also understand the desire to just read the name as nominated.
    Did Martin deserve the critisisem, yes. If “The Version of the Cerenomy where the Toast Master talks less”, would have been nominated, for example, (Okay which catagory) there would have been less backlash, but for me the Lurs Rand is a nope. Not a good nominee for the Hugo.

    (Btw timetraveling to the farer and farer future at the moment, cool)

  49. Miles Carter: I know that a lot of people were disappointed and a small (but noisy) handful were enraged by the way GRRM hosted, but are you alleging that he deliberately, with malice aforethought, tried to tick people off? To be purposely disrespectful to the Worldcon community? In other words, that he was trying to be an a-hole?

    I can’t speak to the processes of his mind, but I am certain that he decided to take the opportunity afforded him by CoNZealand – an unedited “toastmaster” type film made by him on solely his terms – to provide a lengthy performance where he provided both a positive smorgasbord of belittling and insulting behaviour and a statement of what he defined as an acceptable WorldCon and who he defined as worthy fans and worthy genre personalities, a statement supported lengthily by Silverberg. We know that he decided to do this because that is what he did.

    There is no conception I can imagine of how that decision may have been taken which would not involve some process of consideration of how such an act would or could be seen by those who’s conception of a Con and conception of such personalities is radically different to that he espoused. If he didn’t (or couldn’t) see that, then he’s what you describe as an a-hole. If he did and decided to do it anyway, then he’s an a-hole. Either way, the cap fits.

  50. Lord knows it’s about time that garrulous old men got some slack, right?

    Yes it is. In my culture elders are honored. Making fun of the elderly, no matter how deserved, is at best frowned upon. And given how much mockery is made at the expense of maundering old people (think Abe Simpson or a million other pop culture out-of-touch old timer stereotypes) and all the recent Boomer hate, I would hope for some sensitivity, some respect, some slack given. You take a different tack, that’s your right. Let’s just call it.

Comments are closed.