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. Miles Carter: 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.

    Although this chain of reasoning makes sense to you, it hinges on the false assumption that these two sets of rules have a legal interaction in the sense that the Constitution which houses the Hugo rules overrides the Code of Conduct — but the Constitution doesn’t comment on CoCs at all.

    The committee assumed the duties of administering the Hugo rules when they won the right to hold the convention, then they also issued their own Code of Conduct to tell people there are limits on their behavior within the context of DisCon III. They should have been figuring out how to satisfy both obligations before the Hugo nominations were broadcast.

  2. (Please forgive any formatting errors here – first time 770 commenter, and first time Worldcon attendee FWIW.)

    @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? If so, that seems like a real stretch.

    I very much read Martin’s hosting — in particular, his decision to focus on Campbell — as a pushback against Jeanette Ng’s acceptance speech the year before, where she called out Campbell for being a fascist. Ng’s speech was the catalyst for the award being renamed.

    And wouldn’t you know it? The very next year, we’re treated to a discussion by the host going into exquisite length about how Campbell was so impressive and influential and crucial. Nnedi Okorafor wins three Hugos in a row? Pivot to talking about Heinlein’s Hugo wins. I very much read it as a deliberate action on Martin’s part. I wasn’t the only one.

    Martin’s actions and decisions as the host for the 2020 Hugos were the precipitating cause of this ‘controversy.’ Luhrs’s post was an angry and powerful callout that helped remind me that SFF fandom has a place for people like me also. I was one of the folks who nominated it, and I stand by my nomination.

  3. What do you all think about the adage, “Two wrongs don’t make a right?”

    Meanwhile, I’d like to clarify my comment: It’s still an author’s choice to withdraw or not, even though it’s not their job. (I haven’t seen anything that rules it out.)

    A 3rd thing: buddhist study informs me that “up” and “down” aren’t what people seem to think they are.

  4. And Mike and JJ and everyone else sorry, that was the moment I did go the wrong way. I forgot how much there is not in the rules.

  5. Jayn: 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.

    I had a multiple paragraph reply written out, and then the tab froze and it all went away. This one will be a little briefer.

    I read JJ’s comments that he linked, and the one that he quoted. They all rely on the same two assumptions

    1) the work was nominated in bad faith
    2) the work being on the ballot is bad.

    They don’t prove either assumption.

    Saying that it’s “It’s people abusing the Hugo Awards to grind their personal axes,” doesn’t make it so. How is it an abuse of the Hugo Awards? Saying it is people “behaving in a childish, petty, passive-aggressive way” doesn’t mean that they were acting that way. Saying ” It’s incredibly disrespectful to the other Hugo voters, and to the works which don’t get the recognition they rightly deserve, because some people decided to throw a big baby tantrum.” doesn’t mean it was incredibly disrespectful to other Hugo voters. (I’ll go back to this point later) Saying the work is “yet another big turd, which is almost sunk to the level of the Puppies” doesn’t make it a big turd, which is almost sunk to the level of the Puppies. The comment “The problem is that using this as a way to “send a message” to handful of people fucks over hundreds of them who didn’t do anything to deserve it ” says that it fucks over hundreds of people but doesn’t say HOW it fucks over hundreds of people.

    The cherry on the top is this comment “And yet neither me, nor any of those other people who were extremely angry about what happened last year, are regarded by you as legitimate fans for being angry that small group of selfish, childish people decided that it would be fun to fuck up this year’s awards, too.”

    Again. That’s pure, unadulterated bullshit. Who is saying other people aren’t legitimate fans? Where did that even come from?

    Now that I’m done quoting directly from JJ’s quotes that I’ve read, yet again…

    No work is entitled to the recognition of being on the ballot. Not one. The recognition of being on the ballot goes to those works that get enough votes to be there. Some people don’t think that FIYAHCON or ConZealand Fringe should not be on the ballot, are the people who put those on the ballot childish, petty, and passive-aggressive? Are those being on the ballot giant middle fingers? Did MDH’s Beowulf translation being on the ballot fuck over hundreds of people?

    I asked what harms this nomination creates. HOW does Luhr’s blog post being on the ballot fuck over hundreds of people? What bad things will results because of it? Just stating “It creates harms” does not answer the question. The only harm I’ve seen is people saying that GRRM will not attend DisCon. Which is A) not much of a harm and B) an assumption of why GRRM won’t attend. JJ continually states that the nomination being on the ballot is bad, but doesn’t articulate how that nomination produces any more harms than any of the other nominations does.

    They certainly don’t show how it produces more harms than the 4 hours of bullshit it critiques.

  6. @Mike Glyer

    Thanks for providing that definition.

    My personal one is “Making up an argument someone made, so you can go against that, instead of what they actually said.

  7. 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.

    In my culture holding people accountable for their behavior is a sign of respect.

    You take a different tack, that’s your right.

  8. ISTM that Hampus’ comment makes a clear case for this being a CoC violation. Does the CoC permit people to wear T-shirts quoting the title of Luhr’s blog post at the convention? I think few people would be okay with that.

    I cannot think of a reason why different rules would apply to having the title on the T-shirt, on a screen, or having it announced by the award hosts.

  9. There are so many things I want to say about this. But, I literally cannot figure out a way to say them so that my words are not misconstrued.

    I may have a better way of saying it, later.

  10. Out of interest are people writing to Worldcon to permanently exclude Martin and Silverberg for their far more offensive three hour racist and sexist behaviour or are four letter words the only thing people care about?

    I am so putting this to the top of my nominees now

  11. @StefenB

    I will answer to Dann’s post on the page before, because it is rubish.

    [snip]

    A Code of Conduct should protect everyone.

    I’m not sure how what I said was rubbish when it agrees with your assertion that the CoC should protect everyone. Hopefully, that objective still exists in the year 8178.

    Regards,
    Dann
    “You can’t be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer.” – Frank Zappa

  12. @Martin Easterbrook

    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.

    I said it in the last thread, but I’d like to say it again: the cruelty of this nomination has me reconsidering my attendance this year (as well as a number of first time attendees I know). I don’t care how famous you are, if something is nominated that outright tells you that you are not welcome, then you don’t feel welcome. I can’t imagine attending a ceremony that is telling me to fuck off, or even one that is telling someone who does/would attend to fuck off. It’s so deliberately mean.

    @alexvdl

    The only harm I’ve seen is people saying that GRRM will not attend DisCon.

    It will discourage plenty of people from attending, and it is insulting an attendee. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and though I do very much think the 2020 ceremony was a complete mess, I also think that the post is needlessly cruel. It being nominated, despite being by maybe just 40 people, makes it seem as though the general sentiment is to fuck off. It is a tacit approval to have presenters read this title, to have it in the voter’s packet, etc.

    I do not envy the concom, but I hope they make a more concrete statement sooner rather than later.

  13. I wish this were true but in the case of a title which was libelous or hate speech they would have no alternative.

    As the Constitution to the WSFS is written now, you are correct: They would be required to publish the name of the finalist, and would have no authority to disqualify or otherwise remove a finalist.

    And I think it would be a bad idea to empower Hugo administrators and con staff with the authority to make those judgment calls, both for the sake of the award and the sake of the administrators and staff.

  14. I do believe that, If the author of the nominated rant were to say the same things about GRRM, using the same language, on a panel, she might be subject to an “investigation” for violating the COC…Discon is undermining the entire notion of a COC by not addressing this issue.

  15. Gosh, alexvdl, if that was the short version of your reply to me, I’d hate to see what the long one looked like.

    I read JJ’s comments that he linked, and the one that he quoted. They all rely on the same two assumptions

    1) the work was nominated in bad faith
    2) the work being on the ballot is bad.

    They don’t prove either assumption.

    No, they don’t. Nor do YOU prove your contrary opinion that the work was nominated in good faith (unless you have a poll of the motivations of the people who voted handy to show us), or that the work being on the ballot is an unquestionably good thing (which is inextricably a matter of subjective opinion).

    Repeatedly demanding proof of the unprovable is unproductive on your part. Calling it ‘bullshit’ because of a lack of proof that is impossible to provide is a weak argument, as well as insulting.

    What bad things will results because of it? Just stating “It creates harms” does not answer the question. The only harm I’ve seen is people saying that GRRM will not attend DisCon. Which is A) not much of a harm and B) an assumption of why GRRM won’t attend.

    Right there, you’re acknowledging that there IS some harm, so you’ve invalidated your own declaration that no one has explained to you what harm is caused by the fuck you title – you merely minimize the extent of it. I’m not saying that GRRM is above criticism. I just don’t think it would be a great thing if it started to be open season on “fuck off and die” titles, even if it’s true that the harm would be much less the more powerful the person being told to fuck off and die has. If the threshold is “40 voters want to tell someone to fuck off and die, for reasons,” then the people getting told that in the future are not always going to be powerful people.

  16. The Discon website currently lists only 2 people in the Listeners Area. I’ve also been told (privately) that there have been people promoted to positions they didn’t expect to be in due to committee/staff resignations. I don’t know if this has had any effect on the situation.

  17. Surely the default position is that people nominate things in good faith, unless there’s evidence otherwise.

    Or, I guess, maybe not, at which point we have a lot more picking at nominations to do, don’t we?

  18. I’m seeing claims elsewhere that those of us on File 770 who object to the title are seeking to protect GRRM from legitimate criticism.

    That isn’t what’s going on here. This place went supernova after the ceremony last year. How many times do we gotta take him out to the virtual woodshed for people to believe we hated his toastmasting just as much as you did?

  19. I am 100% certain that it deserves the Hugo nomination, and was very well-done.

    I also believe that it is a violation of the Code of Conduct, at least how I read the CoC, at least with how it now appears on the ballot.

    I am not smart enough to know how to settle that hash, but there does seem to be a need for this to be publically addressed by the con, either way.
    Chris

  20. I will confess that keeping up with File770 is one of the things in my life that has taken a hit in the last year, for reasons that have nothing to do with the site. So maybe it’s disingenuous for me to drop by just to comment on this thread. But…

    I’d like to weigh in with those pointing out that it’s an incredibly shitty thing to stomp all over Natalie’s Hugo short-listing on the very day that she should have been allowed some brief moment to bask in the status of being a Hugo finalist. An incredibly shitty thing.

    I don’t care that people are purportedly directing their ire at the nominators who nominated it, or the Hugo administrators who failed to gate-keep it, or the Discon staff who declined to go outside their remit to censor the announcement of it, or any other associated entities.

    In the grand scheme of things, very few people ever get the chance to enjoy being a Hugo finalist. And if we, the members of WSFS, collectively (if certainly not all individually) have chosen her for that honor, then dammit she should be allowed to ENJOY it for at least some brief fleeting moment before being drowned out by voices shouting that she should never have written such a thing, and if she did she should certainly not be recognized for having done so, and if recognized she should have been embarrassed enough to decline the recognition.

    It’s a shitty thing to do.

  21. Ash: It will discourage plenty of people from attending, and it is insulting an attendee.

    I feel like people that aren’t coming to the con because of a single work on the nominated ballot is “insulting an attendee” then they’re telling on themselves. They were going to come to the con after the blatantly disrespectful Hugo Awards ceremony that insulted every single person watching it, but someone pointing out how disrespectful that ceremony was is the reason they’re not going to come?

    Also, don’t worry, GRRM is apparently not coming, so it’s not insulting an attendee!

    Jayn: Gosh, alexvdl, if that was the short version of your reply to me, I’d hate to see what the long one looked like.

    Think of how much good that single software glitch did the world.

    Jayn: Nor do YOU prove your contrary opinion that the work was nominated in good faith (unless you have a poll of the motivations of the people who voted handy to show us), or that the work being on the ballot is an unquestionably good thing (which is inextricably a matter of subjective opinion).

    Did I state that the work was nominated in good faith? Or did I say that people shouldn’t assume that it wasn’t, and show reasons why it was possible that it was? Did I say that the work being on the ballot is an unquestionably good thing? You seem to have read things into my comments that I didn’t actually say. JJ said the work fucked over 100s of people. I said “How did it do that?” and am okay with going on the record saying “No, it didn’t.” that’s far different than saying “the work being on the ballot is an unquestionably good thing.”

    If someone says “Peanut butter is the best thing in the world” and I say “No, it ain’t” that doesn’t mean I think peanut butter is the worst thing in the world.

    Jayn: Right there, you’re acknowledging that there IS some harm,

    My bad, I guess my sarcasm wasn’t heavy enough. By “not much of a harm” I meant “not any sort of harm at all”.

    rcade: How many times do we gotta take him out to the virtual woodshed for people to believe we hated his toastmasting just as much as you did?

    … who is saying anyone should take GRRM out to the virtual woodshed? What kind of high falutin’ hyperbole is this? No one cares about whether or not you hated his toastmasting as much as anyone else.

  22. My bad, I guess my sarcasm wasn’t heavy enough. By “not much of a harm” I meant “not any sort of harm at all”.

    Because, if I understand you correctly, you think the fact that GRRM is a powerful man COMPLETELY negates any harm inflicted by being publicly told by multiple people to fuck off and die during a world broadcast of the most important ceremony in SFF.

    I acknowledge that the harm is certainly less when one has plenty of money to dry one’s tears with and multiple fans left to comfort the sting. But you completely avoid both the problem of whether this is a violation of the Coc and whether telling anyone to fuck off and die in public is intrinsically harmless simply because it has no immediate tangible effect – when intangible but real effects are what the CoC’s were made to deal with. So while I’m not TOO worried that GRRM is going to come to too much harm, this will be used against others who are not as powerful and will therefore be harmed more.

  23. @Heather Rose Jones

    very few people ever get the chance to enjoy being a Hugo finalist.

    Well, yeah. And Luhrs’ appearance on the ballot means that someone who actually deserves it isn’t getting the chance.

    then dammit she should be allowed to ENJOY it for at least some brief fleeting moment

    She did: “I am so honored and thrilled . . . I can’t say how much it means to me . . . My heart is full to overflowing”

    And Ms. Luhrs has tweeted: “And by the way, Mike Glyer: I will not be withdrawing my essay from consideration for a Hugo Award and I will not consent to the title being changed.” Double down . . . .

  24. I’d like to weigh in with those pointing out that it’s an incredibly shitty thing to stomp all over Natalie’s Hugo short-listing on the very day that she should have been allowed some brief moment to bask in the status of being a Hugo finalist.

    People said the same thing when the Puppies filled the ballot. Some of the nominees were part of the stunt, so there was no sympathy for their moment being spoiled, but others were put there by the Puppies without their knowledge.

    I think you’re asking too much for any concerns about the Hugo ballot not to be raised on the day it comes out. Nobody on File 770 was seeking her out with their criticism. We discussed it here.

  25. Also, don’t worry, GRRM is apparently not coming, so it’s not insulting an attendee!

    As recently as April 10, his website said he was attending DisCon. Using the fact it no longer says he’s attending as a sign he wasn’t harmed is pretty cheeky. He loves Worldcon and the Hugo ceremony.

  26. @alexvdl

    The only harm I’ve seen is people saying that GRRM will not attend DisCon.

    I’m not going to address the issue of the nomination, but I will address this quote. This statement frankly suggests that you are completely unaware of the massive amount of work GRRM and his spouse do behind the scenes to support marginalized pros and fans. They continuously and generously undertake efforts to support younger authors and BIPOC/underrepresented professionals, mentoring them, arguing on their behalf, providing advice, and even fighting to create opportunities for them. In other words, GRRM uses his power and experience to help these creators in whatever way he can. Hell, GRRM is engaged in this activity as we speak thanks to his new deal with HBO. But often you don’t hear about these efforts on Twitter or where ever else because GRRM does not broadcast them. But many of us know.

    George and Parris have done the same for Worldcon fandom, single-handedly bringing in new fans and encouraging (even stridently pushing) those fans to organize, to make change, and to work to transform fandom into a better place one volunteer hour at a time.

    Alex, regardless of the issue of the nomination, you vastly oversimplify this as only ‘GRRM-not-attending.’ If he and his wife are driven from Worldcon, even just for a few years, what impact will that have on all the networking and supporting he does behind the scenes? How many missed conversations, moments of mentoring, creative solutions, and yes, even financial support, will not happen because they weren’t there to give back to the community they love? I am not talking about larger systemic issues here, I’m talking about two people and what they are demonstrably doing for others RIGHT NOW and what they have to give of themselves in the future.

    You clearly don’t know what’s actually happening on the ground if you think souring them on Worldcon will NOT harm the Worldcon community, and many of the professionals and fans who have benefited in concrete ways from GRRM’s friendship and support over the years.

    And now back to debates about CoC and nominations and BRW.

  27. @alexvdl

    I feel like people that aren’t coming to the con because of a single work on the nominated ballot is “insulting an attendee” then they’re telling on themselves. They were going to come to the con after the blatantly disrespectful Hugo Awards ceremony that insulted every single person watching it, but someone pointing out how disrespectful that ceremony was is the reason they’re not going to come?

    The difference, for me, is that the Hugo debacle is arguably a fuck up, and definitely one that involved multiple people, whereas the title of this nomination is explicitly, intentionally meant to tell someone they are not welcome. If I thought that the ceremony was intended to be unwelcoming, to insult others, to generally be mean then that would be entirely different and I would have a hell of a lot more problems with future Worldcons than I do because of this one nomination this one year.

    I think that intent matters, and I don’t think there was malicious intent in the case of the awards, but there is for this blog post.

  28. And Luhrs’ appearance on the ballot means that someone who actually deserves it isn’t getting the chance.

    Exactly how are you determining who deserves to be on the ballot other than the voting?

  29. rcade: I’m seeing claims elsewhere that those of us on File 770 who object to the title are seeking to protect GRRM from legitimate criticism.

    You’re quite right that shielding GRRM from criticism is not what my issue is about. And as you remember, there was a range of reaction from agreement to strong criticism after George R.R. Martin left a comment here defending his performance as Toastmaster — which is linked in Luhrs’ post and has gotten another couple hundred hits these past two days. There’s no good reason for people to be unaware of that GRRM was criticized here, too.

  30. For the record: NOBODY has said Natalie shouldn’t have written it. I see questions whether it’s the best representation of the anger prompted by that event, questions whether it should be nominated (Based on a variety of critiques), questions whether a post that’s not by a POC or trans person is an appropriate choice to speak for the feelings of POC or trans people, but not, as far as I know, any doubts whether it should have been written.

    I think it was an excellent rant. I think the subject deserved some castigation. I’m pretty sure I would not have nominated it. I have seen many brilliant responses to current events inside and outside fandom I do not think are award worthy without at any point thinking this means they should not have been written.

    And a part of me does wonder if we’d be having this conversation about the CoC regarding a title that said “Vox Day should [be yeeted] into the Sun.”

  31. @jayn

    this will be used against others who are not as powerful and will therefore be harmed more.

    This, very much this.

  32. bill: And Ms. Luhrs has tweeted: “And by the way, Mike Glyer: I will not be withdrawing my essay from consideration for a Hugo Award and I will not consent to the title being changed.” Double down . . . .

    Why is that tweet addressed to me? I haven’t called for either of those things.

    Luhrs wanted people to nominate the work and I’m not looking to them to do DisCon III’s job of seeing that the committee adheres to its Code of Conduct. Worldcon’s management needs to be robust enough to solve issues, not just refuse to comment and pray that they’ll magically go away.

  33. @Mike Glyer

    In my experience what People On Twitter think your opinion consists of is usually an amalgamation of every comment on File770 which they disagree with most, seen through the least generous lens possible. Your participation in creating those comments doesn’t seem to be required.

  34. OGH did nothing wrong by seeking comment from DisCon on whether it was violating its own Code of Conduct. File 770 covered this the same way it covered complaints about Toni Weisskopf’s guest of honor status and many other convention controversies.

    Natalie Luhrs chose a title intended to provoke and it continues to provoke now that a lot more people just became aware of it. Funny how that works.

    In my experience what People On Twitter think your opinion consists of is usually an amalgamation of every comment on File770 which they disagree with most, seen through the least generous lens possible.

    Yep. I’m tired of him getting all the blame when the rest of us work so hard to earn our share.

  35. Meredith: In my experience what People On Twitter think your opinion consists of is usually an amalgamation of every comment on File770 which they disagree with most, seen through the least generous lens possible. Your participation in creating those comments doesn’t seem to be required.

    Pretty much. While I have my own opinions, they’re not all right and they’re not all immutable, and I’ve always looked to the discussion community of my fanzine, now my blog, to help me understand why other people think differently about things. And as my understanding grows, I may still like my ideas better, but other times I decide the rival view makes more sense and go that direction. A byproduct is that the comment section hosts a range of opinions and temperaments. And to some minds, the act of hosting a discussion makes me the owner of everything said in that discussion, and they attribute the part they dislike to me whether or not it’s a position I’ve taken.

    We saw that in the discussion of AO3 here. I clearly said that AO3 was a fine addition to the ballot. Commenters who were critical about AO3’s nomination or how members responded to it were equated to me and I ended up with all kinds of new enemies. (I also didn’t post somebody’s page of caselaw and made some mad, but I’ll own that part.)

  36. Jason Sanford is someone who nominated the blog post and describes his reasoning here:

    The essay was among my nominations, for reasons I shared in this thread. Wasn’t an attack nomination. When I pulled together my picks for the Best Related category, this essay was one of the items which stuck with me from 2020.

    Best Related Work has for more than a decade seen essays like this nominated. I personally wish nonfiction books would be spun into their own Hugo category. But that doesn’t mean essays and stuff like this shouldn’t be honored in this category.

  37. jayn: But then, Mike, what do you think should be done by DisCon?

    You may mean, what do I think is the solution, and it’s not that I don’t have any ideas, but are they the best ideas? I’ve chaired a Worldcon and my real answer is that DisCon should crowdsource possible solutions within the committee and from others they trust. They have access to some wise and experienced people, just like I did. They’ll get a range of response, and part of it will be to make no public statements (because “people always complain”), and another part will be to say “The Hugo voters made me do it! Vox populi, vox dei!” (despite it ultimately being only the voices of a few dozen voters.) I hope there will be others with the presence of mind to recommend a course of action that will deal with the work being on the ballot in a way that honors the Code of Conduct.

  38. jayn: Because, if I understand you correctly, you think the fact that GRRM is a powerful man COMPLETELY negates any harm inflicted by being publicly told by multiple people to fuck off and die during a world broadcast of the most important ceremony in SFF.

    You do not understand me correctly. And it’s “George R.R. Martin Can Fuck Off Into The Sun” not fuck off and die.

    rcade: Using the fact it no longer says he’s attending as a sign he wasn’t harmed is pretty cheeky.

    I guess my sarcasm was heavy enough there. Good to see I’m getting it calibrated.

    KR: This statement frankly suggests that you are completely unaware of the massive amount of work GRRM and his spouse do behind the scenes to support marginalized pros and fans.

    I am not unaware of the work GRRM and his spouse do. On one hand you have the things you talk about, and the Alfie awards, and the work he does in Santa Fe through his theater, etc. ON the other hand you have the 4 hour debacle of an awards ceremony, and the Hugo Losers not being admitted to the Hugo Losers party. People would like him to continue to do the former, and learn from the latter.

    People aren’t calling for GRRM to lose book contracts, or to be banned from WorldCon, or to be tarred and feathered. They want him to do BETTER. They want fandom to do better. If he responds to that by taking his ball and going home, that says a lot about why he was doing it in the first place, eh?

    ASH: I think that intent matters, and I don’t think there was malicious intent in the case of the awards, but there is for this blog post.

    If I hit you with my car, does it matter if I intended to or not?

    rcade: Jason Sanford is someone who nominated the blog post and describes his reasoning here:

    Is this you acknowledging a nomination in good faith?

  39. @alexvdl

    If I hit you with my car, does it matter if I intended to or not?

    Absolutely it does, both to me and to the legal system.

  40. Martin: “I think we ought to ask for a legal opinion on how this should be handled so that we are legally bomb proof.” A legal opinion might be useful, but an opinion from a lawyer (as distinct from a ruling by a judge) isn’t binding, and it’s entirely possible that if Discon asked three lawyers, they’d get three significantly different answers (one of which might be “there isn’t any directly relevant legislation, or relevant case law, on this yet” or “if you were in $staten, X, but in $other_state Y, because the courts of appeals for those two circuits disagree, and the Supreme court hasn’t looked at the matter.)

    @Miles: You can cut a garrulous old man slack for being boring. You can, if you like, cut him slack for not letting anyone else talk–though if you tell me that I need to let anyone, of any age, spend three hours monologuing and interrupt me if I say anything more than ‘please pass the salt,” I’ll find something else to do with my evening. What I am not going to do is cut someone slack for actively offensive behavior because he’s old. “We don’t say that here” or “This is where the party ends…I can’t stand here listening to you and your racist friend” are not offensive. If someone insists that I have to listen to blatantly offensive material because the speaker is elderly isn’t respecting our elders, because it’s treating them as less-than-competent, and thus unable either to learn why those things are problematic or to remember that “some people disagree with me, and might get upset” before speaking.

  41. Absolutely it does, both to me and to the legal system.

    But not to the doctor or the body shop. shrugs The harm is done whether the harm is intended or not.

  42. Is this you acknowledging a nomination in good faith?

    Is this you being tedious?

    Jason Sanford is a thoughtful critic. His reason for nominating it is a useful data point.

  43. @alexvdl

    But not to the doctor or the body shop. shrugs The harm is done whether the harm is intended or not.

    Yes, the harm is done, but it’s the difference between me remaining friends with someone since it was not attempted murder, just a big mistake. It would also decide how it is settled in court, which I sure as hell would be doing if someone deliberately tried to run me over, hah.

    To be clear, I’m just following your example here, this comparison falls apart, but my overall point is that this is deliberately meant to make someone feel unwelcome, and I don’t personally feel that the ceremony shitshow was intentional. If I did, yeah, I wouldn’t attend until it was better addressed. I do not have an issue whatsoever with a blog post that criticizes the ceremony.

  44. I wish that people would stop referring to GRRM as “elderly”. He’s 2 years (and some months) younger than I am and I’d like to think that he and I are both at least a good 10 or 12 years away from being elderly. I am increasingly annoyed by people who think that 70 and 90 are the same thing.

  45. I think one should consider whether the language of the Code of Conduct is the problem, rather than the essay. The language in question:

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

    Seems to be potentially overbroad. For example, to use a strict reading of this clause (and since it applies to staff members, this is salient), if someone were to be found to have engaged in harassing conduct and banned from the convention, and convention staff telling that person to leave would technically be in violation of this provision.

    This is hypertechnical to be sure, but that’s how the CoC is written. Now, if someone thinks that surely reason would prevail and that telling a banned individual they should leave shouldn’t be counted as a violation of the CoC, then one might ask why one is willing to deviate from the text there.

    On the other hand, one might take this example as suggesting that the provision maybe should be rewritten and made a little more discerning.

  46. If he responds to that by taking his ball and going home, that says a lot about why he was doing it in the first place, eh?

    No, it doesn’t.

    It would be exceptionally uncharitable to retroactively question his contributions to Worldcon if he gafiates over a nomination telling him to “fuck off into the sun.”

    Maybe he’s offended, maybe he isn’t, but he’s entitled to his feelings about how he’s being treated like anybody else.

Comments are closed.