More Hugo Voter Packet Items Online

Chicon 7 now has added the material for the Best Fan Writer, Best Fan Artist, and Best Editor – Long Form categories to the 2012 Hugo Voter Packet.

The committee says, “We will be adding the remaining categories progressively over the next few days.”

7 thoughts on “More Hugo Voter Packet Items Online

  1. Having a little problem logging into Chicon… I used a PIN and “membership” number I was given earlier (by the Hugo committee) but the site doesn’t confirm me. It may be that there’s a different PIN number for this… all I can do is submit an application for a number and wait to see what happens next.

  2. You were a member of Renovation and received a PIN because you were eligible to nominate this year based on that qualification. Unless you bought a Chicon membership you would not be eligible to vote on the final ballot. Did you?

  3. Definitely not, but I had thought I’d be able to see the voting packets since some of my material is displayed among them. I know who to ask about this…

  4. Taral – I am reminded of a letter I saw address to Paul Linebarger (aka Cordwainder Smith) thanking him for his contribution to an essay collection, but since it was a military publication with a high security stamp and Linebarger did not have the proper security clearance the editor was regretfully unable to send him a contributors copy.

  5. It has been straightened out… more or less. On the basis of attending Reno, I was given the magic words to nominate this year, but I am not a member of Chicon, so I cannot even see my own work in the Hugo package. Some of the nominees object to their work being seen without the exchange of filthy lucre. On the other hand, a Hugo is a Hugo, so only registered voters may see. I concede the point, but the irony of being unable to see how my own stuff has been presented is more than a little amusing.

  6. Taral, it more comes down to the fact that Chicon requested and obtained limited distribution rights, especially for the non-fannish categories. It has absolutely nothing to do with any “nominees object[ing] to their work being seen without the exchange of filthy lucre.” We legally can not make those categories accessible to anyone who is not a member. Since generally access to one category means access to all, we’ve had to work out a work-around for your very specific case.

  7. Sorry… that was more or less the expression in the reply when I asked about this. The use of “filthy lucre” is my touch, I grant you. I think what was said was more along the lines, of “work that was copyrighted.” Copyrights, ergo money.

Comments are closed.