To Say Nothing of the Dogs; or, How We Confound the Hugos’ Third Slump (Hugo voting proposal discussion 5)

By Jameson Quinn: After 1, 2, 3, 4 threads here, and countless more that are peripherally related and/or on other blogs, discussing how to make the Hugo nomination process more resistant to slate voting and other “griefer” attacks (in other words, protect them from those intent on using the rules to disrupt and provoke), I believe a logical way forward is becoming evident. Below, I outline a set of proposals that could be made and passed at the Business Meeting.

If you count every separate idea below, there are 5 new proposals. That’s a lot. Personally, I support all of them. But I realize that it’s unlikely that the business meeting will pass all 5. That’s why these proposals are designed to be as modular as possible. Sure, they could all be passed together and would work to reinforce each other; but in most cases each one would also be a sensible step forward if passed alone.

Following that, I will answer some obvious questions that these proposals bring up, in FAQ format.

At the end of this post, I’ll present a rough draft of how these proposals might be formalized. This is for illustration purposes only. In the case of 3SV, there is a group of current and future Worldcon Chairs and Hugo Administrators working on formal language, and I expect they’ll do a much better job than I have. But I needed to present an illustrative version of 3SV to make sense of the extra proposals that would modify it.

I will also have some things to say in the comment thread that shouldn’t be here in the main post.

Overall plan outline:

  1. Pass EPH this year. This should at least keep a slate from sweeping any category. (As for 4/6, it is not as important. I personally would support amending it to 5/6 passing it; but the plan does not hinge on this.) Also, remove the 5% threshold this year.
    1. Present a proposal for EPH+, a technical enhancement to the EPH vote-counting system which is projected to give slates about one fewer finalist per category in circumstances like the current ones.
  2. Create a “base 3SV” proposal, which inserts a new qualification ballot between the current nominating and final ballots.
    1. The Hugo Committee would publish a “longlist” of the top 12 or 15 works in each category from the nominating ballot without specifying their voting totals or the order in which they finished.
    2. A second round of voting would then be conducted in which members of the current Worldcon can “preemptively no-award” any of the works on the longlist.
    3. Longlisted works which are rejected by a majority of the voters AND by an absolute minimum number of voters would be excluded from consideration for the final ballot. (The absolute minimum would be a substantial number – potentially 20% of all eligible members – to ensure that a slate-voting minority cannot hijack this round of voting).
    4. The final ballot would then proceed as at present, with finalists being the highest ranked candidates from the nominating (first round) ballot who were not excluded by the subsequent qualification vote.
  3. Create several additional proposals, intended primarily to modify or go alongside the base 3SV proposal above:
    1. First, a “mercy panel”, established by the prior year’s Worldcon, with the power, by unanimous vote, to “spare” any longlist work(s) from the 3SV voting round. Works so “spared” would be able to become finalists without possibility of second-round rejection, but would of course still be subject to being voted below “no award” in the final round.
    2. Second, a “+2 against trolls”  (Hat tip) round of voting, simultaneous with the 3SV round. This would allow any eligible first-round voter to add nominations for 2 works per category, that they had not already nominated, from the longlist. These nominations would be counted in determining the finalists, just as if they had been made in round 1. (Note: most of the discussion on this point has been made on the “+1” version of it; it was first proposed in combination with 3SV as “3SV+1”. But passing +2 this year would allow us to amend that to +1 next year, while the reverse is not true; so +2 is the best way to keep our options open.)
    3. (Note: this is a new proposal which has not been discussed in the prior threads, and as such, it is far more tentative than the rest) Third, a “extend finalists” option in the 3SV voting, whereby voters may choose for each work between the options “Reject”, “Accept with extension”, “Accept”, and “Abstain”. If one or more works that had gotten more than a certain threshold of combined “Reject” and “Accept with extension” votes became a finalist, the target number of finalists in that category would be increased by 1 for each such work, up to a maximum target of 7 finalists. As with rejection votes, the totals for “Accept with extension” votes would be published after the Hugos were awarded, but the names of specific works would be anonymized, to make it clear that the judgment of “Accept with extension” has to do with voting process and not with the quality of a work itself
  4. (optional) Discuss the possibility of a proposal to go back and fix the no-awarded categories from this year and last year using retro Hugos. I do not believe that a proposal to do this should be made this year; the Business Meeting will be plenty busy enough without it. But I think it’s a good idea to begin this discussion and have a proposal like this ready for 2017 or 2018.

FAQ

Overall structure

Q. You say that a way forward is becoming evident. In whose view?

A. Many of the aspects of the plan I’ve outlined have been arrived at collaboratively and have drawn more-or-less broad consensus in the relevant discussion threads (linked at the top of this post). It’s true that other aspects more clearly come from one person: me, Jameson Quinn. But the proposal drafts above are not the end of the road; please comment below, and we will continue to work on them (including discarding ideas, if appropriate).In this thread, even if you have no new arguments to add, it is useful to just say just “I like this part” and/or “I don’t like that part.” Of course, if you’re going to say one of those, please do read through this FAQ, as your concerns may be addressed already.

Q. We can’t make any actual decisions until the Business Meeting, and many people who will be there aren’t even paying attention yet. So why have this discussion now?

A. There is no question that the Business Meeting has the final word. We’re not trying to take over the decision process here, just to smooth the way. That is: the point of the discussion now is to refine the proposals, clarify their advantages and disadvantages, and get consensus on the points that become obvious through that process.

Q. Is this set of proposals too complicated to even work as designed? (joke youtube link)

A. I have several things to say to that. First off, you’re right, they are somewhat complicated; but I’d argue that well-designed voting systems, while they should avoid senseless intricacy, can reasonably be a bit involved. Secondly, each of the the three main parts of this — EPH/EPH+, 3SV, and +2 against trolls, — could stand on its own, helping solve some aspects of the current situation even if the other parts were not present. This partial redundancy means the whole is more robust, not more fragile, than any of the parts.

Q. Are these proposals worth the extra complexity they add?

A. I’ll address this question for each proposal separately. But more generally, it depends on what problem(s) you’re trying to solve. See the next question for more on that.

Q. Out of the 5 new proposals here (plus EPH), what is the least we could do that would address the problem?

A. That depends what you mean by “the problem”. You might think it’s:

  1. Slate sweeps (that is, the possibility that all the Hugo finalists in one or more categories come from a slate) In this case the minimal solution is to Pass EPH. See my paper with Bruce for more details.
  2. Slates nominating works that are intended to defame, harass, offend, or otherwise discredit the Hugos? In this case the minimal solution is to Pass 3SV.
    1. How could we solve the above without causing undue negativity? In this case the minimal solution is to may be 3SV, if social norms are enough to prevent campaigns to reject good-faith works. If not, adding on the Mercy Panel would help.
  3. Multiple categories without a choice between at least 2 organic (non-slate) works: In this case the minimal solution is to Pass EPH+. If you do not like EPH+, then you could get a similar result with a combination of EPH, 3SV and “+2 (or +1) against trolls”.
    1. If you think the problem is even 1 category without such a choice, then the minimal solution with enough of a safety margin is probably combining EPH+ and 3SV+2 (that is, both of the possible solutions just above).
  4. Slates acting as “kingmakers” (that is, supporting some works which already have organic support, merely in order to deny others the chance of becoming finalists)? In this case the minimal solution is either EPH+, 3SV, and +2 (or +1) against trolls; or, alternatively, EPH, 3SV, and extend finalists. For the greatest possible strength against kingmakers, therefore, you’d combine EPH+, 3SV, +2 (or +1) aganst trolls, and extend finalists.
  5. All of the above: to solve all the problems above, you’d probably need all the proposals.

Q. Even if you consolidated all of this, it would still be at least 2 and probably 3 different proposals. Do you really expect all of that to pass through the BM?

A. Well, it’s not impossible. But frankly, no, I wouldn’t expect all of this to pass. But I still think it’s worth comprehensively laying out all the different problems and what it would take to fix them all, so that we can make this decision with our eyes open.

Q. Isn’t there a simpler way? Have you looked for one?

A. We have looked for one, and I believe the proposals above are the best of what we’ve considered. Others may disagree. For now, this FAQ is just a starting point for more discussion.

Q. OK, enough beating around the bush. What do you actually hope passes?

A. I’d like all of it to pass. But I’d be pretty satisfied with EPH+, 3SV, and +1 against trolls. I’m not attached to the mercy panel or extended finalists.

EPH and EPH+

Q. Is EPH+ worth the extra complexity it adds? Why?

A. I think it clearly is; but then again, I (Jameson) may not be the best person to answer this question. The advantages of EPH+ are clear; it helps ensure more of the finalists are determined by organic voters. As for the disadvantages and/or complexity: since I live and breathe voting theory, it actually doesn’t seem any more complex than EPH to me. Though I realize that is probably not true for other people, it’s hard for me to judge how much of a problem that is.

Q. This is complicated. Where can I read more about why it was proposed?

A. Start with Bruce Schneier’s post. If you’re up for some academic jargon, you can supplement that with our paper. Finally, read this post from the previous thread in which I try to explain the reasons for EPH+ in plain language.

 Q. Is EPH or EPH+ still needed if we have 3SV, or if we have 3SV along with some of the related options?

A. I believe that at least EPH is still necessary to prevent a slate from taking over the longlist. Beyond that, see my answer to the “what is the least we can do” question.

Q. I want to look at lots of graphs!

A. I have a bunch. (more to follow on this, in the discussion.)

3SV base

Q. Is this proposal worth the extra complexity it adds? Why?

A. I believe it definitely is. If we want keep offensive and/or harassing works from becoming finalists, we need to empower somebody to do that. And fandom is too broad to entrust that power to a small group, so we need some proposal similar to 3SV. Obviously, we could write the proposal differently, but I believe the version above is a reasonable starting point and sticks to the essentials.

Q. Why 3SV (voting to eliminate finalists) and not just a second round of positive “semi-final” voting to decide finalists?

A. Several reasons:

  1. A semi-final ballot would give voters just a few weeks to assimilate and vote on an extended list of longlisted items. Many of the most careful nominators would barely vote for any; while the most prolific voters would probably be going mostly by kneejerk reactions. This is somewhat true for 3SV, too, but it is less of an issue as explained below.
  2. A semi-final ballot conflates two questions: “Do I like this work and feel it may deserve a Hugo?” with “Do I feel that this work’s presence on the longlist or in the list of finalists would be a legitimate result of honest fan preference?”. In 3SV, those questions are separate, and votes to disqualify a work are based on the second question alone — one which does not require fully reading/reviewing every longlist work.
  3. Unlike a semi-final ballot, 3SV deals decisively with the issue of “troll finalists”: that is, works promoted by slates explicitly in order that their shocking and/or offensive nature might cast discredit on the awards.
  4. 3SV would be similar in spirit to the “no award” option which is already enshrined in the constitution, except that works thus eliminated would not take up space on the list of finalists, and awkward moments at the awards themselves would be minimized.
  5. A semi-final ballot opens up new kinds of attacks on the list of finalists, such as actually increasing slate voter’s capacity to act as “kingmakers” and/or perform “area defense” against certain kinds of works. All they’d have to do was to have enough voting power to reverse the gap between two works which both have significant organic (non-slate) support. But under 3SV, actually eliminating a work would not be possible without a relatively high “quorum”* of voters, and we hope that community pressure would lead to a low background level of organic rejection votes, so a minority of slate voters would be unable to use rejection as a weapon.

Q. Wouldn’t this lead to constant campaigns to eliminate works people just happen not to like, and thereby to hurt feelings?

A. There are several safeguards against this. First and most important is social pressure; it should be clear from the outset that this is a just safeguard against outright bad faith, not a chance to express differences in taste, and I believe that any Worldcon members who promote disqualifying a work just because they don’t like it will not get much support. Second, there’s eligibility. Various rules, discussed below in “open issues”, have been proposed to prevent a campaign to bring in Worldcon outsiders after the longlist is public. Third, there’s the quorum; if participation in the second-round voting is low, it will not be enough to pass the threshold to eliminate any work. Fourth, there’s the relatively short period of the semifinals, also discussed below. And fifth, there’s the possibility that (under some versions of this proposal) elimination votes for a specific work would never be publicized; only anonymized distributions of votes for each category. (In some cases, of course, the identity of which work got a certain vote total would be easy to guess, but that would still be just a guess.)
See also the Mercy Panel FAQs below.

Mercy panel

Q. Is this proposal worth the extra complexity it adds? Why?

A. That’s up to the Business Meeting to decide.Multiple people have expressed concern with 3SV, calling it too negative, and worrying how possible “rejection campaigns” would feel to the authors in question. This proposal would remove the possibility of such campaigns in clear-cut cases, reserving the power of 3SV for the edge cases which need it.It would also simplify the task of voting in round 2. This is a case where a little extra complexity in the rules actually simplifies life for the majority.

Q. Would this proposal let the panel keep something from becoming a finalist? That sounds like a bad idea!

A. No! The only power this panel would have would be to allow the nominations (from round 1 and possibly the “+2 against trolls” round) to stand. In other words, the panel can be a “good cop” by letting a work with strong support become a finalist without passing through a rejection vote, but could not be a “bad cop” by preventing it from becoming a finalist. The only group who could keep something from being a finalist would be the voters at large; exactly the same group that currently has the power to rank something below “no award”.

Q. Would this be too much power to give to a small group?

A. I think not. The only power this panel would have would be to exempt a work from the 3SV process. Even if they overstepped that power, we’d be no worse off than we are currently. In particular, the voters as a whole would still be able to put an offending work below “no award”.

Q. Wouldn’t this just be painting a target on the individuals on the panel, setting them up for harassment?

A. To a certain degree, the answer is yes; if you can’t handle people on the internet saying mean things about you, you probably shouldn’t be on this panel. But I don’t think this is a good reason not to have such a panel. Here’s my reasoning:

First off, there are manifestly people in fandom who can handle being a target, whether it’s because they bear it as a negative, because they actually enjoy the battle, or because they are such towering figures as to be beyond good and evil. I believe that there is a subset of these people who have earned fandom’s trust and could well serve as “your mercy”.

Secondly, I think that a “mercy panel” is designed to minimize such targeting. The question they’re answering is not the fundamentally controversial one, “does this work deserve to be kept from being a finalist?”, but rather, “are there reasonable questions about whether this work should be kept from being a finalist?”. It is at least possible to believe the answer to the first question is an emphatic “no”, and still accept that the answer to the second may be “yes”.

Finally, the fact is, haters gonna hate. There is really nothing we can do to prevent some people from becoming targets in this mess. With a panel, at least the targets will be people who’ve signed up for the job.

+2 against trolls

Q. Is this proposal worth the extra complexity it adds? Why?

A. I feel that it is. Because there are so many eligible works each year, many people nominate without naming even one thing that has any chance of becoming a finalist. This would focus attention on a list of 15 strong works, and give nominators some extra time to review these and add one or two that deserve it. The resulting finalists will have been reviewed by more fans, will have won more support, and thus will almost certainly be higher-quality overall. The fact that this proposal helps resist slate voting is almost just a side-effect.

Q. Why not let people add as many nominations as they want?

A. The 3SV voting round, when +2 is happening, should go by relatively quickly. Voters have limited attention to devote to this issue. Asking them to look at the longlist, do whatever extra reading/watching is necessary, and pick one or two extra nominations per category is probably the limit of what they can do without cutting corners.
Slate voters, on the other hand, are all about cutting corners. They can easily decide to add as many extra nominations as they’re allowed to.

EPH or EPH+ both make the story a little bit more complex, because it’s no longer optimal to add too many extra nominations. Still, there are some cases where adding more than 2 nominations could be a smart move for a slate. Why give slate voters that freedom, even if the cases where it helps them are rare?

Q. OK, so why not allow just +1 instead of +2?

A. That may well be the best course. But if we pass a +2 proposal this year, then changing it to +1 next year during ratification is a valid “lesser change”. So +2 keeps our reasonable options open. (For instance: what if we decide it should be +2 for Best Short Story, but +1 for all other categories? With all the proposals to look at this year, it’s probably not worth getting into details like that now; but next year, things may be clearer.)

Extend finalists

Q. What’s the idea here?

A. This proposal helps 3SV deal with the issue of “hostage” or “kingmaker” works, which have clear merit of their own but which have evidence of mindless support from slate voters. For instance, this year (2016), Neal Stephenson’s Seveneves was supported by a slate and became a finalist. He’s had several books nominated for Hugos, and several that weren’t; without the slate support, it’s impossible to be perfectly sure whether Seveneves would have made it. This option would allow works in this situation to become finalists, as the slate support was not the author’s fault; but to do so without pushing any other work off the list of finalists, because the list would just expand.

Q. Is this proposal worth the extra complexity it adds? Why?

A. Perhaps; it’s worth at least considering, though for simplicity in the business meeting it may be better to fold it into 3SV rather than taking it up separately. This proposal helps 3SV deal with the issue of “hostage” or “kingmaker” works, where a slate throws support behind things that have clear merit of their own, so that those things gets some votes from people who read them and some from people who didn’t.

Q. Would this make authors feel bad?

A. It shouldn’t. A vote of “accept with extension” is in no way a judgement on the work itself, just a judgement that there is reason to doubt the motive of some significant fracion of the work’s supporters.

Proposal Texts (rough drafts, for discussion purposes only):

A proposal for 3SV is currently being prepared by a group of highly experienced Worldcon runners led by Colin Harris (2005 Worldcon Chair) and also including former Worldcon Chairs Kevin Standlee and Vince Docherty and former NASFiC Chair Warren Buff. They expect to have a draft proposal published within two weeks (by 12 June), and if this were just about 3SV, I would rather have waited for them and not written something myself. But the other proposals following 3SV relate to it closely. So in order to write those other proposals in a form clear enough for further discussion, I needed to first write an illustrative text for a 3SV proposal.

EPH+

Moved, to amend Section 3.A.1 (1) of the E Pluribus Hugo proposal, as follows:

(1) Calculation Phase: First, the total number of nominations (the number of ballots on which each nominee appears) from all eligible ballots shall be tallied for each remaining nominee. Next, a single “point” shall be assigned to each nomination ballot. That point shall be divided equally among all remaining nominees on that ballot. each nomination ballot shall give a point or fraction thereof to each remaining nominee on that ballot, according to the number of such remaining nominees, using the following pattern: 1 point for 1 remaining nominee, 1/3 of a point each for 2 remaining nominees, 1/5 of a point each for 3 remaining nominees, 1/7 of a point each for 4 remaining nominees, and 1/9 of a point each for 5 remaining nominees (extending this pattern as needed if a ballot legally has more remaining nominees).  Finally, all points from all nomination ballots shall be totaled for each nominee in that category. These two numbers, point total and number of nominations, shall be used in the Selection and Elimination Phases.

3SV base (for reference only; to be superseded by the text from Colin Harris’s group)

Moved, to amend Section 3.7.1 (Tallying of Nominations), Section 3.9 (Notification and Acceptance), and Section 3.11.4 (Tallying of Votes) as follows:

Section 3.7: Nominations.

3.7.1: The Worldcon Committee shall conduct a poll to select begin the process of selecting the nominees finalists for the final Award voting. Each member of the administering Worldcon, the immediately preceding Worldcon, or the immediately following Worldcon as of January 31 of the current calendar year shall be allowed to make up to five (5) equally weighted nominations in every category.

Insert new sections 3.B and 3.C after section 3.8 and, if appropriate, 3.A from the E Pluribus Hugo proposal.

Section 3.B: Longlist publication.

3.B.1: In each category, the “longlist” shall consist of the top 15 nominees, as selected by the process detailed in section 3.8 [if EPH has passed] and section 3.A[end conditional]), but changing the number of desired nominees to 15 as appropriate. Any numbers involving limits on individual ballots shall not be changed.

3.B.2: In order to foment quick and accurate publication of each category’s longlist, the Worldcon Committee may exercise reasonable discretion in increasing the number of nominees on the longlist up to a maximum size of 18 nominees. Possible examples of situations that would call for such discretion are given in sections 3.B.3.1 and 3.B.3.2 below:

3.B.2.1: If eligibility cannot be quickly determined for a nominees, but it is thought to be ineligible, both it and an extra nominee may be included in case it is not eligible.

3.B.2.2: If the 15th-place nominee is nearly tied with the 16th-place one, and it is thought that a recount might show that their proper positions had been reversed, both may be included.

3.B.3: The names of the nominees on each category’s longlist, but not their order or vote totals, shall be made public with all due haste after the nominations poll is closed.

3.B.3.1 “Made public” means that the information should be conveyed to all eligible voters through some direct, personal means such as email and/asor postal mail, and also made generally accessible in some medium or media such as a web page.

3.B.4: Nominees on the longlist shall not be referred to as “semifinalists” or otherwise given any honorary status unless and until they have passed the eligibility voting described in section 3.C without elimination.

Section 3.C: Nominee eligibility voting.

3.C.1: After the longlist is published, each member of the administering Worldcon who had been eligible to vote in the nominations poll as described in 3.7.1 may vote on the eligibility of the longlist members.

3.C.2: At the discretion of the Worldcon committee, and with reasonable prior notice, the set of persons eligible to vote on nominee eligibility may be frozen before the close of voting, in order to ease calculation of the vote thresholds in 3.C.7 below.

3.C.3: The ballot for this round of voting shall present the voter with the following options for each longlist nominee: “Accept”, “Reject”, and “Abstain”.

3.C.4: Any voter who does not submit a ballot will be considered to have voted “Abstain” on all nominees.

3.C.5: Any voter who does submit a ballot but does not explicitly choose one of the three options for a given nominee will be considered to have voted “Accept” on that nominee. This default choice should be made clear on the ballot insofar as practical.

3.C.6: Postal mail ballots should be accepted insofar as it is practical given the schedule, but the Worldcon committee may if it chooses schedule this voting round in such a way that some members may not have ample time to submit such physical ballots.

3.C.7: A nominee shall be eliminated and considered ineligible if it meets the following two criteria: the number of “Reject” votes it receives is greater than 20% of the pool of voters eligible under 3.C.1 and 3.C.2; and the number of “Reject” votes it receives is also greater than the number of “Accept” votes it receives.

3.C.6: At the end of this voting round, the 5 finalists shall be chosen as follows:

3.C.6.1 The process described in section 3.8 [if EPH has passed]and section 3.A[end conditional] shall be used to put the entire set of nominees (eligible or not) in as strict an order as possible (that is, if the process is one of elimination, it shall continue until all nominees have been eliminated).

3.C.6.2 The finalists shall be the top 5 eligible nominees on this list.

Section 3.9: Notification and Acceptance.

3.9.1: Worldcon Committees shall use reasonable efforts to attempt to notify all of the nominees on the longlist, or in the case of deceased or incapacitated persons, their heirs, assigns, or legal guardians, in each category prior to simultaneous with the release of such information. Each nominee shall be asked reminded at that time to either accept or decline the nomination. If the nominee declines nomination, that nominee shall not appear on the final ballot.

3.9.A: [after 3.9.1]Since the longlist will be public information, members of the public may also help contact the responsible persons. Any nominee on the longlist which has not explicitly withdrawn by the end of the second round of voting shall be assumed to accept becoming a finalist.

3.9.2: In the Best Professional Artist category, the acceptance should include citations of at least three (3) works first published in the eligible year.

3.9.3: Each nominee in the categories of Best Fanzine and Best Semiprozine shall be required to provide information confirming that they meet the qualifications of their category.

3.11.4: The complete numerical vote totals, including all preliminary tallies for first, second, … places, shall be made public by the Worldcon Committee within ninety (90) days after the Worldcon. During the same period the nomination voting totals shall also be published, including in each category the vote counts [if EPH has passed] and points tallies as of elimination [end conditional] for at least the fifteen highest vote-getters and any other candidate receiving a number of votes equal to at least five percent (5%) of the nomination ballots cast in that category, but not including any candidate receiving fewer than five votes. 3.11.A This information shall also include eligibility and reason (if any) for ineligibility for each member of the longlist.

3.11.B In addition, for each category, the list of numbers of “reject” and “accept” votes for each work shall be published in descending order of number “reject” votes. The names of each work shall NOT be published alongside this list.

Mercy panel

Moved, to add Section 3.BA (Mercy panel) after section 3.B, and to amend Section 3.C.1 (Nominee eligibility voting) as follows:

Section 3.BA: Mercy panel

3.BA.1 Each Worldcon Committee shall appoint at least 3 natural persons and 2 alternates, and no more than 6 of each, to serve as a Mercy Panel for the following Worldcon. Presence on the Mercy Panel shall not necessarily preclude assuming other functions for any Worldcon. The procedure for such appointment shall be at the discretion of the Committee, and may or may not include voting.

3.BA.2 If for any reason there are not at least the minimum number of members and alternates from the prior year, the current Worldcon Committee shall appoint any which are lacking, using the same degree of discretion.

3.BA.3 The Worldcon Committee and the Mercy Panel shall remain in contact during the first round of voting, and the WorldCon Committee may elect to share preliminary voting counts as appropriate and practical. This information shall be treated as private, maintained with reasonable security precautions, and erased as soon as practical by the Mercy Panel.

3.BA.4 As soon as the longlist is published, the Mercy Panel shall proceed with all reasonable haste to rule on whether each nominee on the longlist should be subject to an eligibility vote as described in section 3.C.

3.BA.5 Any member of the Mercy Panel who has a conflict of interest regarding a given work shall allow an alternate to vote in their stead on that work. Any work which for this reason cannot be reviewed by at least 3 members of the Mercy Panel shall be subject to an eligibility vote.

3.BA.6 Nominees that should be subject to eligibility votes include any in the following categories:

3.BA.6.1 Those for which there is a reasonable argument that they contain harassment or libel against a living person or any past member of WSFS.

3.BA.6.2 Those which any member of the Mercy Panel considers to be likely to be offensive to the standards of at least 20% of WSFS members.

3.BA.6.3 Those for which there is some clearly-defined credible reason(s) to suppose that over 20% of the nominations were made based more on outside influences than on the nominator’s judgment of the nominee’s merit.

3.BA.7 Any nominees which are unanimously considered by the Mercy Panel not to fall in any of the categories enumerated in 3.BA.6 shall not be subject to an eligibility vote.

3.C.1: After the longlist is published, and after the Mercy Panel has ruled on all members of a category, each member of the administering Worldcon who had been eligible to vote in the nominations poll as described in 3.7.1 may vote on the eligibility of any of the longlist members not exempt under section 3.BA.

+2 against trolls

Moved, to amend Section 3.7.1 (Tallying of Nominations), Section 3.9 (Notification and Acceptance), and Section 3.11.4 (Tallying of Votes) as shown above in “3SV Base”; and also to add section 3.D as follows:

Section 3.D Addition of nominations during round 2

3.D.1 During the second round of voting (that is, simultaneous with the process described in 3.C, if present), all persons who were eligible to nominate in the first round of voting may add nominations as follows.

3.D.2 Each voter may add up to two (2) nominations per category.

3.D.3 Any additional nominations for the same nominee a voter has already nominated in the same category shall be ignored.

3.D.4 All new nominations must be for nominees that are on the longlist in the same category.

3.D.5 Postal mail ballots should be accepted insofar as it is practical given the schedule, but the Worldcon committee may if it chooses schedule this voting round in such a way that some members may not have ample time to submit such physical ballots.

3.D.6 All nominations added during this period shall be treated in all ways as if they had come during the first round of voting, except that they shall not be counted as violating the allowed number of nominations per category.

Extend finalists

Moved, to amend Section 3.C.3 and 3.C.7 of the 3SV proposal above, and to add section 3.C.A after 3.C.7, as follows:

3.C.3: The ballot for this round of voting shall present the voter with the following options for each longlist nominee: “Accept”, “Accept with extension”, “Reject”, and “Abstain”.

3.C.4: Any voter who does not submit a ballot will be considered to have voted “Abstain” on all nominees.

3.C.5: Any voter who does submit a ballot but does not explicitly choose one of the three options for a given nominee will be considered to have voted “Accept” on that nominee. This default choice should be made clear on the ballot insofar as practical.

3.C.6: Postal mail ballots should be accepted insofar as it is practical given the schedule, but the Worldcon committee may if it chooses schedule this voting round in such a way that some members may not have ample time to submit such physical ballots.

3.C.7: A nominee shall be eliminated and considered ineligible if it meets the following two criteria: the number of “Reject” votes it receives is greater than 20% of the pool of voters eligible under 3.C.1 and 3.C.2; and the number of “Reject” votes it receives is also greater than the number of “Accept” votes or “Accept with extension” votes it receives.

3.C.A: If the number of “Reject” votes and “Accept with extension” votes a nominee receives is greater than 10% of the number of voters eligible under 3.C.1 and 3.C.2; and the number of “Reject” votes and “Accept with extension” votes the nominee receives is also greater than the number of “Accept” votes it receives; and if the nominee is selected as a finalist; then the number of finalists in that category shall be increased by 1, up to a maximum of 7.

120 thoughts on “To Say Nothing of the Dogs; or, How We Confound the Hugos’ Third Slump (Hugo voting proposal discussion 5)

  1. Standback:

    “I love the idea of a longlist; the long tail is probably where all the stuff I love best lies. But I think, particularly with our current experience, that we need to be very wary of introducing a new Hugo honor that’s trivially easy to influence.”

    New in what way? The longlist is published already today.

  2. @Standback

    I looked at the numbers a thread or two ago. I’m not going to dig it up right now but, yes, it varies category to category. Novel is fairly safe, otherwise you’re in the 10 to 13 range in about half the categories, and 15 in half the categories. Now, to be fair, there are assumptions there: the slate maker needs to be willing to gamble and cut their margins; they also need to have fairly good slate discipline. Whether they could pull out off??? EPH mitigates it in any case.

  3. @Hampus Eckerman

    Currently the long list is an after thought. 3SV makes it a focal point of the election process. It’s value is speculative but might well go up under the circumstances (or not. Who knows?)

  4. @Stoic Cynic: Absolutely. Anyway I’m a big EPH fan 🙂

    @Hampus:

    New in what way? The longlist is published already today.

    Well, I’d say I’m not talking about worthiness or value! –just visibility.

    Longlist is published today, but it’s practically an afterthought – in the public eye it’s entirely overshadowed by the winners; it’s only published at the end of a whole bunch of voting information, in PDF, etc. etc.

    Something that gets published before the shortlist, the first Hugo list of the season. That gets posted on the websites. That gets attention because each of those pieces is hoping for +2 nominations, and hence gets reviews and discussion and campaigning. That’s a whole different level of attention, and if (in a “normal” year) that attention is mostly positive, approving, accepting the pieces as Hugo contenders, then that attention translates to prestige.

    So, yeah, I’d say it’ll be a whole different ballgame.

  5. EPH: \o/

    EPH+: Should absolutely be proposed. Probably worth seeing if it’ll stick as a minor change, but I’m not counting on it.

    3SV: Yup, we need it.

    +2 vs trolls: I think I favour this as a proposal, but I strongly oppose it being proposed this year.
    I doubt the real usefulness of this proposal against trolls; I think it’ll be quite marginal, and feel it’s there chiefly as an extra safety net against 3SV maybe not shooting down slate-picks.
    As I understand the proposal, its main benefit is that it’ll lead to a more ‘democratic’ final ballot, in which more people have had influence. I suspect this’ll noticeably alter the feel of the Hugo awards. (This might even take away several of the original complaints of the sad puppies.) Because of that, I think it needs to be debated completely outside of the context of griefers, in a year where they’re not the issue, and we can have a wider conversation about what we want the Hugos to be for their own sake.

    Mercy panel: I’m slightly positive about this proposal. I can see it streamlining the process in regular years (unanimous mercy for everything on the ballot; skip the intermediate phase), but if that’s an important aim, the language needs quite a bit of work. I’d be against this proposal without the 3.BA.6 language. Imho only worth proposing if there’s nothing else besides 3SV and EPH+.

    Extend finalists: I’m slightly more positive about this proposal than about Mercy Panel, because I can see hostages becoming a real issue, it being the only thing left for griefers to really be successful with after EPH+ and 3SV have passed. I fear how its added complexity will be received, though, and would probably recommend waiting a year or two with it until that situation has actually developed.

    Sunset clause: Strongly oppose, and really hope that won’t happen, because I can image enough griefers showing up at one of the next three worldcon business meetings to kill EPH (particularly if it becomes EPH+) and thus give us another three years of grief.

  6. @Aan: it’s interesting that there are proposals you support, but wouldn’t want to have up for debate this year.

    I’m wondering if people would support “a proposal to be named later”? That is, pass an amendment to say that the 2018 Hugo committee (and only that one) could choose to use rules that had been passed but not ratified, as long as those rules had passed by at least a 2:1 margin in Helsinki.

  7. @Jameson Quinn: I am sending you an e-mail with more detailed comments about the draft paper linked to above. Germane to the discussion here, I am still not convinced that EPH, or especially EPH+, present significantly less visible incentives to bullet-vote than just SDV.

  8. @tomas: yes, thanks. I think this is a valid debate to be having but probably email will work better; it will be easier if we don’t have to explain our jargon.

  9. @Jameson: I watched every single minute of the business meeting videos last year, and can remember what an absolutely exhausting marathon that was. I think 3SV will need at least as much debating time as EPH needed. EPH+ will unfortunately probably also gobble up a fair bit.

    You’re not going to win any friends by adding something of the complexity of – and with as much potential impact as – +2 on top of that.

    Besides that, I think it’d just be unlikely to pass this year, and that having been proposed now, will hurt its chances if brought up again 2-3 years down the road.

    Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough: Limit yourself to whacking down the trolls now, finetune your whacking stick later.

  10. @Aan: that’s precisely the idea behind “a proposal to be named later”. That is: “We’re tired and want to go home now but we also want to get something in the pipeline for 2018, let’s pass a one-time blank check now that can be filled in in 2017 as long as it gets a supermajority”.

    Not sure if this would fly; just a trial balloon for now. But note that if this could pass it would also avoid the need for discussing EPH+; I think the debate should focus on 3SV this year.

  11. Ah! Had not understood that.
    *ponders*
    My gut feeling is that that’s just too clever, and won’t fly. The sentiment would be that with EPH (and hopefully EPH+ and 3SV) in effect, there’d be very little need for something that extraordinary.

  12. You’d have to check with Kevin Standlee, but I don’t think a “blank check” proposal is constitutional. The second year would, by definition, require a substantive change…

  13. The blank check would be: “The rules for the 2018 Hugo may be chosen by the Hugo administrators, with the options being either what’s in the constitution or whatever passed in 2017 by a supermajority (2/3?) and awaits ratification by the 2018 business meeting”.

    I think that’s constitutional, because it is clearly delimiting how the 2018 Hugo committee may act. It seems it should be just as constitutional as anything else that gives extra discretion to the admins.

    But yes: Standlee signal. Kevin, could you weigh in with an (unofficial) opinion on whether that would stand muster?

  14. The blank check idea not only won’t fly, it will leech away the credibility of the proposer among people who understand why theres a two year ratification process.

  15. @Kevin Standlee:

    I expect EPH as it stands now to be saddled with a “must re-ratify annually for three years or it sunsets at the end of this year” clause.

    I’m curious as to how this would be added such that it would take effect–it would seem to fall under the greater change rule?

  16. I have to agree with Mike here. The idea of a blank check subverts pretty much everything the constitution’s ratification process is intended to do. There’s a reason it takes two years to change things. I really think it’s a non-starter.

    Kilo

  17. @Steve: Maybe if they did:

    1. Ratify EPH.
    2. Propose to eliminate EPH.
    3. Next year decide whether to ratify the elimination!

    (…please don’t actually do that. I like EPH.)

  18. I tried to rescind my blank check idea with a joke about my “Acme Memory Hole”.

    I guess you shouldn’t make that kind of joke on this blog, because the “Memory Hole” eats the comment it’s contained in. This comment is safe, though, because I tied it up in quotes.

  19. @Standback: Thanks–that would work, although I would vote against that also.

    I would like to see:
    EPH passed
    EPH+ proposed
    3SV proposed

    +2 seems ok but I would hold off as it seems like the meeting would be full enough.
    Mercy Panel doesn’t seem need at this point — hold off and see how EPH with 3SV work out.

  20. A question about wording:

    The proposed language for 3.BA.5 (and possibly elsewhere) refers to a “work”. Shouldn’t it say something like “work and/or person”, given that some awards go to people? Or are the best editor/artist/writer awards being specifically excluded from consideration here?

  21. It looks as if the early winds of consensus are pointed towards proposing 3SV and EPH+, and nothing else for this year. I’ve had people tell me in private that’s what they want too.

    Note that there will probably be other proposals before the BM that aren’t being discussed here. For instance, I believe that there will probably be a proposal relating to the calendar, to enable 3SV to be workable for the administrators.

  22. It looks as if my fundraiser is off to a good start, with $170 already in the kitty. So, I expect I’ll be there at MAC II.

    I’d be interested in being a panelist when I’m there. There’s two topics I think I’d be qualified for:

    -A discussion of EPH, EPH+, and the other issues we’re talking about here.
    -A discussion of “democracy for tomorrow” to go with the academic track / Campbell conference. This could deal with improved voting systems from both abstract (game theory) and concrete (technology and implementation) perspectives. I think this would work best if I were only one panelist of several.

    Do either or both of these sound like good ideas? Is anybody else interested in participating in them with me? If you are or you know somebody who might be, please email me; first and last names, separated by a dot, at google’s free webmail service.

  23. Has EPH+ been tried against older non-slate data? If so, how was the impact?

  24. @Kevin Standlee

    I am unconvinced by this. The arguments that appear to be in the form of “but Griefers will just split into three groups and sweep everything” have IMO an unstated assumption that Griefers are as much as a majority of the entire electorate. This is demonstratively untrue, and if they are, they should win anyway.

    In that case, I think it’s very important to convince you, since if you think this, others will think it too, and it’s crucial that everyone understand that without EPH, 3SV does not work..

    Assume that there are 300 griefers and that with perfect discipline they split into three groups of 100 each. As a team, they nominate 15 works of total garbage in every category–the most embarrassing, discrediting things they can think of.

    Now take a look at the top-15 lists from previous years. How many organic items got more than 100 votes? Look at 2015:

    Best Novel: 8
    Best Novella: 7
    Best Novelette: ZERO
    Best Short Story: ZERO
    Best Related Work: 1
    Best Graphic Story: 2
    Best Dramatic Presentation (Long Form): < 9
    Best Dramatic Presentation (Short Form): < 4
    Best Editor (Short Form): 4
    Best Editor (Long Form): ZERO
    Best Professional Artist: 1
    Best Semiprozine: < 4
    Best Fanzine: ZERO
    Best Fancast: ZERO
    Best Fanwriter: 1
    Best Fan Artist: ZERO
    John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer; 1

    Only three categories would have had at least 5 organic nominees out of the 15 slots. Only six would have had more than two. That's pretty bad.

    With EPH, everything except Best Fan Artist gets at least 5, and even it gets 4. This is because if they swept the list, their effective scores would be just 100/5 or 20, and that's too low to beat the fifth-largest organic. Giving up one nominee each, their effective score would rise to 100/4 = 25, but, the fifth-highest organic nominee is always greater than 25, except for Best Fan Artist. If they give up two nominees each, then there are at least 6 non-slate nominees. (The catch is that some of the organic nominees will interfere with each other, so results will likely be a bit worse than this, but the difference will still be dramatic.)

    Summary: With EPH, 3SV seems to do exactly what we need. Without EPH, 3SV is a dismal failure.

  25. 1. Is 3.B.4 intended to apply only to the Hugo Administrators?

    3.B.4: Nominees on the longlist shall not be referred to as “semifinalists” or otherwise given any honorary status unless and until they have passed the eligibility voting described in section 3.C without elimination.

    Because I don’t see how it can be enforced against anyone else. (What if an author of a longlist work starts referring to himself as a nominee? Is it the intention of this rule that the Hugo Admins or the Mark Protection Committee or someone else should do something about it? If that author is a member of that year’s Worldcon, will his membership be revoked?)

    I gather the intent is to keep presence on the longlist from being an honor in and of itself; I just don’t think it is feasible or practical to try and do so, and that in general, it is a bad idea to have rules that are going to be broken anyway, and that can’t be enforced.

    2. I would reverse the order of 3.BA.4 and 3.BA5. 3.BA.1 – 3.BA.3 and 3.BA.5 all refer to who should do things; 3.BA.4 and 3.BA.6 – 3.BA.7 talk about what they should do.

    3. I read 3.BA.6 as meaning that the Mercy Panel should affirmatively “mercify” works/people who do not fall into categories 3.BA.6.1 – 3.BA.6.3. Isn’t this the equivalent of saying “The Mercy Panel shall decide if works are problematic for [reasons], and then pass on the problematic works to the 3SV round.” Isn’t this just a Jury under another name (although one with advisory, rather than elimination, powers)?

  26. @Bill: 3.B.4 is my own invention, but is expected to be superseded by the Colin Harris et al version, so it probably doesn’t matter what I say.

    @Greg: Well said.

  27. Bill:

    “What if an author of a longlist work starts referring to himself as a nominee? “

    The person is a nominee. But not a finalist.

  28. Jameson Quinn: I recommend you immediately contact the program people at the address on the MACII site if you haven’t already done so. Although they just had a major turnover in leadership, they are closer to the finish than the beginning with two months til the con.

  29. EPH/EPH+: I’m in favor of ratifying EPH and proposing EPH+. As Standback said, I want this regardless. If all griefers disappeared tomorrow, this would still make a better final ballot.

    3SV: It took me a while to come around, but I’m in favor of this. Yes there will be some that vote to reject things they just dislike, but I trust that there won’t actually be enough of them to remove something that truly has organic support.

    +2: Probably not at this time. I would rather look at this after trolls are less of a problem. For now, I prefer to concentrate on removing the things which didn’t have true organic support. Later I could see giving the 2nd round additional purpose.

    Extended finalists: Again, probably not now. I’m much less concerned about “hostage” finalists then out-and-out trolls at this time.

    Mercy panel: Not in favor. I would like this better than having a panel decide what to reject. However, it could be seen as only protecting the “secret cabal” favored SJW message stuff.

  30. @Kevin Standlee

    I think I realized the disconnect. I think we’re talking about different things.

    3 stage voting, as envisioned, consists of:

    1) Nominations
    2) Short List Selection
    3) Hugo Selection

    I believe you’re saying the griefers can’t dominate the Short List Selection voting itself. While I think there might be some room for gaming there, generally I agree with you. You put all the WSFS voters up against the fraction that is the griefers and the griefers should lose out.

    What those of with concerns about slate splitting are talking about is the Nomination phase. Even under 3SV: the Nomination phase is still open to the same dynamics that are impacting it today (long tail with small clusters versus a concentrated bloc vote). EPH provides a filter between the Nomination and Short List Selection phases. This helps ensure enough organic works make it to the Short List Selection phase to make it viable. There might be other solutions but EPH is at hand so we use it.

    At least I think that’s where we aren’t connecting.

  31. I agree with Standback that seeing the longlist earlier in the process — and if +2 is implemented, which I still am backing — having the longlist maybe impact the choice of finalists somewhat is a good thing in and of itself. Sorry, headache gnomes are eating my coherency.

  32. @Jameson Quinn: You might just as well say that the current system “takes a set of works published in a year and reduces it to the top 5. That provides a strong set of nominees going into the final vote and covers the long tail.”

    Without slates, I could! That system worked.

    Without +2, there is no way for the vote to consolidate before the finalists are chosen. If none of the top 5 are eliminated, they will be the same as with the current system, except that round 1 would be shorter. Only +2 (or +1) would let voters who’d chosen only long-tail works in round 1 help decide which of the longlist should be finalists.

    I don’t think it’s that stark. 3SV consolidates the vote through the longlist itself. That’s not as good as 3SV+2, but something to work with. If +2 isn’t ratified, 3SV + EPH/EPH+ still works.

    More than that on my part would be hair splitting. I think I’ll leave it there.

  33. Hampus Eckerman on June 1, 2016 at 2:42 pm said:
    Has EPH+ been tried against older non-slate data? If so, how was the impact?

    That’s asking a lot, since we’ve been kept in the dark so far even about the impact of EPH (without the plus) on “older non-slate data”. A 2014 Hugo Administrator reported at the Sasquan Business Meeting that it was run on 2014 data and “there was a change.” We’ve been waiting 10 months for more information.

    (Schneier also reported that they’d also been given data from years prior to 2014, but did not say which years.)

    I’m not sure why everyone here thinks it is such a good idea EPH before we’ve even seen the report to the Business Meeting about EPH. It was supposed to be released in advance. Is it coming soon?

    Jameson Quinn on June 1, 2016 at 2:58 pm said:

    @Greg: Well said.

    Jameson, this discussion is still predicated on an assumption that a coordinated voting bloc will seek to dominate the final ballot or even the long list with what Hullender called, in the comment above you found to be well stated, “works of total garbage in every category.”

    They observably are not doing that.

    Do you remember how the two “trolling” stories (IYWAAML and SRBI) were not even recommended by Vox Day in the same category? In short story, he had initially recommended “Tuesdays With Molakesh the Destroyer,” which lots of people liked, not SRBI, which was initially recommended in novelette until someone pointed out the word count to him.

    It is true that there was one category this year where most recommended items were published by Castalia House (Best Related Work) – but even there, nobody claims they were all total garbage.

    There is no basis for the assumptions being made here.

    You said earlier you were running simulations of what happens when they choose some more popular items, and you could tell us about it because that is allowed under your NDA.

    So? What happens if a bloc coordinates to support several nominees per category that also have broad support from other voters?

  34. It is true that there was one category this year where most recommended items were published by Castalia House (Best Related Work) – but even there, nobody claims they were all total garbage.

    They are all total garbage. Even the Aramini work.

  35. I favor proposing both 3SV and +2 Against Trolls this year. I would actually rather see +1/+2 ratified than EPH+, as it makes 3SV useful as something other than a defense against slating.

    I think the idea of requiring annual re-ratification of EPH is meant as an end-run around the usual requirement that changes to the Constitution take two years to enact: I think the anti-reform die-hards at the Business Meeting figure the pro-reform forces will eventually get complacent, skip attending the Business Meeting, and a repeal motion can get pushed through before people get organized to stop it. As an alternative to adding a sunset clause, I’d suggest amending EPH to allow each Business Meeting to suspend the use of EPH for the following year: in the event EPH really turned out to be a bad idea, a motion to suspend EPH could be made in conjunction with an amendment to repeal EPH. This would allow a quick return to the status quo, but retain the need for two Business Meetings to approve permanent repeal.

  36. Hampus Eckerman on June 1, 2016 at 2:42 pm said:
    Has EPH+ been tried against older non-slate data? If so, how was the impact?

    The Hugo Slate Simulator using the 1984 data without any simulated slate additions and EPH+ gets the same basic nominees as the original method. With simulated slates added it does seem to perform better than straight EPH.at letting non-slate organic nominees into the final 5.

  37. “The Hugo Slate Simulator using the 1984 data without any simulated slate additions and EPH+ gets the same basic nominees as the original method. “

    I tried it and EPH+ gives a change for Best Novelette that is not given by EPH. So the question is, how often do we think this will happen and is it acceptable?

  38. I tested 15 bullet slate ballots added to the ’84 data. With EPH, 2 of the categories had the 1 slate nominee. With EPH+ 5 categories had the one nominee.

    EPH+ makes sweeping a category more difficult, with the downside of making it slightly easier to get a single nomination through.

  39. “It is true that there was one category this year where most recommended items were published by Castalia House (Best Related Work) – but even there, nobody claims they were all total garbage.”

    I do — well, I don’t, but only because “total garbage” is far, far too kind for anything from Castalia.

  40. @Cathy Palmer-Lister: Yes, MidAmericon II already has videographers designated to record the Business Meeting. I expect they will get the videos uploaded to YouTube as fast as their bandwidth allows, which they did last year.

  41. Jameson Quinn on June 1, 2016 at 12:27 pm said:

    I’m wondering if people would support “a proposal to be named later”? That is, pass an amendment to say that the 2018 Hugo committee (and only that one) could choose to use rules that had been passed but not ratified, as long as those rules had passed by at least a 2:1 margin in Helsinki.

    It is a terrible idea. I know you and many, many other people want to change rules faster than in two years. That’s simply not possible under our current governance system. If people want to propose something that allows for faster changes, they’re welcome to do so, but there are very good reasons for the current system, starting with “meeting packing.” If you make it possible to change the constitution by a single WSFS BM, even with some sort of super-majority, you give the trolls and griefers a very large incentive to pour into a single meeting and take over everything. WSFS rules assume that it would not be possible to do this in two consecutive years. Worldcons are too far apart in both space and time to get away with that.

    Jameson Quinn on June 1, 2016 at 1:16 pm said:

    The blank check would be: “The rules for the 2018 Hugo may be chosen by the Hugo administrators, with the options being either what’s in the constitution or whatever passed in 2017 by a supermajority (2/3?) and awaits ratification by the 2018 business meeting”.

    I think that’s constitutional, because it is clearly delimiting how the 2018 Hugo committee may act. It seems it should be just as constitutional as anything else that gives extra discretion to the admins.

    But yes: Standlee signal. Kevin, could you weigh in with an (unofficial) opinion on whether that would stand muster?

    Well, it’s technically legal, in that a constitutional amendment is by definition constitutional. The 2016 WSFS Business Meeting could pass it and the 2017 WSFS Business Meeting could ratify it, and then the 2018 Worldcon could decide which rules to follow and which rules to ignore. But I think it’s a terrible idea and has no chance of passing, let alone being ratified.

    This is going to be a difficult enough meeting without introducing “blank check” motions.

    Steve Halter on June 1, 2016 at 1:23 pm said:

    @Kevin Standlee:

    I expect EPH as it stands now to be saddled with a “must re-ratify annually for three years or it sunsets at the end of this year” clause.

    I’m curious as to how this would be added such that it would take effect–it would seem to fall under the greater change rule?

    This takes a little bit of explaining. Start by referring to the Business Passed On to MAC II, Item A.7 (E Pluribus Hugo). Now look at the provision near the bottom of the proposal:

    Moved, that unless this amendment is re-ratified by the 2022 Business Meeting, Section 3.A shall be repealed,…

    So EPH already comes with a requirement that it be re-ratified by the 2022 WSFS BM.

    Now suppose someone moves to amend this clause to require that it be re-ratified at the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 meetings. (I said “three” earlier when I meant “six,” as I’d forgotten just how far out the sunset clause extended.) It is always allowed to amend a constitutional amendment in such a way that brings the amendment closer to the current state of the Constitution. I would rule if I were presiding that making it easier to bring the proposal back to the existing constitution (by requiring annual re-ratification through 2022) is less of a change than forcing the change to stay in place for six years before the re-ratification.

    Remember that a “lesser change” doesn’t mean “minor change.” It means “any change that reduces the scope of the pending Constitutional amendment to bring it closer to the state of the current Constitution.” Such a change could in fact be “major” as far as completely rewriting the pending proposal as long as it does not increase the amendment’s scope.

    Incidentally, I would also rule that changing the existing re-ratification to any year prior to 2022 would also be legal, in that it would reduce the scope of the change.

    Bill on June 1, 2016 at 2:43 pm said:

    1. Is 3.B.4 intended to apply only to the Hugo Administrators?

    3.B.4: Nominees on the longlist shall not be referred to as “semifinalists” or otherwise given any honorary status unless and until they have passed the eligibility voting described in section 3.C without elimination.

    Because I don’t see how it can be enforced against anyone else. (What if an author of a longlist work starts referring to himself as a nominee?

    “Nominee” is a deprecated term, due to abuse. Given that you can call yourself a “Hugo Award Nominee” with a single nomination, including your own, it has no meaning. WSFS abandoned the term except in a technical sense for dealing with nominees in the Hugo Award selection process.

    Is it the intention of this rule that the Hugo Admins or the Mark Protection Committee or someone else should do something about it?

    Maybe. I don’t know if we’d do so, though.

    If that author is a member of that year’s Worldcon, will his membership be revoked?)

    That’s up to the individual Worldcon committee, which has a great deal of latitude in how it handles its memberships. (Roughly speaking, they’re allowed to do what isn’t prohibited.)

    I gather the intent is to keep presence on the longlist from being an honor in and of itself; I just don’t think it is feasible or practical to try and do so, and that in general, it is a bad idea to have rules that are going to be broken anyway, and that can’t be enforced.

    I agree. Personally, I’ve come to like the term “qualifier” for anyone on the 3SV second-round ballot. It doesn’t include “finalist” and IMO has somewhat less cachet as a marketing term. (See, I’m not utterly wedded to my own proposals.)

  42. I think you should also add a minimum paid circulation of 25000. If any work is not good enough to attract at least 25000 people into spending money for it, it certainly does not deserve a Hugo. Fan categories could be excluded from the requirement.

  43. @Tim McDonald: I think you should also add a minimum paid circulation of 25000. If any work is not good enough to attract at least 25000 people into spending money for it, it certainly does not deserve a Hugo. Fan categories could be excluded from the requirement.

    Web comics are poorly represented in Best Graphic Story and a provision like this would do them no favor.

  44. That “minimum paid circulation” would also exclude every piece of short fiction not published in Analog (and would almost certainly exclude Analog within a couple of years, too, given the year-on-year drops in the sales figures for the magazines)

Comments are closed.