Dave McCarty’s Facebook page is where some are trying – without success – to get full explanations for the ineligibility rulings in the 2023 Hugo Nomination Report released on January 20.
McCarty, a Chengdu Worldcon vice-chair and co-head of the Hugo Awards Selection Executive Division, previously gave File 770 this reason for ruling R. F. Kuang’s Babel, fan writer Paul Weimer, Neil Gaiman’s Sandman tv series, and second-year Astounding Award nominee Xiran Jay Zhao as “not eligible”:
After reviewing the Constitution and the rules we must follow, the administration team determined those works/persons were not eligible.
People have been trying to pry more information out of McCarty in a prodigious exchange on his Facebook page. Initially he referred them to the original reply above. And slapped back at one fellow who persisted in questioning with “Asked and answered.” Then, when that didn’t silence the questioner:
And
Clearly, Joseph Finn isn’t Tom Cruise, and Dave McCarty isn’t Jack Nicholson.
Yet it’s an innate part of human psychology to want to be understood and accepted by other people. The need is so strong that even the formidable McCarty had to make some effort to answer this question.
Neil Gaiman has been quite upset about what is essentially a Catch-22 explanation – the Sandman series was a Rule 3.8.3 casualty, but the individual episode that triggered the rule was also tossed as “not eligible”. Earlier today he had this exchange:
Silvia Moreno-Garcia replied:
When Jon Nepsha tried to lay some guilt on McCarty his friend Tammy Coxen stepped in with a heavy hint that there’s a more noble explanation, it’s just not being said out loud.
But McCarty himself has taken the opposite tack by defending the adequacy of the report.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Oh my goodness. (First?! Good thing I spend the CET night drinking in a pub!)
The classic non-answer answer. For many of these, I am willing to speculate on the true reason. But Paul Weimer still makes no sense!
Wow…
I’ve been a Hugo Administrator four times now (Sad Puppies convenced me it was time to retire), and I have had to disqualify a few nominees in that time.
I’m pretty certain that, every time I’ve done so, I’ve given the reason why the person or item was disqualified.
And I’ve never seen something as arrogant as these statements.
I’ve got an hundred unread emails in my inbox, but I can’t help clicking.
“Because I said so” is not a good answer. A good answer is of the form:
“We reviewed the work, and determined that it was not eligible because /this aspect/ fell afoul of /this rule/.” (or any number of other actually information-providing answer formats)
Regardless of what actually happened, I gotta say, I’m not crazy about the dismissive attitude. Something more apologetic feels called for in this case, as opposed to insulting the people who have been wronged because they keep demanding the explanations to which they are entitled.
Reading this, I more strongly lean to what I posted last night on the pixel scroll: that they posted it as a “throw their hands up”, this is what we had to do”, and yes, if they say too much, people in China could wind up other than at home.
If I was trying to tell folks that shenanigans had occurred without telling folks that shenanigans had occurred…I would probably just tell them.
If I was concerned that other people needed to be shielded from political consequences, I would make damn certain the numbers I released were plausible, eliminated the need for footnotes, and then stuck to the formal statement.
If I was trying to damage the reputation of the awards and/or discredit the concept of international Worldcons and/or work up anti-China sentiment among Anglophone fans and/or wanted to distract from a serious error on my part, the script I followed would probably look more similar to what we’ve seen.
Look, I’d love to give benefit of the doubt about noble motives, but I’m pretty sure that vehemently denying any such thing happening, insulting questioners, and then being all “Nobody else understands the awards like I do! And the numbers you’re complaining about were legitimate and transparent!” is not how I’d go about protecting people back home…but it might be how I’d act if I had royally screwed up and was trying to post through it.
Mind you, refusing to give any reasons for ineligibility sounds kinda like a lawyer said “Don’t give them anything they can argue with in court.”
To quote Miss Marple (no relation), “Oh, dear.” I read some of those responses, and my response was somewhere between “ouch” and “yikes.”
I haven’t seen “asked and answered” used as an “answer” this often since the 1999/2000 Gene Steinberg/Rockoids flamewar on Usenet.
Now that Jameson Quinn is saying there are problems with the EPH numbers, maybe we should look for our car keys under the lamppost.
This whole affair is fractally sketchy.
I am angry for those who have been affected, the people & works who have been ruled ineligible without explanation, and to the finalists & winners whose triumphs have been tainted.
I’m sure it sounded like a good idea for the committee to agree to say just xyz and nothing else, but like a lot of things, it was a rather spectacular failure once it met reality.
Being the spokesperson for a group that perhaps irretrievably tarnished the Hugo Awards – no matter how your apologists try to spin it – is probably an uncomfortable spot to be in.
I don’t care.
I still want an explanation other than ’cause I said so.
It turns out that Weimar has done some reviews of Chinese-related fiction and if you’re sloppy or just very cautious of Chinese censors, that might have been a trigger.
Anne Marble oh dear God one must never, EVER refer to G_n_ St__b_rg and R_ck__ds in full! Do you really want to summon IT?
And yeah. I’m gobsmacked by the whole thing. What is with the awards circuit this year? Issues with the indie competitions and now the Hugos…damn good thing I suppose that I’m not someone who is ever gonna be within reach of any of those awards because Things Really Do Not Look Good in Awards Land.
@Anne Marble
I’ve seen something similar on a political blog I read. The person – a longtime participant there – who used that excuse is…not posting there now. (They were getting nasty in their comments, even to the blog owner.)
Also, I gather McCarty came back from Chengdu burbling about how nice it had been and how many gifts he had been given, which does not exactly sound like someone who was forced to commit fraud.
@Joyce Reynolds-Ward
Oh, no! The summoning spells are still in effect?
Also, great points. Awards have been way too chaotic this year.
The headline of this article is a wildly optimistic interpretation of events.
Not at all. Like an expert goalie fields the ball, he’s doing an excellent job of preventing questions from being answered.
mark: Of course, the million-yuan question is how people in China could wind up persecuted for promoting People’s China policies.
mark: Of course, the million-yuan question is how people in China could wind up persecuted for promoting People’s China policies.
I show up to rubberneck and end up with an idea for a Pixel Scroll title: Encounter at Fargo. (I’ve been bingeing.)
My gosh, Jim Henley! I don’t think they can burn down the Hugos often enough to keep you coming back regular, much as we’d like to see you.
@Anne Marble I’m not sure but I’m kinda not willing to take the chance.
Legitimacy? Is he only referring to the final voting front half of the report? Because either the numbers are inaccurate for the nominations or they lost or threw out my confirmed nomination ballot. Transparency? Only in the cases where he actually gave a valid reason.
Xiran Jay Zhao has had their book pushed back over a year and their tiktok censored because of things related to this and issues related to why this happened and I encourage everyone to go to her twitter to see what’s happening, and also to give them what support you can. I am beyond disgusted.
@Soon Lee: “Fractally sketchy” is the perfect description.
@Wombat: I am certain you would have won anyway. Because you are that good and the vast majority of fandom loves you. Hugs.
I also agree with your conclusions here.
Being rude to people while not answering simple, legit questions is counter-productive in any situation.
Everyone’s now forced to conclude that Dave is either outright lying or shading the truth in his favor at best. I’m glad @Nicolas Whyte is administering the next Hugos, and hope he also does Seattle after that.
SOMEONE’S thumbs were on the scale.
It’s all too stupid and incompetent to have been a deliberate attempt to poison non-NA, non-UK/EU Worldcons, but it’s certainly having that effect.
I am firmly of the opinion that unless the attendees are able to be openly, safely LGBTQ+ there’s unrestricted women’s health and gender-affirming care and it’s NBD about religion, the country/state/city should NOT be awarded a Worldcon in future. As an American, I realize this will prevent many states from being eligible, but so what — I’d never go to them anyway, since they’ve all gone Christofascist and ban books (particularly important to Worldcon!). I haven’t been to any of them in decades, even before Cheeto Benito.
Most of my friends have sworn off anywhere that doesn’t “allow” freedom of worship, open sexuality/identity other than cis-het, no censorship of books, and also no legal cannabis. Does this limit where I can go? Sure, but not that much, and not more than I’m limited by finances. If I have to spend the rest of my life between Vancouver and San Diego (and finances permitting, Chicago, maybe Denver, Las Vegas and NY/NJ) that’s still a whole lot of land and cool stuff.
I just want to point out that Dave McCarty was in charge of the Hugo Awards in 2016. So when he said (in response to Anna Feruglio Dal Dan), “As an administrator I am aware of multiple ways that things/people can be ineligible for every category,” it sure is striking to me that in 2016, he opted to keep “If You Were an Award, My Love” on the ballot, he opted to keep Vox Day on the ballot, he opted to keep a whole lot of vicious garbage from Vox Day’s publishing house on the ballot, and he’s making it very clear that he was CHOOSING to do that, since he CHOSE to disqualify Rebecca Kuang, Xiran Jay Zhao, Paul Weimer, and Neil Gaiman.
Hey Kevin (if you’re listening).
Is it allowable within WSFS constitutional or business meeting rules for a motion to un-recognize the 2023 Hugo results as irrevocably tainted and to re-run the vote as a special Retro Hugo vote?
I’m not necessarily advocating that, just wondering what is and isn’t possible.
A new reply from Dave McCarty
“None of you are holding me accountable for anything. I’m the one who published the detailed statistics. The person holding me
accountable is me.”
https://bsky.app/profile/hernibsen.bsky.social/post/3kjmdanmo3a2q
It is true that this clusterfuck impacts both those deemed ineligible and the winners and nominees of an obviously corrupt process. But McCarty also betrayed every single person who participated in the Hugo nominating process in good faith. My nominating ballot was trashed, and while I am furious for others, I think it’s also fair to be furious on my own account, even if I don’t have “professional stakes” involved in the outcome of the process.
I am fairly new to WSFS and voting in the Hugos (four or five years now), and I have never been to a Worldcon, so I have very little first-hand experience of the resistance to change that everyone online is touting about the “SMOFs” who attend business meetings and involve themselves in the rule-making. But it is clear that this needs to be addressed in Glasgow, both by strengthening (or simply implementing) structures of organizational accountability, and in directly repudiating this corrupt process. I for one will add my voice, in whatever way possible as someone without the means to attend Glasgow, to annull the 2023 Hugo results and conduct the process from the beginning without insanely arrogant McCartys anywhere near involvement.
If meaningful steps aren’t taken in Glasgow, I’m having a hard time right now seeing the point in my continuing to buy Worldcon memberships in the future.
It is possible David is doing the right thing. But the use of the term “official” communications to me is the tell.
Someone is afraid that there is a danger to admiting the specter of Chinese Government censorship, so people have to be protected.
Despite the good work and efforts of the Hugo Admin team, they got rolled by “Soft Power”. It is possible they knew it was likely, but were trying to open Chinese fandom to the world.
I was never overly vocal about it, but any truck with China was/is a terrible idea.
I will admit that my opinions of the Chinese Government comes from 20 years in the US military. I’m biased. I admit it, and I own it.
Doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
Finally, the story will get out. Enough people will dig in, and it is possible BNFs and Pros will be less than interested in supporting Worldcons if they don’t trust the process or the people.
This is a mess, and in hindsight unavoidable.
@Grack21, oh, no!
Can anyone come up with a scenario where what Dave McCarty is doing is actually the smart and reasonable play? I can’t. If the goal here is to protect members of the committee from some nebulous state retaliation, he’s doing a shit job of it, and that’s the most charitable reason I can think of.
@Naomi
“ he opted to keep Vox Day on the ballot”
At this point we might as well call him Vox Day(ve) McCarty because he seems intent to succeed where that one failed.
@Rich Lynch
There is an “Incapacity Clause” that states the next or prior Worldcon Comittee “Shall” (specific word used) ballot WSFS membership either by mail or at the next business meeting if a Worldcon is unable to perform it’s duties to the WSFS.
In my opinion, this means that Glasgow 2024 is actually required to ask WSFS membership if we want to redo the Hugo Awards.
The opposing view is that this was intended only for a Worldcon to declare it’s self incapable, and that it’s impossible for Glasgow 2024 to ballot WSFS membership.
Here’s the text of the clause so you can decide for yourself which is the correct opinion:
Jonathan Strahan has commented on the thread as well. McCarty is burning bridges at a truly impressive rate.
“I’ve been a Hugo Administrator four times now”
John,
McCarty is claiming in his Facebook thread that he ruled the ineligible works and people ineligible based upon some rule that “every Hugo administrator ever” has followed, but refused to say what that rule might be.
As a former administrator, do you have any idea what the hell he is talking about?
While I am angry that works/people were unfairly excluded (some of which were my own nominees), I would be vehemently opposed to throwing out the final 2023 results. I will be eager to hear other proposals for restoring the integrity of the Hugos. I would really like to see Dave McCarty kept away from anything to do with the Hugos and Worldcon, but I won’t hold my breath. We know the things he unfairly removed were eligible. I’m sick to death of him trying to gaslight us.
So how are Hugo administratiors chosen? Is this a self-perpetuating oligarchy seperate from fandom? Can Dave be removed by anyone, or is he there for life?
The most absolutely generous I can do is that he may have had good intentions, but was unaware that he lacked the proper personality to carry them out.
@Lurkertype – Thank you!
Oh dear. I suspect we will never see McCarty in a leadership position again. He is worse than the politicians I am listening to right now in the California Senate Debate I have on. Honesty would have served him well. I am not surprised.
As for China, I have not spoken to many Chengdu attendees but the few I have spoken to which were all Westerners, were paid for by China. I wonder what my experience would have been if I had decided to go. I am not accusing anyone of being bribed just that the convention was not open to all fandom. The visa process was almost impossible. When I was deciding whether to go, China was under a very strict COVID lockdown. Then China diid a bait and switch of location from a convenient large hotel to a SF theme park. It ended up being beautiful but my doubts kept me home.
Not only was the authoritarian state idea bad but the fact that there was not financial transparency. I just did a direct credit card transaction with a business in Glasgow. It looks like Seattle has had problems with receiving the WSFS membership money from China. That alone should have disqualified China. I won’t have to take a burner phone to Scotland.
The Hugo thing is just another China related CF.
Pingback: The 2023 Hugo nomination statistics have finally been released – and we have questions | Cora Buhlert
The way censorship primarily works in China is that everyone knows what the sensitive topics, references, and words are, and they self-censor to avoid problems.
This is how something can be censored and “no government was involved.”
The Chinese fans who ran the con all have to live under their totalitarian government. McCarty is pretty clearly not willing to admit to anything that the Chinese fans would be punished for. That’s why the Western members of the con got together to agree on a boilerplate statement that wouldn’t get the Chinese concom members in trouble and why the Westerners agreed to stick to the statement and repeat it like robots.
Do i have proof of this? No. But if this isn’t what’s going on, I’ll eat three propeller beanies.
Mind, it’s been fifty years now since my first Worldcon, and I’ve only been Director of Operations of two, Vice-Chaired one, intensively studied the history of the con going back to 1939, yadda yadda yadda, so I couldn’t know as much as Dave McCarty.
Still, I don’t think it’s difficult for anyone familiar with how China works to figure out what’s going on here. The problem is that most Americans and Westerners have little idea how the Party functions in modern China. Self-censorship is very thoroughly ingrained in the populace.
(Wanna really see trouble from the mainland government? Try encouraging a Taiwanese bid.)
@Jon Nepsha
Yes, he’s made the Puppies’ claims look prescient.
Every Worldcon is autonomous in almost every way.
Every Worldcon is autonomous in almost every way.
Every Worldcon is autonomous in almost every way.
Every Worldcon is autonomous in almost every way.
Every Worldcon is autonomous in almost every way.
Every Worldcon is autonomous in almost every way.
Every Worldcon is autonomous in almost every way.
Every Worldcon is autonomous in almost every way.
This clearly can’t be said enough times. It may not be the best way, but it’s the way things are for now.
Each Worldcon appoints its own Hugo Administrator or Administrators or Subcommittee or puts the responsibility on the whole committee (the original way, now largely dropped by modern Worldcons).
Dave McCarty has no more say in future Worldcons than any other member of a future or current Worldcon unless a future Worldcon appoints him as their Hugo Administrator.
Here’s the WSFS Constitution: anyone who wants change had best familiarize themselves with it in detail, because it’s what needs to be changed to make anything else change beyond what individual Worldcons can be pressured/shamed/talked into doing:
https://www.wsfs.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/WSFS-Constitution-as-of-October-23_2023B.pdf
The way to change for Worldcons largely must go through the Constitution. It’s a democracy, albeit one limited to people who can afford to travel around the world to at least two Worldcons in a row (or who can have a limited say with one year’s attendance at the Business Meetings). I am assuredly not defending the part that requires spending thousands of dollars to have a real say.
Not in the slightest.
Based on what I’ve seen/heard about the DQ’ed items & people, it seems like all of them should have been on the ballot.
The really sad thing here is that McCarty is not acting like someone who was threatened, or who is protecting people who might be threatened.
He’s acting like someone who was bought, and went along with corruption willingly. He’s acting like someone who is angry that people are noticing that he acted improperly, and is scared his willing complicity will be revealed.
This also needs to change. It’s 2024 and with the technologically-mediated social isolation incident we’ve all been through recently, most organizations on the planet know how to provide democratic decision-making mechanisms to members across distances.
If I pay a membership fee, I should expect to be able to vote on the motions at an AGM or business meeting online.
I’m not a Hugo Admin nor am I Kevin Standlee, but I suspect that if the BM is froggy enough it could go so far as to totally blank the ’23 Worldcon out if it is willing to overrule the Chair.
It would certainly be unprecedented, but unprecedented =/= impossible.