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.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
@Paul Weimer: Yeah. That is one of the reasons why I’m very sympathetic to referring to the blog post by its subtitle, rather than it’s full title. It might be the best solution out there. And thank you for your answer. It really is an incredibly hard problem.
@JJ:
I have tried to make it clear where I was drawing inference from what you have said. And it is when I try to draw inferences that you accuse me of bad faith, I think. As I said, earlier, I can’t quite parse how the title can be a violation of CoC, but the nominators who did so maliciously are not violating the CoC. If I understand you correctly, you are angry that I have said that you said that the nominators were violating the CoC. I tried to say that this was what I inferred from your comments, not that you had said that directly. I continue to fail to understand how you can say what you have said and that inference not be correct, but I am sorry if you think I have misquoted you.
Again, I don’t think you’ve used the words that my feelings aren’t valid, but when I’ve said that I don’t think the title is a personal attack, you’ve responded by saying that I’m attempting to invalidate your feelings, rather than accepting that I really don’t believe that it’s an attack. That feels, from this end, like an attempt to invalidate my feelings by insisting the validity of yours. When, in fact, I believe both of us are telling the truth.
And, again, I do think your feelings are important. We don’t necessarily agree one how to address the problem. But it’s not because your feelings aren’t important, it’s because we don’t agree on the likely consequences of various actions, I think. I might be wrong, here, too, of course.
@JJ:
Thanks. That’s helpful.
Lydy, all I can do is request that when you have a bit of time, you start at the beginning of this comment thread, and read all of my comments again, really taking them in. Because I feel like you’re reading what you think is there, and not what is actually there. And maybe pay attention to what I actually say, instead of inferring things that I haven’t said.
I’m obviously not going to be able to persuade you of my point of view, if I have not been able to do so by now. Continuing to ask me to explain again and again, as if you’re expecting me to change my stance or magically come up with something that will change yours, is just not constructive.
@JJ: I am not sure that re-reading your comments will help me, here. You have argued that the nominations were, last least in part, in bad faith, yes? You have said that they were done, in part, to fuck over Worldcon attendees, yes? And you have stated that using the full title is a violation of the CoC when read at the award ceremony or listed in written materials, yes? Are any of those characterizations incorrect? If all of these are correct, how is it an incorrect inference that the nominators violated the CoC? What am I missing, here?
I am absolutely not trying to change your mind. But I also am confused in that you state that I have incorrectly characterized your comments, and I don’t think I have. Where am I getting it wrong?
@Lydy Nickerson: “I’m very sympathetic to referring to the blog post by its subtitle, rather than it’s full title.”
I believe those who want to see a change have converged on that. If you’ll read what JJ, OGH, Meredith, and…you know, does anyone want a greater change?
Lydy Nickerson: You have argued that the nominations were, last least in part, in bad faith, yes?
Certainly at least some of the people who nominated the piece have admitted on Twitter that they deliberately did it as a “fuck you”, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that.
But I have also said – numerous times – that it’s not really the point.
Lydy Nickerson: You have said that they were done, in part, to fuck over Worldcon attendees, yes?
I’ve said that having that title on the ballot does fuck over all of the people who feel that it’s a title which is an abusive personal attack, when it’s endlessly published and broadcast over the next 8 months by DisCon III and the Hugo Awards and being listed on the permanent Hugo records. It’s something that’s punching all of those people every time they see and hear it. A fair number of other people have also said so in this comment thread, and I feel as though they’re all being dismissed and disregarded, too.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that people might genuinely feel this way? I grew up with an extremely verbally-abusive parent. I had no choice about that. But why should I be subjected to having titles which are abusive personal attacks on real human beings continually shoved in my face by the Worldcon and the Hugo Awards that I love? Why wouldn’t I consider that a Code of Conduct violation?
Lydy Nickerson: And you have stated that using the full title is a violation of the CoC when read at the award ceremony or listed in written materials, yes? Are any of those characterizations incorrect? If all of these are correct, how is it an incorrect inference that the nominators violated the CoC? What am I missing, here?
Once again:
Sure, the blog post is a personal attack, but people are entitled to their opinions. For me the problem is that the title is an abusive personal attack being published and broadcast repeatedly over the course of 8 months, by DisCon III and the Hugo Awards. “The 2020 Hugo Awards Ceremony (Rageblog Edition)” is not.
If this is not enough for you, I don’t know what else I can say. I feel as if nothing that I say is actually getting through.
@John A. Arkansawyer: I’ve mostly been interested in this from a CoC perspective, and focusing on that. The solution offered still doesn’t seem to fall within the ambit of CoC, to me.
@JJ: I am confused as to why you think I don’t believe you. I have said, repeatedly, that I believe that you find this title to be harmful. I also believe the other people who have also said that the title is a gut-punch. Can you find any place where I’ve said anything to the contrary?
You have absolutely dodged the question of whether my inference was correct, while affirming that I have correctly characterized your other statements.
I think the real question you are asking is:
I do think you consider it a CoC violation. I do think that you feel harmed by it. That doesn’t mean I agree that it’s a CoC violation, even where I do agree that you are hurt. I’ve tried to talk about why I think that CoC is a bad tool for addressing your pain. You seem to equate that with me saying that no one cares that you’re hurt, and that I don’t think you should be hurt. I am absolutely not saying that.
The reason this is a hard problem is that there are a lot of conflicting equities at stake, and none of them are easily adjudicated by using the CoC. That is what I am saying. I do not wish you harm. I am sorry that you see the title as a personal attack and that causes you harm. I really, truly am. I am also concerned with other harms that exist in this complicated situation, and am genuinely unsure what the best way forward is. I have been trying to listen, and ask questions, and discuss this in good faith. Where I have failed, it has not been a lack of charity, it has been a lack of clarity.
JJ: I would be interested to hear the rest of the story about The Silmarillion and the Hugo Administrator for the 1978 Worldcon because they also administered voting for the non-Hugo Gandalf Awards for which The Silmarillion was a finalist for “Book-Length Fantasy” and won. (See File 770 #4 page 4.)
The award was created by Lin Carter and the “Swordsmen and Sorcerers’ Guild of America” in 1974, but 1978 was the first year there was a Gandalf for a book; prior to that there had been only an award for a (living) writer. Iguanacon Progress Report #3 indicates the nominees were sourced from the Worldcon members, like the Hugo nominees.
In PR#3, Hugo Administrator Corrick addresses the new Gandalf category with notes about how a fantasy novel has never won the Hugo, yet doesn’t discuss in that particular article anyway if he made a ruling about The Silmarillion being eligible for a Hugo. He does address at length a different Hugo controversy about fanzines.
That’s especially interesting because (much later than 1978) I remember Mark Olson several times explaining to the Business Meeting that the title of a rules section is not itself a rule.
Lydy Nickerson: You have absolutely dodged the question of whether my inference was correct, while affirming that I have correctly characterized your other statements.
I’m sorry you think that was dodging, so I’ll make it very clear:
how is it an incorrect inference that the nominators violated the CoC?
Luhrs published this post on her own blog. Did Luhrs publish this post on DisCon III’s site or the Hugo Awards site? No. Did she or anyone else put big posters with the title of the post up at Worldcon? No. Did Luhrs post a threat that if GRRM showed up at DisCon III, she would do something abusive or harmful to him? No. So why would the inference be that the post itself is a CoC violation?
As far as this:
Lydy Nickerson: You have argued that the nominations were, last least in part, in bad faith, yes?
I’ve repeatedly pointed out that, whether or not this is true, it is not really the point. Yet you keep insisting that it is. So no, I don’t think you have represented this correctly.
Mike Glyer: I would be interested to hear the rest of the story
I think James A. Corrick is still around, I can’t find an obit for him, and Fancyclopedia doesn’t show a DOD. You might try to find out if there’s a way to contact him.
Speaking only for myself… It’s that Person A loves Thing, an attack on Person A is embedded in Thing, in such a way as it will be repeated almost every time Thing-Person-A-Loves is going on for the best part of a year. Code of Conduct? Eh. Don’t care, that’s for concom people to figure out. Still cruel.
The essay might be “worse” but no-one’s reading that out in full. They are reading the title.
(Who the hell would you censure, anyway? Luhrs would be inappropriate – what, we’re going to censure people for accepting a nomination? absolutely not – and the nominators not much less so.)
I still, still don’t care about swearing. At all. Can we please drop the “but what if someone says fuck at the ceremony?” line forever, thank you.
@Everyone
Not that watching everyone debate whose number is bigger and more important isn’t fascinating and all, but we have literally no useful data and unless someone produces a comprehensive survey of WSFS members, making claims along those lines is a weak argument at best. Some people are happy about the nomination. Some people are indifferent. Some people are distressed/angry/annoyed/whatever. We don’t know how many are in each group or their sizes relative to each other or their demographic makeup.
@JJ and others — thanks for the background on The Silmarillion. I appreciate it.
@Lydy Nickerson
I sort of summarize to myself your comments about how CoC’s should be used as “Should they be interpreted, and used as a guideline” vs. “should they be followed as literally as practically possible”. And I take your comments to be that you fall in the former camp (and if you think this is an egregious misstatement of what you are writing, my apologies).
When CoC’s became a “thing”, maybe a decade or so ago (Scalzi’s pledge was in 2013; the geekfeminism wiki page looks to have started in 2011), they grew from a desire that conventions engage harassment seriously, and that potential harassers be placed on notice. When a convention posts a CoC, they are more likely to hold themselves accountable.
While I’m sure that most conventions before this were run by people who didn’t want harassment going on at their con, the standard of “Assume that people who run cons are doing so from a position of good will and good faith, and that they will take care of the problems appropriately” wasn’t working.
I think that your way of using CoCs as guidance for con administrators, who then figure out “is this really harassment” and “If we follow the letter of the law, does it do what we want? If not, do we actually need to follow it?”, moves back to “assume good faith on the part of administrators”, which notably wasn’t generally successful.
Having rules and following them is much better than having no rules, and is better than having rules and kinda-sorta following them. If having rules and following them doesn’t lead to the outcomes that people want, then the solution is to have better rules . I don’t know who is in charge of CoC at Chicon and Memphis/Chengdu, but I wonder if they are reviewing their CoC in light of current events, wondering if changes are appropriate (strike that — I’m not really wondering that about the folks in Chengdu).
The great thing about having a no-harassment policy that specifically defines what constitutes harassment, and then following that policy even if it is hard, is that it tells everyone “Don’t do harassment under our watch.” If Discon continues to turn a blind eye to what Luhrs said, and what Discon itself is saying by not treating it as an instance of harassment, then it is entirely reasonable for a fraction of people who are watching this unfold to believe that Discon isn’t serious about harassment.
I gedanken-proposed elsewhere a path forward that lets Discon execute their Hugo obligations, and at the same time, follow the CoC explicitly. Does it have a down side? Absolutely. Some people who are mad at GRRM would, if Discon were to follow that path, come away with the impression that Discon isn’t concerned about their feelings of having been disrespected.
But here’s the thing: Once you put in a policy of no harassment, as enforced by a CoC, you’ve prioritized certain behavior (“saying that people are unwelcome” = harassment) as being worse than other bad behavior (wasting time, mispronouncing names, being generally oblivious to current events, prioritizing your own fandom story over others, etc.).
No CoC will ever eliminate every way that one person can hurt another, and none can be written so well that it won’t require some judgement on edge cases. But Discon has publicly stated “here’s the line, don’t cross it”; Luhr’s post does cross the line, and if Discon continues to neglect at least addressing that, then they’ve thrown their CoC out.
I’m mostly doing this for me and while discussion is welcome, I won’t fight even to the penultimate breath for any of it.
Natalie Luhrs can and should write anything she likes about any person, place or thing. But regardless of her target’s wealth or social standing or any other punching up metric, if she read the nominated blog piece to GRRM, would it be harassment? I think yes. However, the piece itself, whether it is or is not nominated for a Hugo, is not harassment. It’s just one fan in conversation with others.
So, where’s the harm? Since none of us are immune to human feelings, I think having DisCon repeat George R. R. Martin can fuck off into the sun repeatedly from now until December could be seen as potentially harming GRRM, even if that is not the intent of DisCon. Because of that, it’s also going to harm me, because as a Worldcon member, I am complicit in the potential for harm of GRRM and I don’t fucking want to be. If I’m going to be part of potentially harming anyone, I like to choose my own targets, thanks.
Jeannette Ng, no matter what she said about Campbell, is no more at fault that Luhrs is in having and stating opinions; it doesn’t matter that Campbell is dead. It wouldn’t even matter if he was in the audience, because the truth is its own defense and if you don’t want to be called a fascist, don’t be a fascist. And while it would make me squirm a bit for theoretical-Campbell-in-the-audience, I wouldn’t be complicit merely by being part of the event.
Similarly, it doesn’t it matter to me that GRRM was taken to task for things he actually did. He did them and it was awful and I have never watched even the edited version in full. Luhrs didn’t write the best piece on the debacle, but she certainly had the best title.
I still don’t want to be a part of having it said over and over by a group in which I’m a member. Clearly none of that has anything to do with the word “fuck” or the phrase “fuck off into the sun.”
@Meredith: I think the end goal that people are avoiding admitting they’re moving toward is sanctioning Natalie Luhrs for simply writing the piece, and then possibly sanctioning everyone who voted for it.
Maybe it’s time to stop beating around the bush. An accusation of harassment has been made, and if this is a Code of Conduct violation, the question is which person or persons will be sanctioned. It’s disingenuous to speak as if the piece in question is attacking Martin and other attendees, as if it is sentient- it was created and voted for by people. If it is to be considered an act of harassment, if this is all not simply a tone argument, then we’re inevitably lead to the idea that the convention needs to deal with the people responsible.
Its impossible to make the case that this is a CoC violation without making the case that the people responsible for it violated the CoC. So it’s no wonder that people are seeing this whole debate as not simply a tone argument, but an attack on Luhrs and everyone else who was angered by Martin’s actions- or even the activist segment of fandom. In a larger context this can be seen as another swing in the longstanding back and forth of actions and counter-actions in the generational culture shift in the SF&F community. None of which helps with asking who Discon III should be dealing with.
@Rose Embolism
Do you consider DisCon potentially referring to the work in question by its “Rageblog” subtitle only in its public communications and during the ceremony, instead of by its full title, would be a sanction on Luhrs? I certainly agree that Luhrs’ work should be kept in the voting and that she herself did nothing wrong in titling her work so.
Rose Embolism:
It is absolutely a wonder as I am in the group angered by Martin’s actions and am absolutely an activist and I am not attacking myself when I think it is violation against the CoC for Discon III to echo out that George Martin should fuck off and die.
Rose Embolism: What is called for is to begin with honesty. It’s honest for Chris Logan Edwards (who surfaced the issue here), or me, or anyone else feeling great discomfort to see the Worldcon’s platform used to broadcast a verbal insult, to address what we saw. And would like not to be repeated.
Where’s my standing to complain about things people entered on their individual Hugo ballots I’ve never seen? Why do you want me to dishonestly complain about something I don’t care about?
What I do experience is the DisCon III committee broadcasting this phrase in videos where I’m part of the audience, and if I do nothing I can expect to keep experiencing more of the same. It’s the committee that creates those experiences. That’s who I want held to the standard they articulated in their own Code of Conduct with the announced intention to “help to make conventions a safer space by discouraging anti-social behavior and helping everyone to feel comfortable.”
As you know, when the Founders wrote “all men are created equal” in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence they didn’t really mean it, but hundreds of thousands of deaths happened in the Civil War, and struggles continue to this very minute, because Americans are determined we’re damned well going to mean it and apply it to all humanity.
Likewise, rules that are proclaimed to apply to everyone work best when they really do.
@Rose Embolism
As far as I can tell the only “end goal(s)” most people are moving towards are either: Leave the title as is, or use the subtitle instead. Possibly even just “argue about it a lot for the next few months, maybe next year also if a few someones decide Previous Year’s Hugo Drama Redux Redux sounds like a good nominations time, which I very much hope they do not, even if the chosen essay is titled ‘Meredith was totally right about everything BRW-related last year’”.
Suggesting to me otherwise shortly after I post a comment where I explicitly reject the options you’re claiming are the real and true end goal is… I don’t really understand why you would. Do you think I’m being untruthful?
I was pretty mild, iirc, in my criticism of the ceremony, having cunningly missed the entire Campbell/Astounding section on account of losing track of time (and, er, I didn’t listen to the Silverberg section because. he kept. pausing. constantly. and I’m sure plenty of people can stay focused under those conditions but I sure as hell can’t), but I suspect you’ll be getting a very irritable reply from JJ in a few hours pointing out that the “everyone else who was angered by Martin’s actions” includes, well, her, and a pretty decent chunk of the other people in this thread who are objecting.
This isn’t a “people who were angry about the ceremony” vs “people who were totally cool with the ceremony” debate, and it certainly isn’t a “liberal” vs “conservative” debate. It’s a little frustrating that some people, regardless of their stance on the nomination, are so determined to shove anyone they disagree with into an inaccurate box. I have yet to fit into a single damn box anyone on the internet has ever tried to shove me into, and that streak has not been broken here.
Are you reading the same comments I am reading? I haven’t seen that at all. Even the people who don’t think the blog entry was that great all seem to agree with the basic sentiment of it and not one has implied she shouldn’t have written it, that I’ve seen. The question is not about Luhrs, nor is it even about the voters who put it on the ballot.
The question is, very simply, “Does the title of this piece, when it is promoted in Hugo material, violate the CoC set forth by Discon?” If so, the piece has a great subtitle that could have been used instead. If not, the question is moot.
After reading (I think) every comment on this thread, several on Twitter and elsewhere, I think I fall very gently on the side of “they should have used the subtitle,” but I understand the counter-arguments and don’t actually entirely disagree.
If we can answer that question, then the next question is what should DisCon do about it, if anything, and how can we prevent this from happening again without restricting voters from nominating pieces they feel strongly about? I have no suggestions on either issue and just find myself glad I’m not on a con committee that has to deal with this issue.
Rose Embolism:
What people? I know there are hundreds and hundreds of comments, but I can’t recall anyone saying that Luhrs did anything wrong by writing the piece. I mean, I’m trying to believe you’re saying this in good faith, but I’d like some actual proof beyond your assertions, because this sounds ridiculous. There aren’t even many voices (two? three?) arguing that the nominators acted in bad faith, let alone Luhrs, who is a valuable part of fandom and a fine writer.
@JJ:
That wasn’t my inference. Please see the part you quoted. My inference was that you would say that the nominators violated the CoC.
Let me see if I understand this correctly: although you have said that you believe that at least some of the nominators made their nomination in bad faith, that fact is not particularly relevant, and therefore it is not a violation of the CoC. Do I have that correct? Further, you have stated that the title, in and of itself, is a violation of the CoC, if printed and promulgated by the concom, even though the blog post (and presumably its title) is not when left in the context of Luhrs’ blog. So, what I’m seeing is that you are saying that there is, in fact, a violation of the CoC, but that the offender is DisCon, not Luhrs, not the nominators, not the voters, but DisCon itself. And the target is the DisCon membership. Am I correctly representing you? Or have I missed the mark, again?
If I have correctly represented you, my argument would be that this is an institutional failure, and an institutional problem, and not a CoC violation. The CoC is, in my opinion, supposed to be an institutional response to interpersonal conflict which rises above the normal hurly burly of social interaction. It is not designed to protect the members against the institution enforcing the CoC. If the institution acts in ways that suggest it does not support the values of its Code of Conduct, that’s definitely a problem that needs to be addressed, but I am not sure that attempting to get it to enforce its CoC against itself is the correct way forward. I think its the wrong tool for the job.
My one regret about my conduct thus far is that I wish I’d brought up my concern in a Pixel Scroll thread instead of on the finalists announcement thread. I don’t think Heather (I think it was Heather) was being realistic when she objected to discussing it immediately, but it could have been done somewhere else. And I did know better although I didn’t think of it at the time, I have done better in the past, and I fucked that up this time.
Okay, and the post for the most not getting it post goes to Rose Embolism.
I haven’t seen anyone moving towards an endgoal other than chancing the title.
There is no way, Worldcon has the right to saction someone for a title, because it was nominated.
Sanction anyone who nominated it or votes for it, how many laws of Worldcon would that break?
Actually I did not seem much movement towards another position anyone did. I moved probably the most from I don’t think Worldcon can do anythink to the should chance the title in oficial use or only read part of it.
What this is is not the defenders from George actions last year.
I think perhaps the problematic moderates who have a problem with an insult regardless the one it is directed against (Someone asked what if the one would be Vox Day, I hope even then it would make me unconfartable). May be a generation question, (and I am just starting to feel old in the last few months), may be a question of personal dignity.
I would say that others are more in the good goal (to fight against racism and to make the Hugos a place for everyone) justify the means or don’t see that as a very big deal. (This are the moderate cellebrators for the nomination of the Luhr’s peace)
This is how I see it, from my perspective.
@Bill: I have written extensively in the past about the ways in which creating and enforcing CoCs are badly hampered by the lack of trust within the community. The only way I know to make headway is to become trustworthy, and to continue to be so in the heavy seas that we are currently in. I do not think that a rigid enforcement of the rules makes an institution more trustworthy. Indeed, really rigid enforcement is even more subject to bad faith and gamesmanship than a more flexible and responsive enforcement. Rigid enforcement is tempting, because it seems easy. But the thing is, we’re dealing with behavior which is incredibly reliant upon context in order to understand it, and if you strip away context, you strip away meaning, and end up enforcing meaningless rules rather than actually creating a better community.
@Cassy B.
This is fascinating to me, because Horst is a very common name for German men born in the 1930s and 1940s. I had an Uncle Horst growing up. I suspect many Germans had a Horst somewhere in their family as well.
@StefanB: There are absolutely conversations elseWeb in which people are speculating that the real reason someone made a CoC complaint was as an attempt to sanction Luhrs. This is not the only conversation going on. And while on F770, most people have been focused on the title, and most agree that GRRMs hosting was less than ideal, that is not a given in the larger conversation.
Lydy Nickerson:
Can you point me to any place on the web where someone is arguing that Luhrs should be sanctioned?
@Hampus: I have had a couple of private conversations with people who either expressed the concern that there is an attempt to sanction Luhrs, or who have spoken to others who have expressed said concerns. And a number of those people have talked about how this seems to be an attempt to resist actually addressing the issues Luhrs has raised. However, these were private conversations, so, maybe “elseWeb” was a not entirely accurate characterization. I am kind of assuming, based on those conversations, that there are some public ones as well. Maybe not.
@Lydy Nickerson:
I was talking about the discusion here, yes. I had the impresion we were the “evil” critics of the Luhr’s peace. And well we know of Mikes stated opinion about it. I am not following many other discusion about it (I have read peaces of some others who don’t fit perhaps in my easy definition in the post above, but they definitly didn’t fit in the want to sanction Luhr’s narative.
@Cora:
For me Horst is not a familymember, there the most popular names are Hans (Father, Uncle und Grandfather but I never met my Grandfather) and Michael (a uncle and a cousin not related to each other). Horst was the name of the father of on of my best friends growing up.
My parents moved from NRW to Baveria(long before I was born), who was a bigger problem, when we were kids.
I don’t think anybody here has the end goal of treating the blog rant as a Code of Conduct violation. I certainly don’t. I’d just like Worldcon to call it “The 2020 Hugo Awards Ceremony (RageBlog Edition)” everywhere it isn’t required by the WSFS Constitution to use the full title.
I recognize that this is a tough decision for the concom. But a past con wrestled with whether to treat a Hugo Best Related Work differently in the packet over concerns about the content of the work. They had the discretion to do that and omitted the work.
Here, if the concom has discretion in how it announces and publicizes nominee titles, I’d like them to use it. Limit the full title to being used in the places where it is required under the rules.
Yes, we know people are speculating about it. What that isn’t is proof people want it to happen.
@Lydy Nickerson:
It could very well be, that this is the strawman that many people make of the positions a lot of posters have hear.
This discusion seems to lead to strawman.
Let along that enough want it to happen to justify assigning it wholesale as what “people” are aiming for.
Speculation means I have to be clear that it isn’t what I want, but if that’s just going to be written off as me “avoiding admitting” it I’m not quite sure what the point is of even acknowledging it further – if speculation is then assumed to be truth then I can just as easily be replaced by an evil sexy lamp, which won’t mind nearly as much when people project all their wrong assumptions upon it. I’m perfectly happy to limit my discussion partners to people who don’t do that.
@Meredith: Now I kinda want to be an evil sexy lamp. It seems much less exhausting than being me. IF we were both evil sexy lamps, someone could put us on either side of a haunted fainting couch, and that would be really really good decor.
@Lydy Nickerson
… You make a strong argument.
ETA: Obviously, the haunted fainting couch needs to be upholstered in arsenic green velvet.
I do have an evil sexy lamp at home, but it doesn’t work as the socket is of some retired South African type.
rcade says I don’t think anybody here has the end goal of treating the blog rant as a Code of Conduct violation. I certainly don’t. I’d just like Worldcon to call it “The 2020 Hugo Awards Ceremony (RageBlog Edition)” everywhere it isn’t required by the WSFS Constitution to use the full title.
I want them to draw a line in the sand as otherwise any profane or violent language, particularly when it’s directed against another Worldcon member, can’t be banned as they’ve said it’s permissible.
@Hampus Eckerman
I want to see the lamp!
Blockquoting because I think Laura has stated the key question.
I think a point Lydy has explored, and is still exploring, and is trying to get a clear answer upon, is, if this is a COC violation, who is doing the violating? Violation of a Code of Conduct does not spring whole out of nowhere. Someone, REGARDLESS OF INTENT must actually commit the violation. We’ve all agreed Luhrs did not commit a violation. There seems to general agreement nominating it was not a violation.
The ACT considered violation seems to be saying the title aloud where not absolutely necessary. People having to do so where necessary are not considered CoC violators because they literally have no choice in saying it, even if their saying it hurts or ruins the event for those who hear it.
But the people who would be pressed into the task of reading the name, (or the alternate name if we go that route), where not absolutely necessary, also don’t seem to be being pointed to as perpetrators of the violation (unless they were to do do so wilfully and against direct orders.)
So who is? Discon as a whole? ConCom? The people in charge of the Hugo-related sections of the event?
Who is the person or people we say are committing, or going to commit, any act of CoC violation?
Because if we can’t even identify the target who is causing the violation, then we definitely can’t impose any conditions to prevent it or mitigate it.
Meredith:
https://twitter.com/motbilder/status/1384258252079202315?s=19
Luhrs titled the post “George R.R. Martin Can Fuck Off Into the Sun, Or: The 2020 Hugo Awards Ceremony (Rageblog Edition)”.
The people who nominated it did so under the title of “George R.R. Martin Can Fuck Off Into the Sun, Or: The 2020 Hugo Awards Ceremony (Rageblog Edition)”
The work was announced as “George R.R. Martin Can Fuck Off Into the Sun, Or: The 2020 Hugo Awards Ceremony (Rageblog Edition)”
Luhrs has stated that she will not change the title or rescind the work.
There are people advocating that the title be either forcibly changed or regularly referred to by a different title. They are not advocating that the title of other works be forcibly changed or regularly referred to by a different title. They want to impose an action against the title because of (whatever reason) against the express wishes of the Author of that title.
How is that… not a sanction of that Author?
Do we… have to Assign A Perpetrator? Is that a rule somewhere? Is there something preventing using the subtitle unless there is a specific Someone To Blame? I’m not sure I’m understanding the A to B here.
ETA: @Hampus Eckerman
Thank you! That is a most excellent lamp.
My point is, even here on this blog the essay and its title has been called harassment and a CoC violation against Martin. If there is no CoC violation by an actual person, then I don’t think that calling it a Code of Conduct violation in the first place is appropriate.
I’ll say it flat out- if the end goal is not to have action taken against people, then why call it harassment? Why call it a Code of Conduct violation? Why is Code of Conduct in the title of this thread?
Saying that the essay title makes one feel uncomfortable, or saying it will make other people uncomfortable, or saying that the language is inappropriate is a completely different matter- that’s more of a tone argument. But this argument has been all about how the title “fucks over so many people” and “Is harassment”, and the title of this thread itself calls it a Code of Conduct matter. In that case, who committed the Code of Conduct violation?
Lenora Rose:
It doesn’t matter who is responsible if DisCon 3 refuses to investigate the violation. And if they investigate the violation, they are the ones to decide where the buck stops. I for certain can’t be expected to know their internal delegation of responsibilities. But I do think responsibility lies within the convention.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true.
DisCon can choose not to refer to the full title (except where required) even if it doesn’t cite the Code of Conduct as the reason.
If someone bought an ad in one of the convention publications and there were concerns about the content, DisCon could exercise its discretion and reject the ad. The standard wouldn’t have to be “this isn’t a Code of Conduct violation so we must accept it.” It could be “this doesn’t meet our standards.”