At my request, Stoic Cynic updated his outline of the ideas attached to various Hugo voting reform proposals. He calls it “trying to define the solution domain.”
Guidelines: Any solution should, to the greatest extent possible, maintain the pre-slating character of the awards.
Boundaries: There are three stages we can act: Membership, Nomination, and Voting.
Actions: Solutions would seem to fall into four general categories: Gatekeeping, Filtering, Addition, and Vetoing.
Proposed solutions, each with pros and cons, include –
1. Do Nothing
a) Restrict nominations to attending members.
b) Restrict nominations to a jury.
c) Remove second year nominating rights.
d) Increase supporting membership fees.
e) Ban bad actors.
f) Restrict nominating to members with consecutive years of membership.
a) Implement slate detection algorithms (These were mentioned last year. What would they look like?).
b) Allow the membership to confirm nominations through a long list (DN).
c) Allow membership to deny nominations through a long list (3SV)
d) Empower the admins to remove ballots of bad actors.
e) Empower the admins to add a limited number of nominees in years with bad actors (A+2)
f) Empower a jury to add a limited number of overlooked nominees to the short list (Juried+2)
g) Algorithmically filter the nominations (EPH, EPH+, Diluted Nomination, Frozen Nomination, NOTE: Jameson Quinn is working on another algorithm variant, as yet unnamed, to incorporate a ‘satisfaction index’ and achieve A+2 type results in conjunction with EPH programmatically).
h) Restrict the nominations relative to the field (4/6)
i) Counter-slating through a third party collation. *
j) Empower the admins or a jury to remove works which tend to bring discredit on WorldCon
k) Allow the membership to vote on expanding just the number of nominees on a given year’s shortlist.
a) Filter the votes by preference ranking (IRV)
b) Veto bad actors (No Award)
* Removed by request