Re: Were some Hugo nominations unfairly excluded?

[James Nicoll]

In article <p0t5ri9lhgg67nuvo...@4ax.com>,
Someone Else <someon...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/01/25/1530239/hugo-awards-under-fire-over-censorship-accusations
>
>"several works or authors -- some with links to China -- had been
>excluded from the ballot despite receiving enough nominations to be
>included on their respective shortlists."

It appears people were dropped and the vote counting math was borked
as well.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

[Gary McGath]

On 1/25/24 6:54 PM, Someone Else wrote:
> https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/01/25/1530239/hugo-awards-under-fire-over-censorship-accusations
>
> "several works or authors -- some with links to China -- had been
> excluded from the ballot despite receiving enough nominations to be
> included on their respective shortlists."

According to Hugo administrator Dave McCarty, all of them were excluded
strictly because of the rules. What rules? Rules!! Do I have to put it
in all caps to make it plain? ROOLZ!!! Our Chinese masters had nothing
to do with it!
--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

[Keith F. Lynch]

In another forum, it's been suggested that this year's Worldcon should
declare that Chengdu failed to do the 2022 Hugos correctly, hence that
Glasgow should do them over in addition to doing the 2023 Hugos.

Whether or not they do, we should all definitely figure out how best
to prevent a recurrence. Probably by banning nations without freedom
of speech, press, and religion from hosting a Worldcon.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

[Alan Woodford]

So a Worldcon committee should just ignore the government of the country it is
in?

I really can't see that working anywhere, let alone in a country with one of
the most repressive governments in the world.

Should a US Worldcon serve alcohol to a 19-year-old British fan, because they
can legally drink in their own country...

Alan Woodford
The Greying Lensman

[Gary McGath]

On 1/25/24 8:01 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> In another forum, it's been suggested that this year's Worldcon should
> declare that Chengdu failed to do the 2022 Hugos correctly, hence that
> Glasgow should do them over in addition to doing the 2023 Hugos.
>
> Whether or not they do, we should all definitely figure out how best
> to prevent a recurrence. Probably by banning nations without freedom
> of speech, press, and religion from hosting a Worldcon.

The difficulty is that freedom of speech comes on a continuum. The UK
has suppressed protests in recent years. Uganda, which is under
consideration for a future Worldcon, killed unarmed protesters in 2020.
Even the USA has freedom of speech issues with laws some states have
been passing lately.

There will be a lot of disagreement over which nations go past the line.
Uganda does, in my opinion; the UK is less clear, assuming we're going
to have Worldcons at all. Certain people will be yelling "Racist!" at
anyone who objects to Uganda's human rights record, just as they did
with China.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Gary McGath <ga...@mcgath.com> wrote:
> Certain people will be yelling "Racist!" at anyone who objects to
> Uganda's human rights record, just as they did with China.

Has anyone yet argued that we shouldn't have interfered with, or
objected to, Germany's native Nazi culture? Isn't objecting to
millions of innocent civilians being murdered the same sort of thing
as saying that kimchi smells bad? Of course I'm not suggesting that
anyone outside the German culture should kill millions of innocent
civilians. Not because it's inherently wrong, of course, but because
it would be cultural appropriation. Just as eating Korean food is,
unless you're a Korean person living in Korea.

Can I get a DEI job now? Or am I still not Diverse, Equitable, and
Inclusive enough?

[Gary McGath]

On 1/25/24 6:54 PM, Someone Else wrote:
> https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/01/25/1530239/hugo-awards-under-fire-over-censorship-accusations
>
> "several works or authors -- some with links to China -- had been
> excluded from the ballot despite receiving enough nominations to be
> included on their respective shortlists."

The Astounding Award, which isn't a Hugo, was also affected.

[Scott Dorsey]

Alan Woodford <al...@thewoodfords.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 19:49:19 -0500, Gary McGath <ga...@mcgath.com> wrote:
>
>>On 1/25/24 6:54 PM, Someone Else wrote:
>>> https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/01/25/1530239/hugo-awards-under-fire-over-censorship-accusations
>>>
>>> "several works or authors -- some with links to China -- had been
>>> excluded from the ballot despite receiving enough nominations to be
>>> included on their respective shortlists."
>>
>>
>>According to Hugo administrator Dave McCarty, all of them were excluded
>>strictly because of the rules. What rules? Rules!! Do I have to put it
>>in all caps to make it plain? ROOLZ!!! Our Chinese masters had nothing
>>to do with it!
>
>So a Worldcon committee should just ignore the government of the country it is
>in?

I expect Worldcon to be pretty heavily influenced by the local community
and in the case of China that has a lot to do with the government.

I do not expect the Hugos, which are supposed to be independent of the
Worldcon, to be so.

>I really can't see that working anywhere, let alone in a country with one of
>the most repressive governments in the world.
>
>Should a US Worldcon serve alcohol to a 19-year-old British fan, because they
>can legally drink in their own country...

The Worldcon took place in China, but the Hugo nomination, voting, and
management process took place internationally and not in China. Only the
ceremony itself took place in China.

Gary is kind of over the top in his dislike of the Worldcon going to China,
and while I disagree with him about that, I have to say this is a major issue.
I expect the Worldcon committee to bow to the will of the local government
in every possible way because that is how conventions operate in the real
world. However, I do not expect the Hugo awards or its administration
subcommittee to do so.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary McGath <ga...@mcgath.com> wrote:
>
>There will be a lot of disagreement over which nations go past the line.
>Uganda does, in my opinion; the UK is less clear, assuming we're going
>to have Worldcons at all. Certain people will be yelling "Racist!" at
>anyone who objects to Uganda's human rights record, just as they did
>with China.

The human rights record is the least of Uganda's issues. They are
certainly as authoritarian as the Chinese government, it is just that
Museveni has fewer resources to oppress the local population. At least
he isn't eating them like Mr. Amin did.

[Steve Coltrin]

begin fnord
Someone Else <someon...@example.com.invalid> writes:

> https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/01/25/1530239/hugo-awards-under-fire-over-censorship-accusations

Why on earth is slashdot still around?

--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Google Groups killfiled here
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press

[Alan Woodford]

On 26 Jan 2024 15:34:31 -0000, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>The Worldcon took place in China, but the Hugo nomination, voting, and
>management process took place internationally and not in China. Only the
>ceremony itself took place in China.
>
>Gary is kind of over the top in his dislike of the Worldcon going to China,
>and while I disagree with him about that, I have to say this is a major issue.
>I expect the Worldcon committee to bow to the will of the local government
>in every possible way because that is how conventions operate in the real
>world. However, I do not expect the Hugo awards or its administration
>subcommittee to do so.
>--scott

In an ideal world, yes, but in this one, I can't see the Chinese government
wanting to make the distinction between the Concom and the Hugo Award
subcommittee, especially if it means people they don't like getting awards at
a big international event in China.

This isn't a perfect world, and China is pretty clearly one of the least
perfect parts...

I suspect that there has been a lot more going on behind the scenes that we
aren't hearing about.

After all, I'd think twice about going to a Worldcon in the States in an "I
hate Trump!" t-shirt, even with Biden in power, and China has a much worse
reputation for handling it's dissidents!

[James Nicoll]

In article <nim7ri50r52e5il2t...@4ax.com>,

Alan Woodford <al...@thewoodfords.uk> wrote:
>On 26 Jan 2024 15:34:31 -0000, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>The Worldcon took place in China, but the Hugo nomination, voting, and
>>management process took place internationally and not in China. Only the
>>ceremony itself took place in China.
>>
>>Gary is kind of over the top in his dislike of the Worldcon going to China,
>>and while I disagree with him about that, I have to say this is a major issue.
>>I expect the Worldcon committee to bow to the will of the local government
>>in every possible way because that is how conventions operate in the real
>>world. However, I do not expect the Hugo awards or its administration
>>subcommittee to do so.
>>--scott
>
>In an ideal world, yes, but in this one, I can't see the Chinese government
>wanting to make the distinction between the Concom and the Hugo Award
>subcommittee, especially if it means people they don't like getting awards at
>a big international event in China.

At this point it is not clear that the authorities played any direct
role. It could be self-censorship. There's also a case that this was
not political at all but rather giant fuckup processiing the votes:

https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2024/01/24/im-coming-around-to-the-unified-stuff-up-theory/

It seems unlikely we will ever know for sure. It will be a golden age
of conspiracy theories.

[Alan Woodford]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 17:06:20 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll)
wrote:
---snip---

>
>It seems unlikely we will ever know for sure. It will be a golden age
>of conspiracy theories.

Isn't it always a golden age for conspiracy theories?

But yes, I'd expect people with detailed info to keep quiet, for the
protection of those the Chinese government can get at.

And no, I don't blame them for that at all!

[James Nicoll]

In article <vfq7rils0jqf0nbur...@4ax.com>,

Alan Woodford <al...@thewoodfords.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 17:06:20 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll)
>wrote:
>---snip---
>>
>>It seems unlikely we will ever know for sure. It will be a golden age
>>of conspiracy theories.
>
>Isn't it always a golden age for conspiracy theories?
>

That's what THEY want you to believe.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <up0qq7$iqi$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <vfq7rils0jqf0nbur...@4ax.com>,
>Alan Woodford <al...@thewoodfords.uk> wrote:
>>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 17:06:20 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll)
>>wrote:
>>---snip---
>>>
>>>It seems unlikely we will ever know for sure. It will be a golden age
>>>of conspiracy theories.
>>
>>Isn't it always a golden age for conspiracy theories?
>>
>That's what THEY want you to believe.

Dude! Don't be putting down my UFO lizard people friends!

[Bernard Peek]

On 2024-01-26, Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> In another forum, it's been suggested that this year's Worldcon should
> declare that Chengdu failed to do the 2022 Hugos correctly, hence that
> Glasgow should do them over in addition to doing the 2023 Hugos.

I'm not aware of any constitutional mechanism that permits that. If it
existed I would have voted to remove it.

>
> Whether or not they do, we should all definitely figure out how best
> to prevent a recurrence. Probably by banning nations without freedom
> of speech, press, and religion from hosting a Worldcon.

The Chengdu Worldcon was voted in by a democratic process. The results were
predictable. The blame, if that's the right word, lies with the members who
voted them in and also those that had the opportunity to vote against but
didn't.

We did what we did. They did what they did. It's over.

What we need to do now is consider what we should learn from this and hope
that we can contribute to educating future Chinese governments.


--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
Wigan

[Keith F. Lynch]

Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> The Chengdu Worldcon was voted in by a democratic process. The
> results were predictable. The blame, if that's the right word,
> lies with the members who voted them in and also those that had
> the opportunity to vote against but didn't.

The great majority of voters were people in China.

The main thing Kevin Standlee got in trouble for was publicly
revealing, early at the DC Worldcon, that the number of mail-in votes
for Chengdu was so high that even if everyone present in DC were to
vote against Chengdu, it would still win. It was against the rules
for him to reveal anything about the vote totals until the voting was
over, but I'm glad he did it, since it let everyone at the con who
didn't want the con to be in Chengdu to avoid wasting their money by
voting against it. They would lose, and their voting fee would just
go straight to China.

Maybe voting should be restricted to people at the con. It would be
in some sense "democratic" if everyone on the planet who paid a voting
fee were to vote this November that the next US president will be some
random Communist Chinese guy who is no fan of free speech, but most
Americans probably wouldn't be happy about it.

[Bernard Peek]

On 2024-01-27, Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>> The Chengdu Worldcon was voted in by a democratic process. The
>> results were predictable. The blame, if that's the right word,
>> lies with the members who voted them in and also those that had
>> the opportunity to vote against but didn't.
>
> The great majority of voters were people in China.
>
> The main thing Kevin Standlee got in trouble for was publicly
> revealing, early at the DC Worldcon, that the number of mail-in votes
> for Chengdu was so high that even if everyone present in DC were to
> vote against Chengdu, it would still win. It was against the rules
> for him to reveal anything about the vote totals until the voting was
> over, but I'm glad he did it, since it let everyone at the con who
> didn't want the con to be in Chengdu to avoid wasting their money by
> voting against it. They would lose, and their voting fee would just
> go straight to China.

That's democracy in action. There are more people outside fandom than in it.
There are more SF fans outside the US than inside it.

>
> Maybe voting should be restricted to people at the con. It would be
> in some sense "democratic" if everyone on the planet who paid a voting
> fee were to vote this November that the next US president will be some
> random Communist Chinese guy who is no fan of free speech, but most
> Americans probably wouldn't be happy about it.

If voting was open to everyone on the planet then I wouldn't be surprised if
most Americans were unhappy about the result. Restricting the vote to an
elite corps would be one way of keeping Worldcons like thay have been.

First establich that this is desirable then if it is achievable.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> That's democracy in action. There are more people outside fandom
> than in it.

Those outside fandom shouldn't vote on the Worldcon's location or on
the winners of the Hugo awards.

> There are more SF fans outside the US than inside it.

And I'm confident that most of them, inside or outside the US, support
freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.

That's partly because that is simply the world consensus except in
totalitarian nations (which are fortunately in the minority), and
partly because speculative fiction obviously requires freedom of
speculation.

> Restricting the vote to an elite corps would be one way of keeping
> Worldcons like thay have been.

Is fandom an elite corps? Well, fans are Slans. :-)

I'm not averse to Worldcons changing, but not every change is good.
Arbitrarily declaring works that criticize the Great Leader to be
"ineligible" is not a desirable change (except by the Great Leader).

> First establich that this is desirable then if it is achievable.

Freedom of speculation is desirable. Otherwise we're not about SF.

(Are there still any Michelists in fandom? To oversimplify a bit,
they believed SF should consist entirely of socialist propaganda.
See https://fancyclopedia.org/Michelism )

[Mike Van Pelt]

In article <up0oqc$jc6$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>At this point it is not clear that the authorities played any direct
>role. It could be self-censorship. There's also a case that this was
>not political at all but rather giant fuckup processiing the votes:

Which only excluded specifically those works by people or with
content that the genocidal totalitarian regiem in Bejing had a
problem with, and none others.

Coincidences happen. But to quote Auric Goldfinger....

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times
is enemy action." There were more than three works that
somehow mysteriously ran afoul of this "mere happenstance,
nothing to see here, move along, move along" thing.

Insisting that the works were excluded "by the rules"
but adamantly refusing to even hint at *which* rules and
attacking anyone who asks "which rules"... doesn't engender
much in the way of confidence.
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

[Cryptoengineer]

On 2/3/2024 6:18 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> In article <up0oqc$jc6$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> At this point it is not clear that the authorities played any direct
>> role. It could be self-censorship. There's also a case that this was
>> not political at all but rather giant fuckup processiing the votes:
>
> Which only excluded specifically those works by people or with
> content that the genocidal totalitarian regiem in Bejing had a
> problem with, and none others.
>
> Coincidences happen. But to quote Auric Goldfinger....
>
> "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times
> is enemy action." There were more than three works that
> somehow mysteriously ran afoul of this "mere happenstance,
> nothing to see here, move along, move along" thing.
>
> Insisting that the works were excluded "by the rules"
> but adamantly refusing to even hint at *which* rules and
> attacking anyone who asks "which rules"... doesn't engender
> much in the way of confidence.

The story is hitting the non-genre press. Yesterday, Esquire magazine
published an account of the affair:

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a46612912/science-fiction-hugo-awards-2024/

It leans more towards the 'state interference' hypothesis than it does
the 'incompetant f*ckup' theory (personally, I think both are involved),
but otherwise seems a pretty good account. It praises the transparency
of the Hugo process, but notes its drawbacks as well.

pt