Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Hugo Voting Deadline Is Tonight

For those of you who are members of the Worldcon this year -- I'm not, and wasn't even before the unpleasantness -- your deadline to vote for the Hugo Awards is tonight at midnight, Pacific Standard Time. (That's what the website says; they may mean Pacific Daylight Time.)

As I type this, you've got about nine hours. If you're eligible to vote, but don't vote, I have to tell you that you completely forfeit any right to complain about the winners, or any other aspect of the Hugo Awards ceremony, or the Worldcon in general. I'm sorry, but there it is: you have to vote now to complain afterwards.

The online voting form is here; if you haven't voted yet, please use it.

3 comments:

Jonathan said...

I don't think even that protects you. Last time I complained about the Hugo someone popped up and said that by choosing not to pay the $100+ dollars entitling me to vote despite the fact that I have no intention of going to Worldcon I had forfeited the right to complain.

Which is a bit like saying that you can't criticise a corporation because you could buy stock and have your say in its running if you wanted to.

Which is, of course, bullshit but the Hugo people don't let reason stand in their way when it comes to covering their arses.

Kevin Standlee said...

...someone popped up...

Hello again.

... and said that by choosing not to pay the $100+ dollars entitling me to vote.

And where does it say anywhere that it costs more than $100 to join Worldcon in order to vote on the Hugo Awards? Cite your source, please, or admit that you're overstating the case.

A supporting membership in the Worldcon this year is $50. That's how much it would have cost you to join and vote on the Hugo Awards.

Of course, maybe you think $50 and $100 are the same thing, or that the difference between the two is irrelevant. But when you make a more than 100% factual error, it makes it difficult to take you seriously.


Which is a bit like saying that you can't criticise a corporation because you could buy stock and have your say in its running if you wanted to.

Oh, you can criticize all you want. But I just don't think your criticism has as much credibility, particularly when you have to exaggerate so significantly. IMO, your criticism amounts to, "they don't give awards to the things I think they should, so they're bad." Or maybe, "I'm so obviously an Important Person that they should give me a free membership."

The World Science Fiction Society is a club. (See, it's got the word "Society" right in its name.) Like many clubs, it charges dues to become a member. Have you never been a member of a club that charges dues? The members of the club present an award called the "Hugo Award." You have to be a member of the club in order to vote on the club's awards. How difficult is that to understand?


...but the Hugo people don't let reason stand in their way when it comes to covering their arses.

Tell me why a voluntary association of people who pay their own membership dues and do all of the work themselves should instead do what you want them to do?

I tell you what: if you think it's a Terrible Evil Thing that the members of WSFS present awards that *gasp* *shock* *horror* you have to pay to vote on, I invite you to go set up awards that are run the way you think they should be run. Then see if anyone pays any attention to you.

Andrew Wheeler said...

Boys, boys -- don't make me separate you.

Perhaps I should have been more clear in my original post (that pesky passive voice again!) -- I will personally pummel senseless people who, in my hearing, whine about how some Hugo or other went to the "wrong" nominee, and that this makes the Hugos "illegitimate," when said person could have, but did not, vote on said Hugos.

Jonathan -- for most intents and purposes (except this year), I am one of those "Hugo people." So smile when you say that.

Post a Comment