"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."
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."
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.
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!
Certain people will be yelling "Racist!" at anyone who objects to
Uganda's human rights record, just as they did with China.
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."
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 19:49:19 -0500, Gary McGath <garym@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 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...
https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/01/25/1530239/hugo-awards-under-fire-over-censorship-accusations
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.
On 26 Jan 2024 15:34:31 -0000, kludge@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.
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
It seems unlikely we will ever know for sure. It will be a golden age
of conspiracy theories.
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 17:06:20 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@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?
In article <vfq7rils0jqf0nburec37i73fjilamct5o@4ax.com>,
Alan Woodford <alan@thewoodfords.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 17:06:20 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) >>wrote:That's what THEY want you to believe.
---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?
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 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.
Bernard Peek <bap@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.
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.
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.
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:
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 381 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 54:53:55 |
| Calls: | 8,146 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,098 |
| Messages: | 5,858,967 |