Hugo Nominations & Awards: 2021 and Onward

[Ran]

37 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

Interestingly, it looks fine in Firefox, but only in Firefox. Using Chrome or Brave (my default browser) gets the same results as in the screenshot I took. 

Very odd. I think maybe you have a CSS cached issue. Does it look the same if you try it in incognito mode?

[IlyaP]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Very odd. I think maybe you have a CSS cached issue. Does it look the same if you try it in incognito mode?

I've tried deleting the cache, and just tried Brave's version of incognito mode - which still leads to the same results. 

Wonder why it works in Firefox but not Brave and Chrome...

[Zorral]

The Hugo Award-World Con controversy arrived on the Guardian.

Science fiction awards held in China under fire for excluding authors
Concerns raised about interference or censorship after documents showed writers were barred despite receiving enough nominations
Amy Hawkins Senior China correspondent

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/jan/24/science-fiction-awards-held-in-china-under-fire-for-excluding-authors

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

20 hours ago, Zorral said:

The Hugo Award-World Con controversy arrived on the Guardian.

Science fiction awards held in China under fire for excluding authors
Concerns raised about interference or censorship after documents showed writers were barred despite receiving enough nominations
Amy Hawkins Senior China correspondent

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/jan/24/science-fiction-awards-held-in-china-under-fire-for-excluding-authors

 

It is a huge stink.  Dave McCarty’s refusal to elaborate on the Disqualifications of various works is making it much much worse.

Some are claiming this controversy constitutes abandonment of the Trademark around the Hugos:

https://m.twitch.tv/videos/2041831211

Edited January 26 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[maarsen]

57 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It is a huge stink.  Dave McCarty’s refusal to elaborate on the Disqualifications of various works is making it much much worse.

Some are claiming this controversy constitutes abandonment of the Trademark around the Hugos:

https://m.twitch.tv/videos/2041831211

Here in Canada we have had many allegations of Chinese interference in federal and provincial politics, particularly focused on those who criticize the regime even in mild forms. It is no stretch of the imagination that they would do the same for the Hugo awards. It would be so much easier to do when they are all in your country and they can show the example of Canada's Two Michaels as an example. For those who don't know Michaels Kovrig and Spavor were arrested and held on spying charges after the RCMP arrested Meng Wanzhou , of Huawei, for money laundering.

[Ran]

I feel like McCarty is in a tough spot, in that being explicit about what happened may cause trouble for his Chinese colleagues. I think the best we're going to get is his noting there was "no official" contact from the government and that he's just following the WSFS Constitution and "the rules we all have to follow", e.g. local laws or concerns for them. Likely that the Chinese Hugo co-admin strenuously argued that there'd be legal trouble if certain authors/works were rewarded.

The trademark abandonment case seems absurd on the face of it, and I saw some other trademark folk on Blue Sky both suggesting Dunford's case is over-stated because of his cynicism  (there are plenty of companies that basically can't do anything to enforce trademarks in China and simply don't bother because of it, yet their trademarks are not questioned; further, the WSFS has a record of enforcing its trademark in many other instances in the past, showing it does not consider it abandoned; and finally, even if it went to court, the USPTO would almost certainly go out of its way to help retain the mark protection)

I think the only straightforward way forward is to invalidate the result in two successive Worldcons, and perhaps stage a re-do... and maybe someone finally needs to bite the bullet and come up with some independent, third-party (whether a new corporation or some established auditing firm like PriceWaterhouse) to tabulate votes. Although that raises the specter still of the actual Worldcon refusing to hold the awards ceremony or skipping categories if the results may put the concom in legal jeopardy in the host country.

Which brings us back to the idea of requiring that bids need to show that their chosen location meets some sort of internationally-acceptable bar for levels of freedom and lack of censorship. 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Ran said:

I feel like McCarty is in a tough spot, in that being explicit about what happened may cause trouble for his Chinese colleagues. I think the best we're going to get is his noting there was "no official" contact from the government and that he's just following the WSFS Constitution and "the rules we all have to follow", e.g. local laws or concerns for them. Likely that the Chinese Hugo co-admin strenuously argued that there'd be legal trouble if certain authors/works were rewarded.

He should have said nothing else after dropping his vague explanation.  His need to insult and belittle those who ask for elaboration is really a poor choice.  If McCarty is seeking to protect Chinese Members of the Chengdu committe continuing to draw attention to the handwave explaination is in some ways worse for the Chinese Committee members than silence would be.  The attention is obvious an negative for the PRC Worldcon.  

They could end up at risk based on the negative attention McCarty insults are generating.

[Ran]

I don't know anything about insults, I just saw his response to Gaiman and some others which basically laid out that they followed the constitution and the "rules we all follow", and the "no official" Chinese government direction/contact/interference. I feel like those answers are sufficient in themselves. His conduct outside of that, well, that's his conduct, I doubt it's going to blow back on Chinese administrators.

I've heard he's always been considered fairly abrasive, though.   Wouldn't know him from ... uh ... Adam (heh), but saw a photo of him and I'm pretty sure he's the guy who served me up a Chicago-style hot dog at the 2005 Worldcon Chicago bid party (at least, I recall it as a bid party).

 

Edited January 26 by Ran

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, Ran said:

I've heard he's always been considered fairly abrasive, though.

He was not particularly friendly to the long drawn out process to create the Lodestar award… and yes… he’s abrasive.  He repeatedly in his own facebook thread on the announcement asks people if they know how to read when they ask for elaboration and details for the Chengdu disqualifications.

[Ran]

I don't recall his objections to the Lodestar, but to be honest, it hasn't really succeeded at what they hoped it would do. People just vote for the familiar authors who are already enmeshed in the genre, and not really bringing to light the genre works in YA that don't come from genre "insiders".

Nice to get some more books recognized, regardless.

Edited January 26 by Ran

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

21 minutes ago, Ran said:

I don't recall his objections to the Lodestar, but to be honest, it hasn't really succeeded at what they hoped it would do. People just vote for the familiar authors who are already enmeshed in the genre, and not really bringing to light the genre works in YA that don't come from genre "insiders".

Nice to get some more books recognized, regardless.

He hated the idea of a YA Hugo…

[maarsen]

3 hours ago, Ran said:

I don't know anything about insults, I just saw his response to Gaiman and some others which basically laid out that they followed the constitution and the "rules we all follow", and the "no official" Chinese government direction/contact/interference. I feel like those answers are sufficient in themselves. His conduct outside of that, well, that's his conduct, I doubt it's going to blow back on Chinese administrators.

I've heard he's always been considered fairly abrasive, though.   Wouldn't know him from ... uh ... Adam (heh), but saw a photo of him and I'm pretty sure he's the guy who served me up a Chicago-style hot dog at the 2005 Worldcon Chicago bid party (at least, I recall it as a bid party).

 

Here in Canada, no official of the Chinese government put pressure on people with relatives in China but somehow people would come and show photos of those relatives in China to MPs/MLAs or would be MPs/MLAs here in Canada and suggest life will be easier for them in China if they were more friendly to the regime in the House or Legislature.

[Ran]

5 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Here in Canada, no official of the Chinese government put pressure on people with relatives in China but somehow people would come and show photos of those relatives in China to MPs/MLAs or would be MPs/MLAs here in Canada and suggest life will be easier for them in China if they were more friendly to the regime in the House or Legislature.

Yeah. I think his "no official contact" means "unofficial contact" aplenty has happened. City administrator invites some of the Hugo admin to lunch, they have a nice chat, wonder about how it's going, remark how they heard that there's this crazy TV show full of ghosts and spirits living in a dreamworld, they even visit Hell, can you imagine that? Good thing China doesn't support that sort of thing... And off they go.

Edited January 26 by Ran

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Ran said:

Yeah. I think his "no official contact" means "unofficial contact" aplenty has happened. 

He’s doing himself no favors playing word games.  Expect “What rule, Dave” ribbons and tee shirts in Glasgow.

Edited January 26 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Ran]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

He’s doing himself no favors playing word games.

Again, he doesn't want to throw his colleagues under the bus. I think the idea that the entire concom could say _nothing at all_ in perpetuity is crazy, so I support saying what he said, above (but would have left it at that). But that's why that's what he kept repeating -- it's the official line, and people should be able to parse what it means, which I think people can. 

It sucks, but what are you going to do? Far greater organizations have bashed their heads against China's pervasive government censorship, and failed.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

Again, he doesn't want to throw his colleagues under the bus. I think the idea that the entire concom could say _nothing at all_ in perpetuity is crazy, so I support saying what he said, above (but would have left it at that). But that's why that's what he kept repeating -- it's the official line, and people should be able to parse what it means, which I think people can. 

It sucks, but what are you going to do? Far greater organizations have bashed their heads against China's pervasive government censorship, and failed.

Does the organization need China's support or engagement? I'm quite serious - what value does it get from doing what China asks? 

[Ran]

22 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Does the organization need China's support or engagement? I'm quite serious - what value does it get from doing what China asks? 

The Worldcon committee was something like 70% Chinese nationals. It has value to them to not fall afoul of the Chinese government.

Remember, each and every Worldcon is its own entity, with its own local team. The WSFS is merely the membership of the people who pay for membership each of those years. There's no Worldcon corporation based outside of China, except for the little Worldcon Intellectual Property inc. that handles the trademark through the Mark Protection Committee, and they really have no power to do anything regarding these results or how the Worldcon was conducted.

The only group that can "do" anything are the Business Meetings in the forthcoming Worldcons, that could try to pass a measure to invalidate the result, censure the Chengdu Worldcon, ban China from future bids, etc. That'll take at least two years, which I think is fine, it's a lot to absorb, but some people are up in arms that there isn't some sort of immediate action that can be taken.

ETA: I did see a claim that Chengdu has put forward naming a hall of the Science Fiction museum where the worldcon was held after the Hugo Awards permanently, to commemorate the event. If true -- I've seen no verification of this -- that's a place where the Mark Protection Committee could put its foot down and say no, thank you...

Whether Chengdu's government would listen, I couldn't say. If they decided to go ahead anyways, what do people genuinely expect the MPC to do? People are claiming that if they don't pursue it, that's grounds for "abandonment", but it's nonsense -- a whole lot of major brand names are "abandoned" because China is a leading exporter of counterfeit goods using their brands, by that standard. People need a sense of proportion about this.

The big lesson is basically that we should probably only hold Worldcons in places that reach  at least the top 30% or 20% on some agreed-upon international index of human rights, or freedom of expression, or some such. The WSFS can swing this without any amendments by just not voting for bids that meet that bar, for the most part, but in this case China swamped the site selection, so even if no one else voted for it and indeed voted for its competitor (Winnipeg, IIRC) it probably would have won. But I suppose someone may want to start working on an amendment.

Edited January 26 by Ran

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, Ran said:

The only group that can "do" anything are the Business Meetings in the forthcoming Worldcons, that could try to pass a measure to invalidate the result, censure the Chengdu Worldcon, ban China from future bids, etc. That'll take at least two years, which I think is fine, it's a lot to absorb, but some people are up in arms that there isn't some sort of immediate action that can be taken.

 

In my earnest opinion… this needs to change. It is time for WSFS to incorporate and keep control of the Hugos directly.

[Ran]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

In my earnest opinion… this needs to change. It is time for WSFS to incorporate and keep control of the Hugos directly.

Cheryl Morgan has noted that the incorporation of just WIP was a huuuuuge issue and very controversial. She strongly doubts WSFS will incorporate going forward. Who knows, times may have changed in the two decades since that happened and maybe this Chengdu debacle will be a wake-up call.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Ran said:

Cheryl Morgan has noted that the incorporation of just WIP was a huuuuuge issue and very controversial. She strongly doubts WSFS will incorporate going forward. Who knows, times may have changed in the two decades since that happened and maybe this Chengdu debacle will be a wake-up call.

It WSFS doesn’t take direct control of the Hugos… this will continue to happen.