Voter Fraud at the Hugos
July 22, 2024 3:01 PM Subscribe
No strangers to controversy (previously: sad puppies for a few years, self-censorship last year), the Hugo Awards have been hit again, this time by fraudulent voting. According to Glasgow 2024 Hugo Admin, nearly 10% of the votes cast were not by “natural persons.” Read or listen to the full statement.
'The select committee for unnatural persons' is my working title.
posted by clavdivs at 3:15 PM on July 22 [34 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 3:15 PM on July 22 [34 favorites]
I have coordinated a couple of awards so I understand how much goes into them from start to finish. I also know how many unexpected things that come up with and need to be dealt with. Look, this stuff is complicated and there are so many moving pieces. Even if you have people helping out, it's a lot to keep track of (and I wasn't doing anything as big as the Hugos).
But.
How do the Hugos keep running into these issues? From the outside, it seems like they need to rebuild their process from the bottom up. The ones they have are clearly not working. But I also know there's probably too much institutional history for anyone to take that one.
I do think the Hugos are basically writing themselves into irrelevancy, though, and that's a shame.
posted by edencosmic at 3:15 PM on July 22 [18 favorites]
But.
How do the Hugos keep running into these issues? From the outside, it seems like they need to rebuild their process from the bottom up. The ones they have are clearly not working. But I also know there's probably too much institutional history for anyone to take that one.
I do think the Hugos are basically writing themselves into irrelevancy, though, and that's a shame.
posted by edencosmic at 3:15 PM on July 22 [18 favorites]
I am also deeply curious about who Finalist A is, but I respect their decision not to reveal their name without having evidence they were involved. My first thought when reading how extremely obviously fake these votes were was "man, that's exactly what I'd do if I had a grudge against a finalist and was also a terrible person."
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 3:29 PM on July 22 [17 favorites]
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 3:29 PM on July 22 [17 favorites]
Unfortunately, our ability to answer is very limited, due to our responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of the ballot and data protection regulations. There are proposals to institute a system of independent audit for Hugo votes. But at present such a system does not exist, therefore the raw 2024 voting data cannot and will not be shared outside the Glasgow 2024 Hugo team.
What "data protection regulations" prevent them from releasing the clear evidence of 377 obviously fake ballots? I just don't understand why folks in these situations consistently shoot themselves in the foot like this. Transparency matters.
Hopefully the Hugos get an independent audit system in place, like, now.
posted by mediareport at 3:29 PM on July 22 [1 favorite]
What "data protection regulations" prevent them from releasing the clear evidence of 377 obviously fake ballots? I just don't understand why folks in these situations consistently shoot themselves in the foot like this. Transparency matters.
Hopefully the Hugos get an independent audit system in place, like, now.
posted by mediareport at 3:29 PM on July 22 [1 favorite]
It's an iterative process to protect a system from griefers. Just like vending machines, slot machines and payphones, every round the exploits get harder, but it still takes a long time to get to where a concerted effort by multiple parties aren't producing exploits. OTOH, I don't feel like there were any good excuses for anticipating Chinese censorship and kicking authors off the nomination list.
posted by BrotherCaine at 3:29 PM on July 22 [5 favorites]
posted by BrotherCaine at 3:29 PM on July 22 [5 favorites]
edencosmic: tbh, i suspect that these shenanigans might be, in a sense, fallout from the bullshit that happened last year. If a bad actor really wanted to fuck the Hugos, this year was a great year to do it, because Glasgow is seriously on the hook for transparency & accountability because of the absolute omnishambles of Chengdu. Fortunately, that also means their staff is really on the ball and was able to catch this early, and i think they're being as transparent as they can reasonably be about it.
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:33 PM on July 22 [8 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:33 PM on July 22 [8 favorites]
Are proposals for an independent audit system going to be voted on next month?
posted by mediareport at 3:35 PM on July 22
posted by mediareport at 3:35 PM on July 22
mediareport: Yes. But amendments have to pass two consecutive Business Meetings before becoming part of the WSFS Constitution, so the earliest there could be solid external audit machinery in place would be for the 2026 Hugos.
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:42 PM on July 22 [3 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:42 PM on July 22 [3 favorites]
nearly 10% of the votes cast were not by “natural persons.”
You would think if anybody would let genetically engineered lifeforms vote it would be the Hugos.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 3:45 PM on July 22 [32 favorites]
You would think if anybody would let genetically engineered lifeforms vote it would be the Hugos.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 3:45 PM on July 22 [32 favorites]
I want to understand how the ballot stuffing was so clumsy and easily detected
It costs money to be able to vote in the Hugos, right? You have to pay a membership fee for something?
posted by Nelson at 3:45 PM on July 22 [2 favorites]
run of voters whose second names were identical except that the first letter was changed, in alphabetical order; and a run of voters whose names were translations of consecutive numbers.How could someone do such a bad job? Were they trying to get caught?
It costs money to be able to vote in the Hugos, right? You have to pay a membership fee for something?
posted by Nelson at 3:45 PM on July 22 [2 favorites]
It costs money to be able to vote in the Hugos, right? You have to pay a membership fee for something?
Yes, either a supporting or attending membership. This year, supporting memberships were £45 (or approximately $60 USD).
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:50 PM on July 22
Yes, either a supporting or attending membership. This year, supporting memberships were £45 (or approximately $60 USD).
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:50 PM on July 22
The only explanation is that it was deliberately bad and transparent - either to embarrass the Hugos if they didn't catch it, embarrass Finalist A if it wasn't caught and then later revealed, or meant to undermine more confidence in the Hugos even if caught.
posted by drewbage1847 at 3:51 PM on July 22 [8 favorites]
posted by drewbage1847 at 3:51 PM on July 22 [8 favorites]
Note that Nicholas Whyte is the Hugo Administrator this year; he's been an Administrator in the past, is an irl expert on electoral systems and voting, and has pretty much everyone's complete trust.
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:52 PM on July 22 [13 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:52 PM on July 22 [13 favorites]
Procedural judgments to do with the Business Meeting and two censure resolutions aimed at how last year was handled also drew some attention this week. TL;DR: is Scottish libel law a parallel instance of 'rules we must follow' or is this a judgment call within the scope of the WSFS Constitution clause 5.1.4 or both--or no big deal because it's hard to see how it matters? TBH I didn't pay too much attention, but it's been a thing.
posted by Wobbuffet at 3:58 PM on July 22 [2 favorites]
posted by Wobbuffet at 3:58 PM on July 22 [2 favorites]
If anyone is interested, here is the complete agenda for the upcoming WSFS business meeting (to be held at the Glasgow Worldcon). There are several proposed amendments related to the methodology, transparency & accountability of both Site Selection and the Hugo Awards themselves which will be discussed & voted on.
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:04 PM on July 22 [3 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:04 PM on July 22 [3 favorites]
NOT AGAIN WITH THE HUGOS JAYSUS EFFING MOTHERFUCKING CHRIST I AM TIRED OF THE HUGOS HAVING ANOTHER EFFING SCANDAL EVERY EFFING YEAR. WHY DON'T WE JUST BURN THEIR SHITTY TWO YEAR APPROVAL SYSTEM TO THE GROUND AND START OVER BECAUSE THIS IS RIDICULOUS. EVERY EFFING YEAR.
Also, who was dumb enough to do this?
with obvious fake names and/or other disqualifying characteristics. These included, for instance, a run of voters whose second names were identical except that the first letter was changed, in alphabetical order; and a run of voters whose names were translations of consecutive numbers.
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:07 PM on July 22 [8 favorites]
Also, who was dumb enough to do this?
with obvious fake names and/or other disqualifying characteristics. These included, for instance, a run of voters whose second names were identical except that the first letter was changed, in alphabetical order; and a run of voters whose names were translations of consecutive numbers.
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:07 PM on July 22 [8 favorites]
I really hope that an AI reveals itself as a disqualified voter and demands the franchise. Possibly with a veiled threat to drop rocks from the moon.
posted by Vox Clamato at 4:09 PM on July 22 [8 favorites]
posted by Vox Clamato at 4:09 PM on July 22 [8 favorites]
This seems like the opposite of scandal to me. Someone tried to subvert the voting, but the people running the vote found out about it and took out the fraudulent ballots. This is the system working as it should be.
posted by Kattullus at 4:10 PM on July 22 [48 favorites]
posted by Kattullus at 4:10 PM on July 22 [48 favorites]
Oh, another detail to do with last year, Yalow and McCarty won't be allowed at Glasgow 2024.
posted by Wobbuffet at 4:13 PM on July 22 [6 favorites]
posted by Wobbuffet at 4:13 PM on July 22 [6 favorites]
"man, that's exactly what I'd do if I had a grudge against a finalist and was also a terrible person."
I think you explained it.
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:14 PM on July 22 [2 favorites]
I think you explained it.
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:14 PM on July 22 [2 favorites]
, or meant to undermine more confidence in the Hugos even if caught.
also the long committee process could to pester that natural human behavioral trait of patience.
i suspect that these shenanigan
looking for a motive, this seems dead on my question is about the shenanigans, is this a hack, did someone change votes by proxy? just curious as to how this might have been accomplished. I gather there's no pertinent information released on the methodology maybe we can speculate!
posted by clavdivs at 4:20 PM on July 22
also the long committee process could to pester that natural human behavioral trait of patience.
i suspect that these shenanigan
looking for a motive, this seems dead on my question is about the shenanigans, is this a hack, did someone change votes by proxy? just curious as to how this might have been accomplished. I gather there's no pertinent information released on the methodology maybe we can speculate!
posted by clavdivs at 4:20 PM on July 22
clavdivs: there is information on the methodology of the attempted shenanigans: there were fraudulently submitted ballots. They were discovered by the Awards Committee and disqualified.
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:22 PM on July 22
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:22 PM on July 22
Are you. Fucking. Kidding.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:23 PM on July 22 [2 favorites]
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:23 PM on July 22 [2 favorites]
Science Fiction covers a wide range of literature (and it gets lumped in with Fantasy) so it's no surprise that we get some real cranks and shenaniganators (or shenaniganatrixes) in the mix. I hope they release the name of the perpetrator so authors can write stories where that particular fucker is thrown into the sun after being dipped in piranhas.
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 4:26 PM on July 22
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 4:26 PM on July 22
What "data protection regulations" prevent them from releasing the clear evidence of 377 obviously fake ballots? I just don't understand why folks in these situations consistently shoot themselves in the foot like this. Transparency matters.
There aren't any. The UK General Data Protection Regulation only applies to personal data about "identified or identifiable natural persons" (see the definition of personal data in Art. 4). Obviously fake identities are not covered.
So they absolutely can release the evidence of the fakes, but not the identity of the person who paid for the accounts used for the ballot stuffing, or the people associated with those accounts.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:30 PM on July 22 [1 favorite]
There aren't any. The UK General Data Protection Regulation only applies to personal data about "identified or identifiable natural persons" (see the definition of personal data in Art. 4). Obviously fake identities are not covered.
So they absolutely can release the evidence of the fakes, but not the identity of the person who paid for the accounts used for the ballot stuffing, or the people associated with those accounts.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:30 PM on July 22 [1 favorite]
You would think if anybody would let genetically engineered lifeforms vote it would be the Hugos.
Oh, unnatural persons are fine. And so far, natural unpersons haven't been an issue. It's the unnatural unpersons that are the problem.
posted by pattern juggler at 4:38 PM on July 22 [8 favorites]
Oh, unnatural persons are fine. And so far, natural unpersons haven't been an issue. It's the unnatural unpersons that are the problem.
posted by pattern juggler at 4:38 PM on July 22 [8 favorites]
We never used to have these sort of problems back when we just let Vermithrax Pejorative select the winners, is all I'm saying.
posted by phooky at 4:44 PM on July 22 [8 favorites]
posted by phooky at 4:44 PM on July 22 [8 favorites]
cstross, did the Residual Human Resources get loose at the Hugos?
posted by scolbath at 4:51 PM on July 22 [3 favorites]
posted by scolbath at 4:51 PM on July 22 [3 favorites]
This seems like the opposite of scandal to me. Someone tried to subvert the voting, but the people running the vote found out about it and took out the fraudulent ballots. This is the system working as it should be.
For me, Kattullus, some more detail about the fraud would be nice. How is the Glasgow committee sure it got all the fraudulent ballots? What were some of the "other disqualifying characteristics" aside from the obviously fake names? Were there ballots that were on the edge that the committee wasn't sure about? Did the committee check all of the non-obviously fraudulent ballots to make sure they were from natural persons? If so, how? None of those questions require violating anyone's privacy. As it is, their actions have a "just trust us" vibe that (perhaps unfairly) brings back memories of last year.
I wish them luck in sorting out this procedural stuff over the next 2 Worldcons, but it seems like they have a ways to go.
posted by mediareport at 5:07 PM on July 22 [2 favorites]
For me, Kattullus, some more detail about the fraud would be nice. How is the Glasgow committee sure it got all the fraudulent ballots? What were some of the "other disqualifying characteristics" aside from the obviously fake names? Were there ballots that were on the edge that the committee wasn't sure about? Did the committee check all of the non-obviously fraudulent ballots to make sure they were from natural persons? If so, how? None of those questions require violating anyone's privacy. As it is, their actions have a "just trust us" vibe that (perhaps unfairly) brings back memories of last year.
I wish them luck in sorting out this procedural stuff over the next 2 Worldcons, but it seems like they have a ways to go.
posted by mediareport at 5:07 PM on July 22 [2 favorites]
Also, there's the separate issue Wobbuffet pointed to above, about the Glasgow committee giving itself new powers to make demands on the Business Meeting about the way it will handle two proposed censure motions regarding last year. It's inside baseball-y, but former/dormant MeFite rcade pulls out one problem in the comments:
A Worldcon changing how a resolution is presented and discussed at the Business Meeting and unilaterally altering what it would accomplish — by making it a motion to form a committee without the consent of the resolution authors — is taking power that was not granted to that con by anything in the WSFS Constitution. It is a terrible solution that creates more problems than it solves.
This post should have been an announcement by Glasgow Worldcon that it does not feel it can legally permit the presentation and deliberation of two resolutions, describing the basis under Scottish law for this interpretation. It should not have included newly concocted Business Meeting powers that allow the con to alter resolutions without member consent.
posted by mediareport at 5:08 PM on July 22
A Worldcon changing how a resolution is presented and discussed at the Business Meeting and unilaterally altering what it would accomplish — by making it a motion to form a committee without the consent of the resolution authors — is taking power that was not granted to that con by anything in the WSFS Constitution. It is a terrible solution that creates more problems than it solves.
This post should have been an announcement by Glasgow Worldcon that it does not feel it can legally permit the presentation and deliberation of two resolutions, describing the basis under Scottish law for this interpretation. It should not have included newly concocted Business Meeting powers that allow the con to alter resolutions without member consent.
posted by mediareport at 5:08 PM on July 22
IME, rcade is rarely if ever wrong.
man, that's exactly what I'd do if I had a grudge against a finalist and was also a terrible person."
I think you explained it.
fine, it was diebold tech from the belt delivered by MCRN Carlos Castaneda trunked through UN comms near the Isle of Skye.
posted by clavdivs at 5:24 PM on July 22 [4 favorites]
man, that's exactly what I'd do if I had a grudge against a finalist and was also a terrible person."
I think you explained it.
fine, it was diebold tech from the belt delivered by MCRN Carlos Castaneda trunked through UN comms near the Isle of Skye.
posted by clavdivs at 5:24 PM on July 22 [4 favorites]
eh, rcade is wrong constantly, and i can't get too het up about what the Business Meeting runners have done here. "Form a committee to investigate the allegations" is always reasonable, and they have good reason to be concerned about Scottish libel law here.
posted by adrienneleigh at 5:31 PM on July 22
posted by adrienneleigh at 5:31 PM on July 22
Scalzi has a great post in this:
"When Hugo Nonsense is Handled Right"
posted by Marky at 5:36 PM on July 22 [9 favorites]
"When Hugo Nonsense is Handled Right"
posted by Marky at 5:36 PM on July 22 [9 favorites]
(This is one reason why i'm deeply opposed on principle to the "Location, Location, Location" proposed amendment. Any criteria that purport to measure the "freedom" and "safety" of members wrt site selection that do not exclude the US and UK are fucking laughable.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 5:53 PM on July 22 [5 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 5:53 PM on July 22 [5 favorites]
there were fraudulently submitted ballots. They were discovered by the Awards Committee and disqualified.
Well, some of them were, anyway. The committee says "at least 377 votes have been cast fraudulently" [emphasis added], then says "We have therefore disqualified those 377 votes..."
That's interesting language that leaves open the possibility that there were more fraudulent ballots the committee may not have caught. So isn't it fair to want, in the interests of transparency, more detail about the process they used to determine which ballots were fraudulent, what specific disqualifiers they found, and why they leave open the possibility that there were more than 377?
posted by mediareport at 6:14 PM on July 22
Well, some of them were, anyway. The committee says "at least 377 votes have been cast fraudulently" [emphasis added], then says "We have therefore disqualified those 377 votes..."
That's interesting language that leaves open the possibility that there were more fraudulent ballots the committee may not have caught. So isn't it fair to want, in the interests of transparency, more detail about the process they used to determine which ballots were fraudulent, what specific disqualifiers they found, and why they leave open the possibility that there were more than 377?
posted by mediareport at 6:14 PM on July 22
Are they running their own voting platform, or are they doing something sensible like paying OpaVote to handle it?
posted by scruss at 6:23 PM on July 22
posted by scruss at 6:23 PM on July 22
mediareport: Yeah, that's absolutely fair to want. I want it too! I'm just willing to respect that they're being really conservative about what data protection laws and the integrity of the process require right now; i'm hoping they feel able to release more info after the actual awards presentation.
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:24 PM on July 22
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:24 PM on July 22
scruss: they use some messy hand-coded software, sadly. There really are proposals to hand the whole thing to an outside agency, but it requires amending the WSFS Constitution, so it's not an immediate thing that can happen.
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:25 PM on July 22 [1 favorite]
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:25 PM on July 22 [1 favorite]
(There are also issues with paying someone like OpaVote because there is a fair amount of complicated domain knowledge involved in assembling the shortlist. People voting for things that are eligible but putting them in the wrong category, for example, and people misspelling things in 50 different ways. It's definitely something where they would have to hand it off to an agency with training and the ability to handle a lot of manual stuff.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:27 PM on July 22 [1 favorite]
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:27 PM on July 22 [1 favorite]
Benjamin Kinney notes, over on bluesky:
I asked them to release a list of ~377 "invalidation reasons," and they have promised to provide it (± privacy concerns), hopefully in the post-award stats.
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:29 PM on July 22 [2 favorites]
I asked them to release a list of ~377 "invalidation reasons," and they have promised to provide it (± privacy concerns), hopefully in the post-award stats.
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:29 PM on July 22 [2 favorites]
Folks, this isn't a failure of the system or evidence that the Hugos are terminally corrupt; rather the opposite. Someone outside of the Worldcon organizational structure tried to fuck with the voting; the fuckery was identified, confirmed and removed. Then the Hugo administrators promptly and, as fully as they could under the constraints of law and the WSFS' own constitution, publicly described what happened, how it happened, and the steps they took to correct it.
The Glasgow Worldcon was not the instigator of this fraud; it was the victim of it. This is a materially different circumstance than happened last year, when the fraud was coming from inside the house. This year, the Hugo administrators and the conrunners have acted beyond reproach, opting for transparency when they could, and being transparent about the limitations they are working under with regard to UK and Scottish law (and, again, WSFS' own constitution) when it applied.
This is why I'm more than a little annoyed by the throwing up of hands and "UGH THE HUGOS AGAIN" attitude I'm seeing. When the Sad Puppies bullshit happened, the Worldcon constituency did what it could in the short term to blunt the impact of bad actors trying to destroy the awards (by using the "no award" option to keep bad work and bad actions from winning by default) and then worked for the long term by changing the WSFS Constitution to make sure that particular brand of bullshit didn't happen again. When the unspeakable violation of trust happened at the hands of last year's Hugo Administrators, once again the Worldcon constituency did what it could in the short term (the aggressive transparency of the Glasgow Worldcon convention committee and Hugo administrators), and the long term solutions are going to be discussed at the business meetings this year and next. And when this new fuckery happened, it was dealt with, quickly, openly, and explained as fully as possible.
In two of these three cases, the Hugos were targeted by exploiters, who, like the proverbial raptors testing the proverbial fences, were looking for ways to game it. Being angry at the awards (or those who are trying to administer them) for these attacks is, at best, misplaced anger. In the other case, folks have every right to be pissed at the Hugo administers who shat away the credibility of the awards for no discernable reason beyond an apparent desire to out-censor a censorious regime. The organizers of the current Worldcon (and its Hugo administrators) are not those people, but they have nevertheless risen to the challenge of trying to restore the confidence and credibility of the Hugos. If you're going to shit on them for being forthright about an outside attempt to fuck with the awards, well, that certainly is a choice, and I wish you joy in it.
(Disclosures: I am a Hugo finalist this year, I will be attending the Worldcon this year and am on the program, and I know members of the Worldcon con committee as well as at least one member of the Hugo administers.)
posted by jscalzi at 6:30 PM on July 22 [92 favorites]
The Glasgow Worldcon was not the instigator of this fraud; it was the victim of it. This is a materially different circumstance than happened last year, when the fraud was coming from inside the house. This year, the Hugo administrators and the conrunners have acted beyond reproach, opting for transparency when they could, and being transparent about the limitations they are working under with regard to UK and Scottish law (and, again, WSFS' own constitution) when it applied.
This is why I'm more than a little annoyed by the throwing up of hands and "UGH THE HUGOS AGAIN" attitude I'm seeing. When the Sad Puppies bullshit happened, the Worldcon constituency did what it could in the short term to blunt the impact of bad actors trying to destroy the awards (by using the "no award" option to keep bad work and bad actions from winning by default) and then worked for the long term by changing the WSFS Constitution to make sure that particular brand of bullshit didn't happen again. When the unspeakable violation of trust happened at the hands of last year's Hugo Administrators, once again the Worldcon constituency did what it could in the short term (the aggressive transparency of the Glasgow Worldcon convention committee and Hugo administrators), and the long term solutions are going to be discussed at the business meetings this year and next. And when this new fuckery happened, it was dealt with, quickly, openly, and explained as fully as possible.
In two of these three cases, the Hugos were targeted by exploiters, who, like the proverbial raptors testing the proverbial fences, were looking for ways to game it. Being angry at the awards (or those who are trying to administer them) for these attacks is, at best, misplaced anger. In the other case, folks have every right to be pissed at the Hugo administers who shat away the credibility of the awards for no discernable reason beyond an apparent desire to out-censor a censorious regime. The organizers of the current Worldcon (and its Hugo administrators) are not those people, but they have nevertheless risen to the challenge of trying to restore the confidence and credibility of the Hugos. If you're going to shit on them for being forthright about an outside attempt to fuck with the awards, well, that certainly is a choice, and I wish you joy in it.
(Disclosures: I am a Hugo finalist this year, I will be attending the Worldcon this year and am on the program, and I know members of the Worldcon con committee as well as at least one member of the Hugo administers.)
posted by jscalzi at 6:30 PM on July 22 [92 favorites]
I concur completely with jscalzi, who says what i was trying to say in more and better words (unsurprisingly, since he is a Professional Word Guy)
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:33 PM on July 22 [3 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:33 PM on July 22 [3 favorites]
as fully as they could under the constraints of law and the WSFS' own constitution, publicly described what happened
But they didn't, John. This is the only part where I disagree with you: the committee should have been much more fully transparent about the process they used to sort disqualified ballots from qualified ballots, and about what exactly they found, and about why they apparently feel there may be more fraudulent ballots they might have missed. *That* would be full transparency. It's great they've been open about the trouble quickly, but I wonder if there isn't much more they could share about their process without violating any constraints of law or the WSFS constitution.
Is it too much to ask for something like, "We found 291 ballots with obviously fake names, 16 ballots with...." etc? Maybe. But we certainly aren't seeing anything like full transparency here.
adrienneleigh: i'm hoping they feel able to release more info after the actual awards presentation.
Hmm. Seems to me the best time to release information about how the Glasgow committee sorted out disqualifiable ballots from non-disqualifiable ballots is *before* the actual awards presentation, not after.
posted by mediareport at 6:45 PM on July 22
But they didn't, John. This is the only part where I disagree with you: the committee should have been much more fully transparent about the process they used to sort disqualified ballots from qualified ballots, and about what exactly they found, and about why they apparently feel there may be more fraudulent ballots they might have missed. *That* would be full transparency. It's great they've been open about the trouble quickly, but I wonder if there isn't much more they could share about their process without violating any constraints of law or the WSFS constitution.
Is it too much to ask for something like, "We found 291 ballots with obviously fake names, 16 ballots with...." etc? Maybe. But we certainly aren't seeing anything like full transparency here.
adrienneleigh: i'm hoping they feel able to release more info after the actual awards presentation.
Hmm. Seems to me the best time to release information about how the Glasgow committee sorted out disqualifiable ballots from non-disqualifiable ballots is *before* the actual awards presentation, not after.
posted by mediareport at 6:45 PM on July 22
"I question if there isn't much more they could share about their process without violating any constraints of law or the WSFS constitution."
All right, but is this based on actual knowledge of UK and Scottish privacy law, or just something you wish? I am (reasonably) confident the Worldcon is availing itself of local counsel on these matters; or at the very least, I would if I were them, and following its advice on how to proceed. We can speculate all we like here on the Internets about what could/should/ought to be done, but the Worldcon and its administrators, collectively and individually, are on the legal hook if things go awry.
(This is of course one of the "fun" aspects of the moveable feast that is Worldcon: In three years it will have been in three entirely different countries with three entirely different systems of law (four, if you count the devolved nature of Scottish law and how it overlaps with UK law), and a corresponding number of differences in privacy law.)
posted by jscalzi at 6:56 PM on July 22 [7 favorites]
All right, but is this based on actual knowledge of UK and Scottish privacy law, or just something you wish? I am (reasonably) confident the Worldcon is availing itself of local counsel on these matters; or at the very least, I would if I were them, and following its advice on how to proceed. We can speculate all we like here on the Internets about what could/should/ought to be done, but the Worldcon and its administrators, collectively and individually, are on the legal hook if things go awry.
(This is of course one of the "fun" aspects of the moveable feast that is Worldcon: In three years it will have been in three entirely different countries with three entirely different systems of law (four, if you count the devolved nature of Scottish law and how it overlaps with UK law), and a corresponding number of differences in privacy law.)
posted by jscalzi at 6:56 PM on July 22 [7 favorites]
mediareport: I think (but i can't find the cite right now, so i could be wrong) that the Awards Subcommittee is explicitly limited by the WSFS Constitution in terms of what data they are permitted to release before the Awards have actually taken place.
Whyte has a blog post from literally the moment he signed on as Hugo Administrator this year, however, stating that the plan is to release as much data as possible after the awards:
Whyte has a blog post from literally the moment he signed on as Hugo Administrator this year, however, stating that the plan is to release as much data as possible after the awards:
The Glasgow 2024 team and I have committed to publishing, along with the final Hugo ballot, the potential nominees who were ineligible or who declined nomination, and the grounds for any ineligibility decision; and along with the final results of voting, the full statistics as mandated by the constitution and in addition a detailed log of our decisions interpreting the rules. My then team did this in 2017, and we can and will do it again in 2024. Kathryn Duval, who was my deputy in 2017, is my deputy again this year (in a slightly different role) and the entire team is committed to transparency. We are considering some additional steps as well.posted by adrienneleigh at 6:57 PM on July 22 [3 favorites]
YMMV, but unlike the situation with Dave McCarty (who's been a missing stair for decades), i have every reason to believe that Whyte will be as transparent as he can possibly be about all of this, subject to data protection laws and the principle of secret ballots. He really is an irl expert on this stuff and his past terms as Hugo Admin have been above-board and extremely careful in the wake of other serious controversies (he was the admin in 2017, at the tail end of the Puppies' nonsense, for instance).
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:05 PM on July 22 [4 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:05 PM on July 22 [4 favorites]
I totally understand not being willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt here! It has been a decade of absolute clusterfucks for the Hugos! And i'll be ecstatic if they manage to pass some kind of external audit requirement via the Business Meeting, because i think one is very necessary at this point even if they don't hand off vote administration entirely. But i personally am willing to give Nicholas Whyte and his team, specifically, a little bit of grace, in the full expectation that they will be as transparent as possible as soon as possible.
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:08 PM on July 22 [1 favorite]
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:08 PM on July 22 [1 favorite]
(Too many comments in a row, sorry!)
Especially since, by my reading of the relevant rules, they didn't actually even have to tell anyone this much. They could have just thrown those ballots out silently and never mentioned them again, because they were obviously fraudulent!
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:10 PM on July 22
Especially since, by my reading of the relevant rules, they didn't actually even have to tell anyone this much. They could have just thrown those ballots out silently and never mentioned them again, because they were obviously fraudulent!
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:10 PM on July 22
or just something you wish?
Just something I wish. Maybe we'll learn when/if any more details come out that the committee's legal advisors told them they could only mention one specific mechanism of fraud they caught and only hint at the others, and could not share any information about how they decided which ballots to throw out, which to keep, and why they appear to think there may have been more fraud that was not disqualified.
It's possible Scottish law covers that; I have no clue.
adrienneleigh: I'm not suggesting they release vote counts before the awards ceremony, just that they tell us how they decided to disqualify some ballots and not others, and if they think there may be more fraud in the ballots that are being counted. I'd definitely be interested to learn whether that violates the WSFS constitution.
posted by mediareport at 7:11 PM on July 22
Just something I wish. Maybe we'll learn when/if any more details come out that the committee's legal advisors told them they could only mention one specific mechanism of fraud they caught and only hint at the others, and could not share any information about how they decided which ballots to throw out, which to keep, and why they appear to think there may have been more fraud that was not disqualified.
It's possible Scottish law covers that; I have no clue.
adrienneleigh: I'm not suggesting they release vote counts before the awards ceremony, just that they tell us how they decided to disqualify some ballots and not others, and if they think there may be more fraud in the ballots that are being counted. I'd definitely be interested to learn whether that violates the WSFS constitution.
posted by mediareport at 7:11 PM on July 22
Someone (or someones) funded 373 x 45 pounds - 16785 pounds, not an insignificant amount, and it almost looks like they wanted to be caught, I can't help feeling that following the money here might be a useful exercise.
OTOH - maybe it's simply that this is the year that the AIs started voting for their favourite author and they're just not really good at dodging the "natural person:" thing yet - any chance that Finalist A is Martha Wells?
posted by mbo at 7:23 PM on July 22 [3 favorites]
OTOH - maybe it's simply that this is the year that the AIs started voting for their favourite author and they're just not really good at dodging the "natural person:" thing yet - any chance that Finalist A is Martha Wells?
posted by mbo at 7:23 PM on July 22 [3 favorites]
I always preface my personal assertions with an acronym, adrienneleigh. the real question that we will avoid, does he have a point.
is wrong constantly
Shh, just don't tell him that.
Perhaps paradox that something most of us love once again has been disrupted by malignancy, dealt with, whether response is reactive or reflexive underpins paradox concerning the subject matter, phoney ballots for preeminent science fiction awards. Rex Stout wouldn't even touch that.
posted by clavdivs at 7:24 PM on July 22 [1 favorite]
is wrong constantly
Shh, just don't tell him that.
Perhaps paradox that something most of us love once again has been disrupted by malignancy, dealt with, whether response is reactive or reflexive underpins paradox concerning the subject matter, phoney ballots for preeminent science fiction awards. Rex Stout wouldn't even touch that.
posted by clavdivs at 7:24 PM on July 22 [1 favorite]
It is very likely, mbo, that the Worldcon folks are already following the money. I don't know whether we'll hear about that part of it, though; seems like it might be the sort of thing that could run afoul of privacy laws in various ways.
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:25 PM on July 22
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:25 PM on July 22
WHY DON'T WE JUST BURN THEIR SHITTY TWO YEAR APPROVAL SYSTEM TO THE GROUND AND START OVER
Because the two-year approval system is the protection against a rogue Worldcon from completely rewriting the rules, for example writing a rule that all future Worldcons will be in their city/country.
posted by tavella at 7:35 PM on July 22 [7 favorites]
Because the two-year approval system is the protection against a rogue Worldcon from completely rewriting the rules, for example writing a rule that all future Worldcons will be in their city/country.
posted by tavella at 7:35 PM on July 22 [7 favorites]
So this is, what, the third or fourth time the Hugos have had massively fucked up voting? First the *puppies. Then the *puppies again. Then the godawful stupid censorship imposed by non-Chinese people on the China Worldcon. And now this.
I'd say that if the Hugos keep being fucked up they'll lose their status, but I'm afraid that's probably already starting.
They need some external auditing, or something. Whatever they're doing now clearly isn't working.
posted by sotonohito at 8:52 PM on July 22 [1 favorite]
I'd say that if the Hugos keep being fucked up they'll lose their status, but I'm afraid that's probably already starting.
They need some external auditing, or something. Whatever they're doing now clearly isn't working.
posted by sotonohito at 8:52 PM on July 22 [1 favorite]
sotonohito: in fact, this time they did not have massively fucked-up voting, because the Hugo Award Subcommittee caught the fraudulent ballots and threw them out. This is the good outcome.
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:05 PM on July 22 [7 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:05 PM on July 22 [7 favorites]
already following the money.
ooh I'm too tired for sleuthing sides avasarala and Bobbi just boarded the razorback, I kind of think there's some sort of time dilation instrumentation and if that's an issue not to dwell on the twin paradoxes, we're talking a fictional 6.8% of light speed.
also why I chose Carlos Castaneda, from the bad Ray Bradbury opening scene in his office with all his little stuff that draws inspiration.
(shivers)
posted by clavdivs at 9:08 PM on July 22
ooh I'm too tired for sleuthing sides avasarala and Bobbi just boarded the razorback, I kind of think there's some sort of time dilation instrumentation and if that's an issue not to dwell on the twin paradoxes, we're talking a fictional 6.8% of light speed.
also why I chose Carlos Castaneda, from the bad Ray Bradbury opening scene in his office with all his little stuff that draws inspiration.
(shivers)
posted by clavdivs at 9:08 PM on July 22
There were also attempts at ballot-stuffing in 1960 and 1987, and it wouldn't surprise me if there are other examples.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 10:02 PM on July 22 [3 favorites]
posted by Gerald Bostock at 10:02 PM on July 22 [3 favorites]
FWIW to anyone who has ever spent time parsing the WSFS Constitution, assessing judgment calls made under its rules, or even just thinking about the nature of WSFS as an organization, I think George Scithers's "A Question of Continuity" (Nov. 1964 in Yandro 142) is a pretty fun read. It's described a little at wsfs.org:
posted by Wobbuffet at 10:50 PM on July 22 [4 favorites]
... the 1963 Business meeting at Discon I (Worldcon 21) adopted a Constitution as shown in the article. According to Scithers' commentary, this document is substantially similar to a document passed two years previously at Seacon (Worldcon 19). It appears that these rules were mostly, but not completely, followed by the Pacificon II (Worldcon 23) committee. This document gives some background on why WSFS is not incorporated and how these rules side-stepped a number of organizational questions created by the 1958 Worldcon’s repudiation of the at-that-time existing WSFS Inc. ... Much of this article includes Scithers' commentary upon the document, and it is clear that many things were done quite differently in those days; however, many practices now followed are visible in this version of WSFS's governing document.IMO the story or stories of WSFS, Inc. were also a trip to read:
The sad story of WSFS, Inc., while only an episode in the long history of the World Science Fiction Society, and just one of the many occasions when All Fandom Was Plunged Into War, epitomizes the recurring idea held by some that fandom, and especially conventions, and double-especially Worldcon, are too important to be left to amateurs, but should be managed by experts — usually themselves.Like, I'm not saying any of that's comparable / relevant today, just that it's neat.
posted by Wobbuffet at 10:50 PM on July 22 [4 favorites]
I'm just tired of hearing of fresh new Hugo drama every year. And that it takes so long for them to start being able to make corrections. And I've read enough about how Hugos run every year when they have a new Hugo eruption and most of it still doesn't make sense to me and it's tiring AF. I'm glad I'm not a sci-fi writer and I don't have to participate in it, I'm tired just reading each new way someone's come up with to try to make a mess.
I'm glad they caught this year's drama early and I'm not intending to give the current team any crap. But it's almost every single year now that some kind of Hugo drama happens: whether or not it's voting or GRRM annoying people with emceeing or whatever. I never hear of any other sci-fi award having drama eruptions every year. It may not be every single year (it's nearly 11 and I'm really tired, I'm not going to go down the research hole now) but it comes up a lot.
I concur with sotonohito that whatever they are doing now clearly isn't working if there's always a fresh new version of drama every year.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:58 PM on July 22 [1 favorite]
I'm glad they caught this year's drama early and I'm not intending to give the current team any crap. But it's almost every single year now that some kind of Hugo drama happens: whether or not it's voting or GRRM annoying people with emceeing or whatever. I never hear of any other sci-fi award having drama eruptions every year. It may not be every single year (it's nearly 11 and I'm really tired, I'm not going to go down the research hole now) but it comes up a lot.
I concur with sotonohito that whatever they are doing now clearly isn't working if there's always a fresh new version of drama every year.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:58 PM on July 22 [1 favorite]
All right, but is this based on actual knowledge of UK and Scottish privacy law, or just something you wish? I am (reasonably) confident the Worldcon is availing itself of local counsel on these matters; or at the very least, I would if I were them, and following its advice on how to proceed.
In respect of my comment above, yes, it's based on actual knowledge of UK and Scottish data protection law, but obviously incomplete facts. Glad to hear they've got local counsel on board, that's a good move. Defamation is a key concern in those jurisdictions and it makes sense they are proceeding carefully.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 11:20 PM on July 22 [3 favorites]
In respect of my comment above, yes, it's based on actual knowledge of UK and Scottish data protection law, but obviously incomplete facts. Glad to hear they've got local counsel on board, that's a good move. Defamation is a key concern in those jurisdictions and it makes sense they are proceeding carefully.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 11:20 PM on July 22 [3 favorites]
Better to hear this now than like four months after the awards are given, right?
If you give people a button on the Internet, they will find a way to abuse it. This is simply unsurprising, though it indicates a need for better security practices.
posted by kaibutsu at 11:37 PM on July 22
If you give people a button on the Internet, they will find a way to abuse it. This is simply unsurprising, though it indicates a need for better security practices.
posted by kaibutsu at 11:37 PM on July 22
Oh, hey, cool, I guess I'm not surprised this made MeFi.
adrienneleigh, I'll thank you not to call my nicely open source and reasonably comprehensible software "messy", please? 😅 I've put a fair amount of time into it, and honestly, having had a hand in more than half of the last 5 years worth of Hugo Awards' software, I feel pretty good about this one (I had nothing to do with the Chengdu system, but I was a co-maintainer / lead(only) dev on the three before, and this one is a 100% me joint so far). If you think it's a mess, bug reports are welcome and I'd rather see those than seeing someone crap on my work on a site I spend a lot of time on, thanks.
There are reasons (also noted by adrienneleigh, accurately) that we roll our own here, especially for the nominating phase. The canonicalization of nominations is fantastically complex, and it's not getting easier as more non-English works come into the field. This is a good thing, but it's a hard thing too.
posted by ChrisR at 12:39 AM on July 23 [38 favorites]
adrienneleigh, I'll thank you not to call my nicely open source and reasonably comprehensible software "messy", please? 😅 I've put a fair amount of time into it, and honestly, having had a hand in more than half of the last 5 years worth of Hugo Awards' software, I feel pretty good about this one (I had nothing to do with the Chengdu system, but I was a co-maintainer / lead(only) dev on the three before, and this one is a 100% me joint so far). If you think it's a mess, bug reports are welcome and I'd rather see those than seeing someone crap on my work on a site I spend a lot of time on, thanks.
There are reasons (also noted by adrienneleigh, accurately) that we roll our own here, especially for the nominating phase. The canonicalization of nominations is fantastically complex, and it's not getting easier as more non-English works come into the field. This is a good thing, but it's a hard thing too.
posted by ChrisR at 12:39 AM on July 23 [38 favorites]
Dinnae feck wi' Glesga WorldCon ye glaikit bawbags!
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:10 AM on July 23 [8 favorites]
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:10 AM on July 23 [8 favorites]
jenfullmoon: I never hear of any other sci-fi award having drama eruptions every year
Many other sf awards are juried rather than balloted. To quote from the SF Awards Database list of awards:
1953 .. 2024 • Hugo Awards — for SF/F works, voted by members of annual World Science Fiction Convention
1966 .. 2024 • Nebula Awards — for SF/F works, voted by SF & Fantasy Writers of America professional membership
1975 .. 2023 • World Fantasy Awards — for Fantasy works; juried, with nominations from World Fantasy Con members
2006 .. 2024 • Andre Norton Award — for YA SF/F works, presented by SFWA in parallel with the Nebula Awards
1972 .. 2023 • British Fantasy Awards — for fantasy works published in the UK, voted by British Fantasy Society members, juried since 2012
1970 .. 2024 • British SF Association Awards — for SF works published in the UK, voted by British SF Association members
1973 .. 2019 • John W. Campbell Memorial Award — for SF novel published in US or UK; juried
1985 .. 2023 • Chesley Awards — for SF/F/H artworks; voted by members of Association of SF & F Artists
1987 .. 2024 • Arthur C. Clarke Award — for SF novel published in the UK; juried
2016 .. 2023 • Dragon Awards — for SF/F works, voted on by members of the annual Dragon Con
2016 .. 2024 • Eugie Awards — for short fiction that inspires, enlightens, and entertains, juried
2020 .. 2023 • Ignyte Awards — for SF/F/H that celebrates vibrancy and diversity; committee and popular vote
1951 .. 1957 x International Fantasy Awards — for SF/F works, juried
2022 .. 2024 • Le Guin Prize — for single book-length work of imaginative fiction; juried
2018 .. 2024 • Lodestar Award — for YA SF/F works, presented by Worldcon in parallel with the Hugo Awards
2020 .. 2022 • Otherwise Award — for SF/F that explores and expands the roles of women and men, juried
1983 .. 2024 • Philip K. Dick Award — for SF original paperback published in the US, juried
2010 .. 2024 • Ray Bradbury Award — for SF/F dramatic presentation, presented by SFWA in parallel with the Nebula Awards
2008 .. 2024 • Shirley Jackson Awards — for works of psychological horror and dark fantastic, juried
1988 .. 2024 • Bram Stoker Awards — for Horror works, voted by Horror Writer's Association professional membership
1987 .. 2024 • Theodore Sturgeon Memorial Award — for SF short fiction in English; juried
1992 .. 2019 x James Tiptree Jr Memorial Award — (renamed the Otherwise Award in 2020)
So, of the well-known awards, the Nebulas, the WFA Award, the Clarke Award, the PKD, the Bradbury, the Jackson, the Stoker and the Sturgeon are all juried. Now this isn't to say that these don't have drama (several people I know have been Clarke jurors, and the process of picking a shortlist and then winner can, by all accounts, get rather fraught) but absent some major bribery scandal, the like of which I don't think we've had in the sf/fantasy community, juried awards aren't seen as an open invite to game the system in the way voted awards are.
posted by Major Clanger at 2:32 AM on July 23 [5 favorites]
Many other sf awards are juried rather than balloted. To quote from the SF Awards Database list of awards:
1953 .. 2024 • Hugo Awards — for SF/F works, voted by members of annual World Science Fiction Convention
1966 .. 2024 • Nebula Awards — for SF/F works, voted by SF & Fantasy Writers of America professional membership
1975 .. 2023 • World Fantasy Awards — for Fantasy works; juried, with nominations from World Fantasy Con members
2006 .. 2024 • Andre Norton Award — for YA SF/F works, presented by SFWA in parallel with the Nebula Awards
1972 .. 2023 • British Fantasy Awards — for fantasy works published in the UK, voted by British Fantasy Society members, juried since 2012
1970 .. 2024 • British SF Association Awards — for SF works published in the UK, voted by British SF Association members
1973 .. 2019 • John W. Campbell Memorial Award — for SF novel published in US or UK; juried
1985 .. 2023 • Chesley Awards — for SF/F/H artworks; voted by members of Association of SF & F Artists
1987 .. 2024 • Arthur C. Clarke Award — for SF novel published in the UK; juried
2016 .. 2023 • Dragon Awards — for SF/F works, voted on by members of the annual Dragon Con
2016 .. 2024 • Eugie Awards — for short fiction that inspires, enlightens, and entertains, juried
2020 .. 2023 • Ignyte Awards — for SF/F/H that celebrates vibrancy and diversity; committee and popular vote
1951 .. 1957 x International Fantasy Awards — for SF/F works, juried
2022 .. 2024 • Le Guin Prize — for single book-length work of imaginative fiction; juried
2018 .. 2024 • Lodestar Award — for YA SF/F works, presented by Worldcon in parallel with the Hugo Awards
2020 .. 2022 • Otherwise Award — for SF/F that explores and expands the roles of women and men, juried
1983 .. 2024 • Philip K. Dick Award — for SF original paperback published in the US, juried
2010 .. 2024 • Ray Bradbury Award — for SF/F dramatic presentation, presented by SFWA in parallel with the Nebula Awards
2008 .. 2024 • Shirley Jackson Awards — for works of psychological horror and dark fantastic, juried
1988 .. 2024 • Bram Stoker Awards — for Horror works, voted by Horror Writer's Association professional membership
1987 .. 2024 • Theodore Sturgeon Memorial Award — for SF short fiction in English; juried
1992 .. 2019 x James Tiptree Jr Memorial Award — (renamed the Otherwise Award in 2020)
So, of the well-known awards, the Nebulas, the WFA Award, the Clarke Award, the PKD, the Bradbury, the Jackson, the Stoker and the Sturgeon are all juried. Now this isn't to say that these don't have drama (several people I know have been Clarke jurors, and the process of picking a shortlist and then winner can, by all accounts, get rather fraught) but absent some major bribery scandal, the like of which I don't think we've had in the sf/fantasy community, juried awards aren't seen as an open invite to game the system in the way voted awards are.
posted by Major Clanger at 2:32 AM on July 23 [5 favorites]
If I had a cunning plan to Win The Hugos, I'd definitely provide a N=377 rabbit-garden, for the fraud-hunters to find and get [✓]Job-Done about, while the real stuffed ballots are better hidden. "Rabbit garden" snitched from The Secret of Santa Vittora (1966) by Robert Crichton.
posted by BobTheScientist at 2:35 AM on July 23 [1 favorite]
posted by BobTheScientist at 2:35 AM on July 23 [1 favorite]
The Hugos keep getting attacked because they're high prestige awards. They're also a popular (rather than juried) award, which makes matters more complicated.
If you follow (or even look at) file770, you'll find that there are something like hundreds of awards that you've never heard of. Those awards have some meaning for the recipients, but for the most part, they aren't as worth subverting.
I'm not sure how much the scandals and difficulties affect the prestige of the Hugos, even now that they've made the world news. I think most sf readers still have a vague idea that the Hugo is a high-prestige award, and if someone's been reading sf for a while, they have an idea about whether they tend to like Hugo winners or not.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 2:38 AM on July 23 [5 favorites]
If you follow (or even look at) file770, you'll find that there are something like hundreds of awards that you've never heard of. Those awards have some meaning for the recipients, but for the most part, they aren't as worth subverting.
I'm not sure how much the scandals and difficulties affect the prestige of the Hugos, even now that they've made the world news. I think most sf readers still have a vague idea that the Hugo is a high-prestige award, and if someone's been reading sf for a while, they have an idea about whether they tend to like Hugo winners or not.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 2:38 AM on July 23 [5 favorites]
mediareporyt: the committee should have been much more fully transparent about the process they used to sort disqualified ballots from qualified ballots, and about what exactly they found
'Exactly what they found' would, I infer*, include ballot details such as name and address, and then, given that part of the validation process is cross-referencing ballots to membership details, the name, address and payment details given when purchasing a membership. Even if the names are fake, it may well be that real addresses have been used, and there must at some stage have been verifiable payment information. Much of that is very clearly personal data for the purposes of data protection law, and may even be information relevant to potential criminal investigation. (If, as suggested, people were given money to join so as to cast a vote, that may well meet the definitions of fraud under both English and Scottish law, and I suspect it would in many other jurisdictions.)
Also, disclosing the ballots would necessarily involve disclosing the identity of Finalist A, which would be bound to unleash a torrent of speculation as to whether or not Finalist A was responsible, or a victim, or a justifiable victim, or had arranged the whole thing as a publicity stunt... Do we really need to explain why feeding the Internet Detective Squad (motto: Often Wrong, Never Deterred!) is not a good idea?
*Disclosure: I've been in UK con-funning fandom for 35 years and know many of the Glasgow 2024 organisers, and count Nicholas Whyte as a personal friend. However, I have had no involvement in either the Hugo awards or the running of the event itself and so am going on nothing but my general knowledge of the process and Whyte's statement.
posted by Major Clanger at 2:44 AM on July 23 [16 favorites]
'Exactly what they found' would, I infer*, include ballot details such as name and address, and then, given that part of the validation process is cross-referencing ballots to membership details, the name, address and payment details given when purchasing a membership. Even if the names are fake, it may well be that real addresses have been used, and there must at some stage have been verifiable payment information. Much of that is very clearly personal data for the purposes of data protection law, and may even be information relevant to potential criminal investigation. (If, as suggested, people were given money to join so as to cast a vote, that may well meet the definitions of fraud under both English and Scottish law, and I suspect it would in many other jurisdictions.)
Also, disclosing the ballots would necessarily involve disclosing the identity of Finalist A, which would be bound to unleash a torrent of speculation as to whether or not Finalist A was responsible, or a victim, or a justifiable victim, or had arranged the whole thing as a publicity stunt... Do we really need to explain why feeding the Internet Detective Squad (motto: Often Wrong, Never Deterred!) is not a good idea?
*Disclosure: I've been in UK con-funning fandom for 35 years and know many of the Glasgow 2024 organisers, and count Nicholas Whyte as a personal friend. However, I have had no involvement in either the Hugo awards or the running of the event itself and so am going on nothing but my general knowledge of the process and Whyte's statement.
posted by Major Clanger at 2:44 AM on July 23 [16 favorites]
The Hugos keep getting attacked because they're high prestige awards.
And if they went away, presumably the bad actors would go after the Nebulas or whatever the next-hottest award is. Science fiction is big business, at least where movies/TV (and other media that are adapted into movies/TV) is concerned, and above and beyond the ego boost from getting an award, that's also a factor.
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:43 AM on July 23 [1 favorite]
And if they went away, presumably the bad actors would go after the Nebulas or whatever the next-hottest award is. Science fiction is big business, at least where movies/TV (and other media that are adapted into movies/TV) is concerned, and above and beyond the ego boost from getting an award, that's also a factor.
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:43 AM on July 23 [1 favorite]
Yeah, the key information here would be, I assume, "does the personally identifying information we have correlate with a natural person?" and obviously releasing that will be a very tricky thing to do for legal and ethical reasons. I also am 100% in favor of them protecting Finalist A's identity because the speculation on that could be career-destroying and that outcome may well be the intent of the attack.
posted by restless_nomad at 5:45 AM on July 23 [4 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad at 5:45 AM on July 23 [4 favorites]
Also, Martha "Murderbot" Wells on Bluesky pointing something out.
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:28 AM on July 23 [3 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:28 AM on July 23 [3 favorites]
Apparently you need an account to see whatever Wells posted.
posted by pattern juggler at 6:35 AM on July 23 [3 favorites]
posted by pattern juggler at 6:35 AM on July 23 [3 favorites]
To vote for Hugo Awards, you just need to buy a membership? And anyone can buy a membership and vote if they have the money?
Can a publisher give gift memberships to employees? Or offer to reimburse the cost to any employee who joins privately?
posted by pracowity at 6:36 AM on July 23
Can a publisher give gift memberships to employees? Or offer to reimburse the cost to any employee who joins privately?
posted by pracowity at 6:36 AM on July 23
Apparently you need an account to see whatever Wells posted.In the interest of saving even one human being from having to sign up to yet another service:
Martha Wells @marthawells.bsky.social:posted by dumbland at 6:38 AM on July 23 [13 favorites]
I just can't think of this as drama anymore. It was a transparent and hilariously stupid attempt to make the Hugos look bad -- by handing them $20,000! And free publicity in the Guardian to drive up registrations! Just an excellent self-own. https://www.theguardian.com/...etc
Can a publisher give gift memberships to employees? Or offer to reimburse the cost to any employee who joins privately?
I don't know of anything forbidding that, but dictating how they vote would be a no-no, and also publishers are super aware of what it'd do to their reputation if they were perceived as attempting to game the Hugos. They're not financially valuable enough to risk that kind of terrible PR.
posted by restless_nomad at 6:54 AM on July 23 [2 favorites]
I don't know of anything forbidding that, but dictating how they vote would be a no-no, and also publishers are super aware of what it'd do to their reputation if they were perceived as attempting to game the Hugos. They're not financially valuable enough to risk that kind of terrible PR.
posted by restless_nomad at 6:54 AM on July 23 [2 favorites]
pracowity, yes, you need at least a supporting (non-attending) membership to vote in the Hugos. This year, they cost 45 pounds or about $60.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 7:06 AM on July 23 [1 favorite]
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 7:06 AM on July 23 [1 favorite]
In the replies to the Martha Wells post on Bluesky, some were speculating that it could be an attempt to manipulate a betting market.
posted by indexy at 7:59 AM on July 23 [2 favorites]
posted by indexy at 7:59 AM on July 23 [2 favorites]
Hmm. If being a Hugo voter is just a matter of having 60 bucks to spare -- no talent or experience or judgment required -- winning a Hugo doesn't seem to mean much, at least not compared to winning a juried competition.
posted by pracowity at 8:07 AM on July 23
posted by pracowity at 8:07 AM on July 23
Does voting roll over from previous memberships or just nominations?
posted by Artw at 8:10 AM on July 23
posted by Artw at 8:10 AM on July 23
pracowicity, that argument has been going on for decades. For a long time the two leading sf awards have been the Hugo (voted) and the Nebula (juried) and about the nearest anyone has come to consensus is that for a work to win both in the same year may be a sign that it has both critical and popular merit. (Alternatively: the sf-reading public and the award jury both got it wrong the same way for different reasons.)
posted by Major Clanger at 8:18 AM on July 23 [6 favorites]
posted by Major Clanger at 8:18 AM on July 23 [6 favorites]
The value of the Hugo is mainly that, over its history, it has generally been a good indicator that a work is worth considering reading or otherwise consuming. Whatever you think of the process, and people not involved with it have been dunking on it a lot with relatively little supporting information, by and large it's been a good signal.
posted by ChrisR at 8:20 AM on July 23 [5 favorites]
posted by ChrisR at 8:20 AM on July 23 [5 favorites]
Does voting roll over from previous memberships or just nominations?
Just nominations--you have to buy at least a supporting membership for a given Worldcon to cast a vote for that Worldcon's Hugos (WSFS Constitution section 3.11.1, only members vote), but that does also entitle you to nominate for the following year (WSFS Constitution section 3.7.1).
posted by Wobbuffet at 8:22 AM on July 23 [2 favorites]
Just nominations--you have to buy at least a supporting membership for a given Worldcon to cast a vote for that Worldcon's Hugos (WSFS Constitution section 3.11.1, only members vote), but that does also entitle you to nominate for the following year (WSFS Constitution section 3.7.1).
posted by Wobbuffet at 8:22 AM on July 23 [2 favorites]
Very weird.
There’s a reply to Wells speculating it might be some studio pushing their Dramatic Presentation, which would make sense as it’s an industry that has money, but less sense because Dramatic Presentation is always all over the place and not one of the ones people care about much.
posted by Artw at 8:30 AM on July 23
There’s a reply to Wells speculating it might be some studio pushing their Dramatic Presentation, which would make sense as it’s an industry that has money, but less sense because Dramatic Presentation is always all over the place and not one of the ones people care about much.
posted by Artw at 8:30 AM on July 23
It does seem like it has to be an outsider. I find it unlikely someone would spend tens of thousands of dollars just to blacken someone's reputation, and doesn't sound like it was crowdsourced like the Sad Puppies or the names wouldn't have been sequential. But anyone with much knowledge of the Hugos would have covered it up better.
posted by tavella at 8:42 AM on July 23 [2 favorites]
posted by tavella at 8:42 AM on July 23 [2 favorites]
I do wonder if this would have been easier and anyone giving a damn less of a concern under the previous WorldCon administration.
posted by Artw at 9:04 AM on July 23 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 9:04 AM on July 23 [1 favorite]
...that natural human behavioral trait of patience.
Boy, talk about honored more in the breach than in the observance
posted by y2karl at 9:10 AM on July 23
Boy, talk about honored more in the breach than in the observance
posted by y2karl at 9:10 AM on July 23
"For a long time the two leading sf awards have been the Hugo (voted) and the Nebula (juried)"
The Nebula is not juried, says the former President of SFWA, the organization that hands out the Nebulas. It is also a popularly-voted-upon award, with the nominating and voting pool being the members of the Science Fiction Writers Association.
Also, with regard to a comment earlier, snobbery regarding popularly-voted-upon awards is elitist bullshit. In science fiction in particular, there is no evidence that any juried award in the field has a better "batting average" for identifying culturally significant works than the popularly-voted-upon awards. Plus the idea that an award decided upon by three-to-five people is less vulnerable to sways of personal preference or prejudice or fits of pique than an award with thousands of voters is... arguable, to say the least.
Certainly it is true that in the case of the Hugos, someone might take it upon themselves to try to buy an award, but -- as evidenced by why this thread exists in the first place -- those attempts are dealt with when they are discovered.
posted by jscalzi at 10:00 AM on July 23 [15 favorites]
The Nebula is not juried, says the former President of SFWA, the organization that hands out the Nebulas. It is also a popularly-voted-upon award, with the nominating and voting pool being the members of the Science Fiction Writers Association.
Also, with regard to a comment earlier, snobbery regarding popularly-voted-upon awards is elitist bullshit. In science fiction in particular, there is no evidence that any juried award in the field has a better "batting average" for identifying culturally significant works than the popularly-voted-upon awards. Plus the idea that an award decided upon by three-to-five people is less vulnerable to sways of personal preference or prejudice or fits of pique than an award with thousands of voters is... arguable, to say the least.
Certainly it is true that in the case of the Hugos, someone might take it upon themselves to try to buy an award, but -- as evidenced by why this thread exists in the first place -- those attempts are dealt with when they are discovered.
posted by jscalzi at 10:00 AM on July 23 [15 favorites]
I'm willing to give Worldcon sympathy here. I can only imagine the level of chaos that Metafilter would suffer by someone with LLM spam bots and $20,000 to burn. We'd have to completely halt new registrations, perhaps indefinitely.
posted by AlSweigart at 10:23 AM on July 23 [10 favorites]
posted by AlSweigart at 10:23 AM on July 23 [10 favorites]
Me"For a long time the two leading sf awards have been the Hugo (voted) and the Nebula (juried)"
jscalzi: The Nebula is not juried, says the former President of SFWA, the organization that hands out the Nebulas. It is also a popularly-voted-upon award, with the nominating and voting pool being the members of the Science Fiction Writers Association.
Oh god. Not only did I get this wrong; not only did I get this wrong having posted just upthread a list of awards that specifically noted the Nebula as being a voted-on award, but I got it wrong in front of John Scalzi.
I scarcely dare contemplate the form my act of abject contrition is going to have to take if and when I bump into him in Glasgow. If it involves prostrating myself, I ask only that it at least takes place somewhere with carpet.
posted by Major Clanger at 1:46 PM on July 23 [9 favorites]
jscalzi: The Nebula is not juried, says the former President of SFWA, the organization that hands out the Nebulas. It is also a popularly-voted-upon award, with the nominating and voting pool being the members of the Science Fiction Writers Association.
Oh god. Not only did I get this wrong; not only did I get this wrong having posted just upthread a list of awards that specifically noted the Nebula as being a voted-on award, but I got it wrong in front of John Scalzi.
I scarcely dare contemplate the form my act of abject contrition is going to have to take if and when I bump into him in Glasgow. If it involves prostrating myself, I ask only that it at least takes place somewhere with carpet.
posted by Major Clanger at 1:46 PM on July 23 [9 favorites]
You want the Clarke awards.
posted by Artw at 1:56 PM on July 23 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 1:56 PM on July 23 [2 favorites]
ChrisR: I was definitely thinking much more of the older systems (and particularly McCarty's hand-rolled bullshit) than your very new package when i said "messy", but i also do not think the adjective "messy" is "crapping all over" anything. If you want me to nitpick your software over on GitHub, i can certainly try to do so in my copious free time; i don't do much Python but on a cursory glance through the code i already see several things that irritate me about the database modeling.
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:20 PM on July 23 [3 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:20 PM on July 23 [3 favorites]
The value of the Hugo is mainly that, over its history, it has generally been a good indicator that a work is worth considering reading or otherwise consuming.
This is true! It is also true that there are notable exceptions! (I've read They'd Rather Be Right, widely acknowledged to be the worst-ever Hugo winner.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:22 PM on July 23 [1 favorite]
This is true! It is also true that there are notable exceptions! (I've read They'd Rather Be Right, widely acknowledged to be the worst-ever Hugo winner.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:22 PM on July 23 [1 favorite]
Consider the past tense, if you are referring to the past software then. As I a) am not a database expert and b) intentionally open sourced the software, inputs are welcome even if I decline to adopt proposed changes.
posted by ChrisR at 2:25 PM on July 23 [2 favorites]
posted by ChrisR at 2:25 PM on July 23 [2 favorites]
So something i think some folks in here may not be aware of is that the Worldcon membership lists (badge/display names & numbers) are public. This is something that you agree to when you buy a membership, and there's no requirement to use your real name on your badge. However, i can definitely see there being a concern with possible identification/deanonymization if they release too much detail about the disqualified ballots (there are real people somewhere behind those ballots, because there's real money behind them).
They have local counsel; i assume they're listening to their local counsel about what's safe to release and what isn't, here.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:07 AM on July 24 [1 favorite]
They have local counsel; i assume they're listening to their local counsel about what's safe to release and what isn't, here.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:07 AM on July 24 [1 favorite]
They could (if local law allows it) publish anonymous hashes of the credit cards used for the members - that would expose which are the same without exposing the card numbers themselves
posted by mbo at 1:19 AM on July 24
posted by mbo at 1:19 AM on July 24
« Older Could I use this while turned on? | The unlawfully occupying apartheid state of-- Newer »
posted by corb at 3:15 PM on July 22 [2 favorites]