Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Don't get me wrong: I dislike the concept of attempting to "stack the deck" when it comes to the Hugos as much as anyone else does. All I'm saying is that, as I understand it, what's being done is entirely in accordance with the rules of the nominating process. If the process is flawed, then perhaps the process needs to be changed, but you really can't (IMHO) blame people who are using the existing process to get their preferred books nominated.
|
Jeez Harry. What do you think the conversation has been about for the last little while, if not "changing the process?" Doesn't a discussion that's moving more and more toward how the existing rules could be possibly
tweaked to make gaming the system harder, tend to exhibit a clear understanding by those involved that rules are not being "broken?"
The problem is, the existing rules come with their own "changing these rules will be very difficult and slow" clause that come in the form of needing two consecutive years of "this needs changed to this" affirming votes. By full "
I'm here at the Con" members, not in absentia supporting members.
So in a sense, yes; "blaming" people who are using the existing process to stack the deck may in fact be the only way to get those members to acknowledge that the rules need to be changed in the first place. And to encourage them to do so.
I do agree with ftorres, though, that it's not really a very big deal in the grand scheme of things--or even in the
SFF scheme of things. The demise of the Hugo (or it's descent into complete meaninglessness) won't hurt SFF in the least. It will only disappoint those with a desire to see their work (or their pastime) somehow more "legitimized" through public (albeit a tiny public) acknowledgment. It's a good money-maker (and great PR) for the author that wins, and a "see, I was right for liking it!" badge for the fan.