Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Not every change to an organisation's rules is a good one, and this (IMHO) would not be if it restricted the freedom of Worldcon supporters to nominate and campaign for their preferred choice of book. It's not the legality or otherwise of it that I was commenting on. I don't believe anyone's suggested that anyone's done anything which is against the rules.
|
I realise that not every change to rules is a good one, just as not every motivation for voting or method of campaigning is a good one. In the rest of this discussion, you have repeated over and over and over that people have a "right" to slavishly vote the Rabid Puppy slate for whatever reasons they have, something I never disputed. Well, here it is: Worldcon members also have a right to change the rules of their award. The method of changing them was written into the system, and that method is being followed, slow as it may be to actually enact the changes. But suddenly now you have an issue with distinguishing between good and bad/ethical and unethical, rather than allowed and now allowed.
Have you read the proposed rule changes? What exactly do you object to?