Posted by fromtheheartofeurope
https://fromtheheartofeurope.eu/four-modest-amendments-to-the-wsfs-constitution/
https://fromtheheartofeurope.eu/?p=61684
I always approach amendments to the WSFS Constitution with some trepidation. The Business Meeting does not always make things better, and it is not always sensitive to the lived experience of Hugo Administrators or con-running volunteers. But Tammy Coxen and I, as Hugo Administrators for 2017, 2019, 2020, 2024, 2025 (for a time) and 2026, hope to make things easier for our successors by clarifying the rules and bringing them fully into line with current practice, as proposed below. All new business is somewhat burdensome on the Business Meeting agenda, not to mention on the poor volunteers running it, but hopefully these four items should be uncontroversial and can be dealt with speedily.
1) Clarifying Best Graphic Story or Comic
Add to Sub-section 3.3.6:
3.3.6: Best Graphic Story or Comic. Any non-interactive science fiction or fantasy story told in graphic form appearing for the first time in the previous calendar year. An album/collection shall be eligible if less than half of its content has previously been published in collected format. But an album/collection will not be eligible if it contains material that has previously appeared on the Hugo ballot in this category.
Explanation: Most Hugo voters consume comics in album/collection format. There has been occasional controversy about allowing an album to qualify for the ballot when much of its content had been released in previous years in single issue format, or as a webzine.
In practice, most albums include sufficient new material to justify considering the content to have appeared “for the first time” in the year of eligibility, but it is better to have a clear instruction to consider albums of previously uncollected material as eligible, as long as that material is fresh to the Hugo ballot.
We propose a requirement that half of the content of a potential album nominee has not previously been published in album format, but we are open to amend that to be higher.
But we should collectively not lose sight of the main point, to allow voters to vote for the work that they have enjoyed.
In any case, this amendment will clarify the constitution and codify existing practice if it is passed.
2) Clarifying Best Series
Renumber Sub-section 3.8.3 of the Constitution to 3.3.5.2 (and renumber accordingly):
3.8.3 3.3.5.2: If any series and a subset series thereof both receive sufficient nominations to appear on the final ballot, only the version which received more nominations shall appear.
Explanation: This subsection of the Constitution is clearly intended to help Administrators resolve a situation where two potential nominees in the Best Series category could potentially be in competition against each other on the final ballot, despite being by the same author and with one of them being a subset series of the other. In fact this situation has never come close to occurring, but the placement of these words in Section 3.8 has caused confusion to some commentators. Moving the section to Section 3.3 will not cause any practical change but will clarify the situation.
Some have misread this Section as a prohibition on any work appearing in both one of the written fiction categories and as part of a finalist in the Best Series category; it has been pointed out that mathematically speaking, a ‘subset’ can have a membership of just one. However, a ‘subset series’ clearly must have multiple members (or it would not be a series), so this argument is incorrect.
The Hugo Administrators of Chengdu Worldcon in 2023 cited this subsection in their disqualification of the Sandman television series. This was incorrect; it should have been disqualified (if at all) under Sub-section 3.2.11.
Moving this Sub-section to the rest of the Best Series rubric will reduce the potential for confusion.
Add new Sub-section 3.3.5.3:
3.3.5.3 If a series as a whole has qualified for the ballot in Best Series, and one or more elements of that series have also qualified for the ballot in other categories in the same year, all of those nominations will stand unless one or more are declined.
Explanation: This clarifies the constitution and codifies existing practice. Voters clearly enjoy celebrating both series and their constituent parts, and for instance in 2021 voted Hugos to both Network Effect and to the Murderbot stories as a whole.
An attempt to bar a series and any of its constituent parts from appearing on the ballot in the same year was decisively rejected by the 2022 Business Meeting, as was another, more extreme proposal to bar a series if any of its constituent parts had previously won a Hugo.
The above proposed wording (“other categories”) for Sub-section 3.3.5.3 is deliberately broad, and allows for the possibility that a series might include not only written fiction, but also graphic novels and/or games.
Edited to add: The Business Meeting staff requested that we re-order this so that the amendments come together at the start and the explanatory text after that, so we did that without, I think, changing the sense of the explanation.
3) Clarifying the Best Dramatic Presentation categories
Insert new Sub-section 3.8.6 and renumber:
3.8.6 If an episodic series as a whole has sufficient nominations to qualify for the ballot for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form, and one or more episodes of that series also has or have sufficient nominations to qualify for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form, then the administrators shall exclude either the series from the Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form category or the potentially qualifying episode(s) from the Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form category.
The administrators shall take into account the number of votes both for the potentially excluded nominees and for those who would be brought onto the ballot in the event of an exclusion, and shall consider how best to reflect the wishes of the greater number of voters.
Add to Sub-section 3.9.4:
3.9.4: After the initial Award ballot is generated, if any finalist(s) are removed for any reason, they will be replaced by other works in reverse order of elimination; except that no episode in a dramatic presentation series shall be eligible to fill such a vacancy if it has already been determined that other potentially qualifying episodes of that series shall be excluded under Subsection 3.8.6 in the same category.
Explanation: While arguably this situation is already covered by Sub-section 3.2.11, “No work shall appear in more than one category on the final Award ballot”, there is some confusion on the issue, and it must be admitted that on its face, Sub-section 3.2.11 appears to be more relevant to the possibility of individual works potentially qualifying as such in more than one of the first four written fiction categories.
It’s clear however that Hugo administration in practice has evolved to the point that no series can appear on the Best Dramatic Presentation Long Form ballot if any of its episodes appears on the Best Dramatic Presentation Short Form ballot, and vice versa.
It has been suggested that in this situation, the Hugo administrators should be expected, or even obliged, to consult the show-runners of the TV series in question as to whether they prefer the series as a whole or the individual episodes to be on the ballot. We do not support that idea because:
i) the nominees for individual episodes are the writers and directors, who may not be full-time staffers of the studio, and it is unfair to let the studio make decisions on their behalf;
ii) votes cast by WSFS members, rather than the choices of studio executives, should in general determine what appears on the Hugo ballot;
iii) TV studios in general are notoriously slow to engage with Hugo administrators, and we should not make our procedures hostage to their (lack of) response.
The studio will have its own incentives, completely different to those of the author or director of an individual episode. It’s not wrong for them to have different incentives, that’s natural. But there’s no reason to give the studio’s incentive structure or decision making more power then the creators who are actually nominated. This should be between the nominated creators and the fans – or just the fans themselves, if the creators aren’t interested.
The second paragraph of our proposed amendment is deliberately advisory rather than detailed; one can envisage future circumstances where it is useful for administrators to exercise discretion.
Administrators have been consistent in adjudicating nominations for the Best Dramatic Presentation categories in the manner described above over the years; if passed, this amendment will not change anything, but will clarify the rules and codify existing practice.
If our other proposed amendment on Clarifying Nominee Diversity is also passed, the proposed changes to Sub-section 3.9.4 will need to be cumulated.
4) Clarifying Nominee Diversity
Replace Sub-section 3.8.6 of the Constitution.
3.8.6: If there are more than two works in the same category that are episodes of the same dramatic presentation series or that are written works that have an author for single author works, or two or more authors for co-authored works, in common, only the two works in each category that have the most nominations shall appear on the final ballot. The Worldcon Committee shall make reasonable efforts to notify those who would have been finalists in the absence of this subsection to provide them an opportunity to withdraw. For the purpose of this exclusion, works withdrawn shall be ignored.
No more than two works that are episodes of the same dramatic presentation series shall appear on the final ballot in any one category. No more than two written works that have exactly the same author or authors shall appear on the final ballot in any one category.
The Worldcon Committee shall make reasonable efforts to notify authors and creators who have more than two works among the top six nominees in any one category on the initial Award ballot when it has been generated, and will offer them the option to choose a maximum of two of those works to appear on the ballot. If the authors or creators cannot be contacted or do not reply, the two works with the most votes will appear on the ballot, and the other work(s) in question shall be excluded.
Add to Subsection 3.9.4:
3.9.4: After the initial Award ballot is generated, if any finalist(s) are removed for any reason, they will be replaced by other works in reverse order of elimination; except that, consistent with Subsection 3.8.6, no episode in a dramatic presentation series shall be eligible to fill such a vacancy if two episodes of that series have already qualified (and have not been withdrawn) in the same category, and no written work shall be eligible to fill such a vacancy if two works by exactly the same author or authors have already qualified (and have not been withdrawn) in the same category.
Explanation: the situation anticipated in Sub-section 3.8.6 has so far happened only twice. In 2017, the first year after Sub-section 3.8.6 came into force, three episodes of Game of Thrones were on the initial Award ballot for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form when it was generated; the show-runners chose to withdraw one of them. In 2019, three stories by Martha Wells were on the initial Award ballot for Best Novella when it was generated; she withdrew two of them.
Frankly we, the movers of this amendment, disagree with the intent of Sub-section 3.8.6 and regard it as unnecessary interference with the will of the Hugo voters, punishing TV shows or authors who commit the offence of being too popular. Our preference is to repeal the entire sub-section.
If we are to keep it, however, it should at least be rewritten to avoid confusion. The current wording is ambiguous and does not completely match the reality of how the Hugo final ballot is determined. In particular, Sub-section 3.8.6 became part of the Constitution at the same time as E Pluribus Hugo, and is slightly inconsistent.
This amendment does not change anything in practice, but clarifies the Constitution.
If our other proposed amendment on Clarifying the Best Dramatic Presentation Categories is also passed, the changes to Sub-section 3.9.4 will need to be cumulated and the references here to Sub-section 3.8.6 will need to change to refer to Sub-section 3.8.7.
2025 WSFS Business meeting posts:
C5
D4
D5, D6
D9, D10, D11, D12
E7
E8
E9
F3, F4, F5 and F6
F11
F21
F22
Investigation Committee on the 2023 Hugo Awards report
Hugo Administration Process Committee report
Business Meeting Study Group
https://fromtheheartofeurope.eu/four-modest-amendments-to-the-wsfs-constitution/
https://fromtheheartofeurope.eu/?p=61684
![[syndicated profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/feed.png){kind=small}
fromtheheartofeurope_feed) wrote2025-06-08 02:25 pm
