Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 16:12:40 -0500
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
From: Elspeth Kovar <ekovar at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Is the WSFA journal eligable for fanzine Hugo?
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

At 01:23 AM 3/6/05, Ted White wrote:

>The real question, though, is how many of those who do read the WSFA
>JOURNAL online are qualified Hugo voters -- that is, for nomination
>purposes, a member of last year's or this year's Worldcon, and, for
>final-voting purposes, a member of this year's Worldcon.  Since it costs
>close to or around $50 just for a *supporting* (voting-eligible)
>membership, to say nothing of what it costs for an actual membership, few
>fans will join a Worldcon just to nominate and/or vote for the Hugo Awards.

I just checked and Interaction had 469 supporting members as of
January.  With no site selection this year they didn't join for that and
the period during which it was fairly cheap to upgrade to attending has
passed.

Meanwhile, nomination numbers as compared to the actual voting is
enlightening, especially if one has read the things involved.  The ones for
last year are available at:

http://www.mcfi.org/hugos/HugoNominationDetails.html

http://www.mcfi.org/hugos/hugodetails.html

Best Fan Writer is a case in point -- it's usually in the fan categories
that this really shows up although it has happened with books and
movies.  Oddly enough, the two people with the most nominations came in
fourth and fifth when it came to the actual voting.

(Looking at that list reminds me that I've misplaced the PIN needed to vote
online so I'd better get my paper ballot ready to go in the mail first
thing tomorrow.)

For those unaware of patterns, far more people vote than nominate.  It's
much easier to form an educated opinion when considering a list of five
possibilities than to review an entire field oneself and nominate based
upon that.  I don't know about other people but there are a number of
categories where I don't nominate because I don't consider myself to be
sufficiently knowledgeable.  But once the list has been narrowed down to
five I can learn enough about each to vote.  Of course, one can always
nominated based upon limited knowledge.

>(But don't get me started on the outrageous costs of Worldcon membership
>fees.  The Worldcon has become a genuine money-making racket, its fees
>*far* in excess of what is needed.)

And don't get *me* started on why it costs so much; I'm not happy about it
so have spent enough time studying the matter that I'm satisfied that the
only options are to greatly grow the convention or shrink it
drastically.  People might argue for either choice but that's where things
stand.

Mind you, I don't like the fact that it does and to me the amount that gets
passed along is an indication that more is taken in than is needed.  (On
the other hand, those pass-along funds come at a very useful time for the
upcoming conventions.)  A lot of what winds up being surplus comes from
late or at-the-door memberships while the budgeting starts years in
advance.  Figuring what you can spend based upon what you might or might
not get in the last months is unwise.  I know of at least one recent
Worldcon where they did this and didn't know until several days into the
convention if they were even going to break even.

There's no good solution, so let's just skip this.

Elspeth