Worldcon, WSFS and language

I kind of hope my friends on SMOFs and JOF will pick this up and start a dialog...

I think we're ill-served by the traditional "supporting" and "attending" membership names for Worldcon.

Hear me out.

We have people complaining about paying to vote for the Hugo awards. We have people confused about voting fees and supporting memberships and why they have to pay both in site selection.

Don't just tell me they're ignorant and don't understand us. This jargon, while traditional, is impenetrable to newcomers.

Can we change the name of a "supporting" membership to a "WSFS" membership? Because it's easy to explain you need a WSFS membership to vote on awards given by WSFS. It's easy to explain the site selection voting fee is your WSFS "membership dues" for 2 years out, and we care that people aren't just members for the year that they're casting their ballot, but for the year they're voting on.

(Oh, and the answer is, of course we can, if we run it through the WSFS business meeting. But getting people talking about it now is the first step.)

WSFS Business Appears

Originally posted by kevin_standlee at WSFS Business Appears
The first release of the agenda for this year's WSFS Business Meeting is now online at the LoneStarCon 3 web site.

The constitutional items are:

  • A minimum price cap on supporting memberships, prohibiting Worldcons from selling memberships that have voting rights for less than the cost of a supporting membership

  • Add a new Hugo Award category: Best Dramatic Presentation (Fan)

  • Delete the Best Fanzine, Best Fan Writer, and Best Fan Artist Hugo Awards

  • Require that Worldcon financial reports include additional information about the organization responsible for the Worldcon, including contact information

Before you ask me about any of these proposals, please go over and read them on the LSC site first.

This agenda will change and there will be additional items submitted before the rapidly-approaching deadline for new business.


Is it just me, or is there a hypocritical hipsterish vibe from a chunk of the "book blogger" community's complaints about this year's Hugo awards and discussions?

This is by no means universal, but I've seen quite a few book bloggers complain about

  • The popular selections in the fiction categories, including dramatic categories, and the big names in the fancast category. Not that there's anything wrong with liking quality stuff that isn't well-known or cool, just in being ostentatious about it. Not that there's anything about disliking things that are popular, just in being ostentatious about disliking things because they're popular.
  • The staid and uncool nominees in the fanwriter and fanzine categories, who are on the ballot to the detriment of hugely (for someone's definition of "hugely") popular book bloggers. I don't have to explain this one.

No, I'm not naming names. Check out SFSignal's Tidbits for links to Hugo commentary and make up your own mind.

  • Current Mood
    blah blah

Bonnie Tyler - Believe In Me

The United Kingdom's entry for Eurovision 2013

Wales The United Kingdom has decided sending has-beens musical legends to Eurovision is a good idea, and this time it's Bonnie Fucking Tyler. She's pretty good, I think, but it's hard to tell with that orchestration. All in all, by no means an embarrassment, but guaranteed not to win.

The video is a real video, I'm guessing set on the North Welsh coast.