Yep. What’s the perverse downside of the people voting having actually read the works being voted on? None that I can see.

I think that what you’re perceiving as a potential bug is actually a feature.

It will be interesting to learn (if possible) how many people join Anticipation only to get the nominee package.

In this case, it means the awards risk getting swamped by people who only became members in order to get the (relatively) cheap deal on the reading, which could – if the numbers ran high enough – lead to a very different voting dynamic.

Maybe I overestimate the risk of that; and maybe the risk isn’t actually of concern.

No offense taken. What’s the problem? And what do you mean “a perverse incentive?” Personally, I see nothing wrong with giving people an incentive to read all of the nominated works and then having those people vote on the Hugos. That probably makes them better informed than a significant number of the already-eligible members. And it’s great for the individual Worldcon as well, because supporting memberships do actually contribute a useful support to the Worldcon, on account of their variable cost isn’t very high.

This suggests that the voter packet is setting up a perverse incentive.

Thanks for this tremendous amount of work!

Your membership in last years con, Denvention, allowed you to nominate. You must be at least a supporting member to vote in the Finals.

JeffO