Yes, I'm sarcastic in my reply to him, because I'm pretty sure the underlying complaint, like that of many people who criticize awards, is that "You should do what I say, and I shouldn't have to do anything other than run my mouth to make you do what I want. And if the awards don't reflect my personal tastes, then they're obviously Bad Things and the Whole System Is Flawed. And those grapes were probably sour, too."
And what I said in my comment is definitely how I feel: WSFS is a voluntary society -- a club, if you like. Clubs can charge whatever dues they want to their members. The club also gives out a set of awards, and only allows its members to vote on them. What's so wrong with that?
Anyone who thinks that a system where you have to join the club in order to vote on the club's awards is "unfair" is encouraged to go out there and set up their own awards run however they think is "fair." Just don't call them "Hugo Awards" because you don't own that name. And, to be honest, if you use the phrase "Hugo Awards" in a place that Google can index it, eventually someone from WSFS will notice you and make sure you're not mis-using the society's service mark.
(Merely mentioning a WSFS mark doesn't mean you're mis-using it, any more than saying, "I ordered a Coke" is mis-use, assuming you did indeed order a Coca-Cola®. Indeed, using the WSFS marks in their proper context is a good thing. But setting up your own awards and declaring that they are the "Real Hugo Awards," for instance, would attract attention you don't really want. Note that I'm not accusing anyone of doing that; I'm just giving it as an example of something You Don't Want to Do.)
Edit, 9:35: Fixed spot where a couple of words dropped out of a sentence, rendering it less than understandable.