Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev. Bob
Here's the "fun" part: the SP4 plans have already commenced. By all available evidence, this isn't a stunt to prove something and then stop - it's an ongoing campaign. It wasn't enough last year to show that a determined group could put something on the ballot. It's not enough this year to utterly control the ballot. What will be enough? Most likely, nothing.
I think it's time for the Hugos to change their nominating process in such a way that no slate - Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies, the supposed Sekrit Libruls, or anyone else - will be able to exert this kind of influence. Off the cuff, two suggestions come to mind, either independently or in tandem:
- Nobody gets to nominate more than two works in any category. (The shortlist is typically five.)
- Two nomination rounds. The first is wide open, anyone eligible to nominate can toss in any number of eligible works. Those nominations are then reduced to a manageable field that's still much larger than the planned shortlist - say, 25 or 50 that will get pared down to five. Maybe the reduction is just "top X votes to nominate," or maybe there's some anti-slate rule added in, but the second round of nominations pulls exclusively from that pool. If combined with #1 above, this is where "vote for two" comes in - and heck, call 'em "primary choice and alternate" if you wish.
It's not a perfect solution, and I'm not sure what sort of fair anti-slate criteria could be devised, but it's something. |
I really don't understand what the issue is. If these guys can push to get their favourite authors on the shortlist, why can't you, or anyone else, do the same? Isn't that what an electoral process is all about? Persuading other people to support your viewpoint?