Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Don't get me wrong: I dislike the concept of attempting to "stack the deck" when it comes to the Hugos as much as anyone else does. All I'm saying is that, as I understand it, what's being done is entirely in accordance with the rules of the nominating process. If the process is flawed, then perhaps the process needs to be changed, but you really can't (IMHO) blame people who are using the existing process to get their preferred books nominated.
|
Two things:
First, I have seen nobody claim that the Puppies have broken the rules. Violated their spirit, certainly, but the one thing everyone seems to agree on is that their actions are legal.
Second, I can and do blame people who allege abuse by one faction (without evidence!), complain loudly about how reprehensible that abuse is and how it has tarnished the award... and then proceed to do exactly that same reprehensible thing. That makes them hypocrites, and I most certainly
can call them such and blame them for the damage their collusion causes. I can even do so while saying that the rules which permit such abuse need to be adjusted to prevent it in the future, as I have done here and elsewhere.
After all, as their initial complaint was that collusion was keeping Good Stuff™ off of the ballot, it wouldn't exactly be cricket for them to complain about a rules change that prevented that - right?
I'm a computer geek at heart, so forgive me if I indulge in a bit of hackerspeak. If a hacker discovers an exploit, he has three basic options. First, do nothing. Second, take the "white hat" route and report it to those who maintain the software, so it can be quietly fixed before it does any damage. Third, take the "black hat" route by using the exploit and/or publicizing it so others can do likewise while their victims scramble to defend themselves and make a patch.
I have been a hacker. In some ways, perhaps I still am; the mindset doesn't really go away. However, I've always been a white hat. Vox Day is an unabashed black hat, and while the Sad Puppies may claim to wear white hats, this stunt shows them to be true black hats.
In my opinion, that's one of the lowest stunts you can pull. If you're a good guy, you never,
EVER, put on that black hat. Oh, it may
look shiny, but succumbing to that temptation just once ruins your reputation forever... and that's the one thing no hacker can afford. It's a tremendous violation of trust, and the bigger a name you are, the bigger the violation is.
That's what the big deal is. If you can't grasp it, I don't know how else to explain the difference between legal actions and ethical behavior. They acted within the rules, but it was still grossly unethical.