Thread: Finalists: 2015 Hugo Award
View Single Post
Old 04-08-2015, 01:48 PM   #137
Rev. Bob
Wizard
Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Rev. Bob's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,760
Karma: 9918418
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Here on the perimeter, there are no stars
Device: Kobo H2O, iPad mini 3, Kindle Touch
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer View Post
You could be right, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe the ONLY reason any one faction is able to garner the percentages necessary to sweep a category's nominations is precisely because of the small size of the pool of nominators. I don't believe any single slate could survive in a vastly bigger nominating pool. Namely because there would be factions and subfactions and infighting the bigger they got. So while a group like SP might be able to get A work nominated, I don't believe they'd ever be able to get the percentages needed to sweep a category in anything but the tiny pool they're swimming in right now. I just don't see any individual slate's influence scaling well to a vastly larger nominations pool where every faction (no matter how moderate or extreme) is welcome to swim. *shrug*
I understand your reasoning here, but I believe it to be incorrect.

There are a lot of SFF books published over the course of any year. There are currently about 2000 nominating ballots, of which slate voting is estimated to affect about 10-15%. Slate voters are subject to the same restrictions as non-slate voters; the same pricing barrier affects all would-be participants. Non-slate voters are picking from a huge field, with no limits on it. Slate voters are picking from a narrower field (because they have to share some common viewpoint to be attracted to the campaign in the first place) that is drastically narrowed when the slate is compiled, then slightly expanded when its adherents submit their nominating ballots and decide whether to vote the whole slate or only part of it.

Going no further than that, a slate has impact disproportionate to its number of members. Any rules change that affects "both sides" (slate and non-slate) equally has to be considered in that light.

Imagine this as a literal voting pool - as in, a body of liquid. Non-slate nominations look like a puddle: wide and shallow. Slate nominations look more like a straw: tall and skinny. If the goal is to reduce the impact slates can have, the puddle has to get deeper and the straw has to get shorter. Agreed?

So, what happens if you ease the entry requirements? Well, more of the people who saw the slates but weren't motivated enough to overcome those requirements are now sufficiently motivated to participate - so slate voting increases. My instinct is to say that it increases even in proportion to total participation, but let's set that variable aside for now. Say instead that the entry barrier is lowered enough to multiply the voting pool by ten. Instead of 2000 nominating ballots, there are now 20,000. Instead of 1700-1800 people nominating from an open field, now there are 17-18K doing so...versus the 2000-3000 who are not.

The award-winning question is, therefore: is the increase in non-slate voting a big enough difference to offset the impact of the slate?

I don't think so. For that to happen, one of two things needs to be true. First, the influx of non-slate voters would have to not increase the number of works they nominate, making the puddle deeper and not wider. I think that's unlikely, to the point of "not happening." Second, the straw has to get wider and shorter. Again, not happening; if anything, the straw gets much taller, because each slate has its own winnowing process. The produced slate is not appreciably bigger (wider straw), but there are more people voting for it (taller straw).

No, lowering the barriers to participation won't solve this problem. It may be a good thing for other reasons, but it is an insufficient measure at best. It could work to drown a "whispering campaign" slate, such as the one the Puppies have alleged exists Behind The Scenes, but it doesn't stand a chance against public slates. A whisper slate is by nature a short straw; the secrecy requirement means there can't be many people involved, and that's why that possibility hasn't been seen as much of a problem in the past.

That was longer than I wanted it to be, but hopefully it's clear and correct. If not, I'm sure someone will speak up and show me where I'm fuzzy or wrong.
Rev. Bob is offline   Reply With Quote