Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
So what effect did the supposed ballot rigging have in the end?
|
"Rigging" is a difficult word to use when the slate nominators' actions were, strictly, within the written rules of the award. What they did was dishonourable and unethical, but not against the rules.
Yes, they proved the Hugo nominations can be gamed by a relatively small number of nominators. So? We always knew that. It's inherent in the way the process works. The fact is, the vast majority of voters choose not to take part in that; not because it's difficult, but because it's a shitty, childish thing to do. So they proved that they can set out to achieve an easy, shitty thing, and then achieve it? Ooookay then.
To answer your question: the ultimate effect was to push a whole lot of very award-worthy works off the ballot, unfortunately. Including a number of works/authors that I suspect would be within the Puppies publicly stated remit, if not their unstated one, and were of vastly higher quality than their nominations.
They're claiming victory - but they were always going to, regardless of the outcome of the final vote, so that's pretty irrelevant. All they have actually achieved is to deprive excellent work of well-deserved awards.
*world's slowest clap*