Quote:
Originally Posted by meeera
"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.
|
I'm afraid I strongly disagree with you. Campaigning for your favoured candidate is a standard - and entirely legitimate - part of any electoral process. It's not "dishonourable", "unethical", "shitty" or "childish". If you dislike the nominations that someone else is urging you to make, you are entirely free to ignore them or, even better, promote the nominees that you think should be considered for the award.
To change the democratic process when people - shock! horror! - actually start using it in an entirely legitimate way seems to me to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I do not agree with the aims of this particular group, but I 100% support their right to take the actions they took.