Finalists: 2015 Hugo Award

[meeera]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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?

No, because the Hugos are not a party-politics election, nor are they primarily about author personality politics, though author popularity has obviously played a role at times (being a popularly-voted award).

The SP folks put forward a slate for nominations, exactly five works in each category, which a fair few people (by the looks of the noms) followed to the letter. Many other folks, myself included, prefer a diverse set of nominated works drawn from the width and depth of the field, with people voting for what the art they had read and loved in that particular year, not for the author someone else persuaded them to vote for (whether or not they loved their work or even chose to read it off their own bat). The latter can be a huge group of nominators without it being able to beat out a slate vote.

The answer to "slate voting is bad" is not "so we'll just put forward our own slate".

And that's leaving aside a whole lot of other stuff best left to the P&R forum.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by meeera

The answer to "slate voting is bad" is not "so we'll just put forward our own slate".

But my point is that they are doing nothing that's against the rules of the Hugo nomination process, and neither are they doing anything that you couldn't do yourself if you want to nominate different works. The Hugos are, as you point out yourself, essentially a "popularity contest". In that regard they differ fundamentally from awards like the Man Booker Prize or the Arthur C. Clarke Award, in which books are judged by a panel of judges on the basis of their literary merit.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But my point is that they are doing nothing that's against the rules of the Hugo nomination process, and neither are they doing anything that you couldn't do yourself if you want to nominate different works.

Smearing one's feces on one's own walls is, to my knowledge, not against any rules, but it is nonetheless a rather distasteful hobby. It is also a singularly bizarre protest against the allegation that the walls are filthy.

The Hugos are supposed to be secret-ballot elections, both for nominations and the final award. The Puppies alleged that a shadowy group was colluding to stack the ballot, which they found to be abhorrent because it violated the sanctity of the nomination process. Their response was to collude to stack the ballot, in the name of Truth and Justice and Cake For All and Down With Collusion and Whatever Else You Might Go For.

To cite a recently departed icon of the genre, I find this behavior highly illogical.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

The Hugos are supposed to be secret-ballot elections, both for nominations and the final award. The Puppies alleged that a shadowy group was colluding to stack the ballot, which they found to be abhorrent because it violated the sanctity of the nomination process. Their response was to collude to stack the ballot, in the name of Truth and Justice and Cake For All and Down With Collusion and Whatever Else You Might Go For.

A secret-ballot election does not preclude the concept of trying to persuade people to vote for your preferred choice of candidate.

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.

[Rev. Bob]

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.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A secret-ballot election does not preclude the concept of trying to persuade people to vote for your preferred choice of candidate.

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.

The background is in fact political of the american culture wars variety though both sides like to pretend it is only the other camp that is using political criteria to promote candidates. And the intent is the shout down the other sides viewpoint. Nobody has clean hands or pure heart.

Bear in mind that, despite all the online noise, the catfight involves but a few thousand individuals total. (Look to the raw numbers of the "elections".) Many of which are peripheral to the SF&F mainstream on both the reader and author side. Neither camp is anywhere on the radar of the vast majority of people going to Amazon, B&N, or Kobo to actually buy and read SF&F.

Before the catfight hit here, I for one, had never heard (or cared about the issues) of the Sad Puppies or the Social Justice Warriors. Most readers don't.
If you poll any random real world readers, 99 out of 100 would blink and say "Who's that?"

The whole mess is not unlike two street gangs fighting over a lightly trafficked corner with the rest of the city shrugging and crossing the street to get out of the crossfire. Instead of wasting time picking sides or trying to mediate, I would suggest bringing out the water cannon to separate and cool down the two gangs.

Also note that the bone of contention is a phallic symbol named after a rather sleazy magazine publisher who routinely stiffed his authors.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_...cience_fiction

Try this report:

http://io9.com/the-hugo-awards-were-...nly-1695721604

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But my point is that they are doing nothing that's against the rules of the Hugo nomination process, and neither are they doing anything that you couldn't do yourself if you want to nominate different works. The Hugos are, as you point out yourself, essentially a "popularity contest". In that regard they differ fundamentally from awards like the Man Booker Prize or the Arthur C. Clarke Award, in which books are judged by a panel of judges on the basis of their literary merit.

Every voting system is vulnerable to attacks that strictly follow the rules. But it can still be a very bad and immoral behavior even if the rules are followed.

[DiapDealer]

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.

Jeez Harry. What do you think the conversation has been about for the last little while, if not "changing the process?" Doesn't a discussion that's moving more and more toward how the existing rules could be possibly tweaked to make gaming the system harder, tend to exhibit a clear understanding by those involved that rules are not being "broken?"

The problem is, the existing rules come with their own "changing these rules will be very difficult and slow" clause that come in the form of needing two consecutive years of "this needs changed to this" affirming votes. By full "I'm here at the Con" members, not in absentia supporting members.

So in a sense, yes; "blaming" people who are using the existing process to stack the deck may in fact be the only way to get those members to acknowledge that the rules need to be changed in the first place. And to encourage them to do so.

I do agree with ftorres, though, that it's not really a very big deal in the grand scheme of things--or even in the SFF scheme of things. The demise of the Hugo (or it's descent into complete meaninglessness) won't hurt SFF in the least. It will only disappoint those with a desire to see their work (or their pastime) somehow more "legitimized" through public (albeit a tiny public) acknowledgment. It's a good money-maker (and great PR) for the author that wins, and a "see, I was right for liking it!" badge for the fan.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The background is in fact political of the american culture wars variety though both sides like to pretend it is only the other camp that is using political criteria to promote candidates. And the intent is the shout down the other sides viewpoint. Nobody has clean hands or pure heart.

Before the catfight hit here, I for one, had never heard (or cared about the issues) of the Sad Puppies or the Social Justice Warriors. Most readers don't.

I feel obliged to point out a few things:

1. "Sad Puppies" and "Rabid Puppies" are self-chosen names. "SJWs" is not; it is used as a slur by the Puppies to indicate "anyone who disagrees with us." (Also used similarly by GamerGate; the organizer of the RP slate is also a vocal supporter of that cause.) Labeling one group as "SJWs" or "Social Justice Warriors" is not neutral usage; it is a declaration of allegiance with the Puppy faction. (If you engaged in a discussion about race by using racial slurs, would you expect to be perceived as neutral?)

2. That the Puppies have colluded to stack the nominations is not in question. They have been very public about it at all stages. However, their claim of "SJW shenanigans" remains unsubstantiated. In fact, Larry Correia (the original Sad Puppy, and a former auditor) is on the record as saying that he saw no evidence of foul play when he studied last year's results.

3. The Puppies have demonstrated, conclusively, that slates break the system. However, rather than say that they've made their point and demanding the system be fixed, they're already planning to break the system again next year. That goes well beyond the most charitable reading of their antics ("expose the problem so it can be patched") to expose what I can only interpret as a desire to completely destroy the award.

In short, you have fallen prey to the "evidence of one extreme impiles an equal opposing extreme" fallacy. In reality, there are only two "gangs" if you count the Sad and Rabid Puppies separately. There is no corresponding "SJW slate" campaign; the two factions in this dispute are the Puppies and those appalled by their public defiling of what has been a revered award. (I do not count the "don't care either way" group as a faction; they're bystanders.)

Of course, if you have evidence of an "anti-Puppy slate" campaign, I would be most interested in seeing it. So far, all I've heard on that front are whispers, rumors, and thirdhand gossip. Further, I would think that a competing slate would leave some trace in the results, just as one can compare the nominations to both Puppy slates and see where each made its mark.

I have little tolerance for conspiracy theorists or black-hat manipulators. The Puppies are, according to their own posts, both. One need not be on an organized Other Team to oppose blatant manipulation, and I would oppose it if it were coming from the Eebil Librul side. The active factions aren't conservative vs. liberal, but slate vs. anti-slate... and I'm staunchly anti-slate. Secret slate, public slate, liberal slate, conservative slate - doesn't matter to me. I want to see rules changes that would render any such attempts at rigging the process futile and irrelevant.

Power, as they say, to the people. The individual people.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But my point is that they are doing nothing that's against the rules of the Hugo nomination process, and neither are they doing anything that you couldn't do yourself if you want to nominate different works.

I did not say that they broke the technical rules of the process.

You asked "Isn't that what an electoral process is all about? Persuading other people to support your viewpoint? " And my answer was "No."

Not all nomination and electoral processes are the same, and the intrusion of narrow-focus American culture wars into a world SF fandom nomination process, which many of us use to discover new and wonderful books, not just to promote the ones we already know about, is unwelcome and extremely distasteful to many.

I have no interest in promoting a nomination slate, and would side-eye anyone who did. To me, and to many others, that is absolutely not what Hugo nominations are about.

[DrNefario]

The old system relied on people to play nice. If that didn't always happen, it didn't matter too much if only one or two of the shortlisted finalists were affected. This year several categories have been completely taken over by block-voters. The Rabid Puppies would rather crap all over the place and ruin it for everyone. (The SP slate is arguably not terrible, if still misguided, but the RP additions are just plain and simple trolling.)

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by meeera

You asked "Isn't that what an electoral process is all about? Persuading other people to support your viewpoint? " And my answer was "No."

It is a good practical example of how you end up with a horrible toxic two-party system, where even your own side do a good number of things you disagree with.

I'm not sure anyone should aspire to that.

[darryl]

But what is a change of rules going to achieve? The plain unvarnished truth is that there is no institution invented by man which is devoid of politics. Ideally the Hugo's would be decided by each voter voting in accordance with their genuine opinion of the literary merit of the works concerned. This is simply not going to happen. And even if it does to an extent, many people exist for whom politics is their life, and colours all of their opinions. And this, of course, is without contending with the formal voting blocks, be it the Puppies or, as fjtorres so aptly put it, the social justice warriors. I might add that I have not done the exhaustive reading of all the Hugo nominees for the years involved which I feel would be required to have a truly informed opinion as to whether or not the nominations had been hijacked by the politically oorrect. It could be that with several thousand voters involved the greater emphasis in wider society on social justice issues was naturally reflected in the make up of the voters, with some movement to the left inevitable. What is inarguable is that there is a backlash, rightly or wrongly. But re-writing rules to produce a particular result is doomed to failure without widespread consensus on what that result is. It is likely doomed to failure anyway. Just ask any good political "operative" in any of the democracies. The more complex the rules, the more opportunity for manipulation arises.

Personally, my view is that the Sad Puppies list has some excellent books which are enjoyable reads. But of the titles I have read, none reach the level that should be required to win such an award. Of the non-puppies nominations, once again out of the titles I have read, only Ancillary Sword would make a worthy winner. Of course, I would have to do much more reading to reach a genuinely informed view on both "lists".

I think it needs to be left to the warring parties to sort out. If you want an influence, pay your money and join. But face facts. Politics is not going away. What seems to have been the saving grace to date is that some of the time enough voters, for whatever reasons and whether or not influenced by politics, pick a genuinely deserving winner. This should be the firm goal of any rule change.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Jeez Harry. What do you think the conversation has been about for the last little while, if not "changing the process?" Doesn't a discussion that's moving more and more toward how the existing rules could be possibly tweaked to make gaming the system harder, tend to exhibit a clear understanding by those involved that rules are not being "broken?"

I've seen a lot of talk about how bad it is, DD. It seems to me that the only thing that can be done is to launch a campaign to drum up support for a vote for a rule change. As I understand it, the same thing happened last year, so people have had a year to take action. Has anyone actually done anything to press for a rule change at this year's Worldcon?

[MikeB1972]

How is the SP slate any different than TOR emailing me a list of all their eligible works (they did)?
I assume the other publishers sent out similar slates but I'm not on their mailing lists.