Finalists: 2015 Hugo Award

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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?

Don't know. But pressing for a rule change without a carefully thought out plan as to what exactly that change needs to be would be a bit premature and non-productive, no? Hence the public discussion (everywhere, not just this thread) about what changes would best discourage slate voting (there is no way to entirely eliminate agenda voting, only ways to lessen its influence), without doing even more damage.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by 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.

Do you see one publisher's catalog dominating the nominations?
The difference is, it hasn't hijacked the nomination process.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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?

At this point they'd rather vilify than negotiate.
And whatever system they propose will be gamed by both camps. As the iO9 piece says, it is now solely about the politics.

And the money. Like all political feuds there is a monetary concern and the fact that one BPH publisher won three years in a row, even with a mediocre joke, factors into the subtext. There is money in the "Hugo Winner" label and since it is relatively cheap to game the system (just as it is cheap to buy legislators and other politicians) it can pay for the bigger players to spend time and money campaigning. Or smaller players to team-up against the big boys.

None of that will change with new rules.
It will just change the terms of engagement.

From here on out it is scorched earth all the way.
It's all about the grievances.

[DrNefario]

TOR have many more works than can be nominated for each category. I don't think it's all that classy of them, as it happens, but I doubt it's much of a problem. Had they mailed you a list of their chosen five for each category, and tried to claim it was about redressing wrongs, supporting the real fans, and that it would one in the eye for those terrible (insert-bogeyman-of-choice)s, then I would have a problem with it, yes.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Don't know. But pressing for a rule change without a carefully thought out plan as to what exactly that change needs to be would be a bit premature and non-productive, no?

I agree, but this exact same discussion took place a year ago. Is a year not long enough to formulate a plan?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I agree, but this exact same discussion took place a year ago. Is a year not long enough to formulate a plan?

Clearly not. So is the best course of action to just forget about it? I have no real horse in this race, but I'm fairly certain that change is not brought about by trying really hard for a year and then giving up if it doesn't happen.

[DrNefario]

I'm fairly sure* rule changes have to be ratified for two years in a row before they come into effect.

Also I think maybe people were hoping that it would die down once they'd made their point.


*Not very sure at all, but I think I heard it once.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

Also I think maybe people were hoping that it would die down once they'd made their point.

That would require a consensus that a *valid* point *had* been made.

Good luck with that.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Clearly not. So is the best course of action to just forget about it? I have no real horse in this race, but I'm fairly certain that change is not brought about by trying really hard for a year and then giving up if it doesn't happen.

What I guess I'm asking is whether this is just a bunch of people expressing their unhappiness on an Internet forum, or whether anyone has stepped forward to take the lead in coordinating a considered response. Anyone know?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What I guess I'm asking is whether this is just a bunch of people expressing their unhappiness on an Internet forum, or whether anyone has stepped forward to take the lead in coordinating a considered response. Anyone know?

I think what can be done IS being done. The Hugos will only change if they (the core membership) want it to change. The unhappiness being expressed (all over the internet and social media) is an attempt to convince them to WANT to change.

It's quite possible, though, that it's too late (as ftorres has pointed out) to do anything. I certainly think that "fandom" is at a fish-or-cut-bait juncture with regard to the Hugos being the most "coveted" SFF genre award. If it's unfixable (or has no desire to BE fixed), then it's time for fandom to shift the weight of its regard elsewhere.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

If it's unfixable (or has no desire to BE fixed), then it's time for fandom to shift the weight of its regard elsewhere.

You don't teach an old dog new tricks; you're better off raising a new, happy puppy.

I'd recommend a new Award--call it, the NoVa (fully aware of what it means in spanish)--and dish out a dozen of them by sub-genre, the way the Oscars do.

18 month eligibility window.

One for Space Opera, one for Superhero prose, one for poetry; one for light/humor fantasy, one for adventure SF, one for Hard SF; one for urban fantasy, one for steampunk, alternate history, technothriller, epic fantasy, and Literary SF, one for comic/graphic novel, one for TV, another for movie, animated separate from live action... Even paranormal romance and Young Adult and new adult or whatever. Throw in for cross-genre SF along the way. Make the BPHs spread the money...

The field is big, the field is broad...
Plenty of room for everybody to be special...
...and go back to reading or writing instead of whinging.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

How is the SP slate any different than TOR emailing me a list of all their eligible works (they did)?

A list of all their eligible works is not curated, by definition. Also, if they didn't recommend some listed works above others, it's not a slate.

Both Puppies groups deliberated over what to include and what to exclude, producing one list each that a Puppy voter could copy onto a nomination ballot and send in. That's very much different from a list that says "here's what we published that's eligible" and leaves it at that.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by 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.

How can you not see a difference between saying "This is what we have available to choose from" and saying "vote for this specific works regardless of if you have read them or not or if you like them or not"?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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?

What rule change? Why do you assume that you can change the rule without breaking the award so that it is not open for attacks?

[HarryT]

You know a fair amount about Worldcons, Tommy. Do you know what the process would be for attempting to get the rules changed?