Finalists: 2015 Hugo Award

[tompe]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

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.

This is just conspiracy theory and have nothing to do with reality.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

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?

I make no such assumption, because I don't really see this as a major problem, but several people in this thread have suggested that a rule change would be desirable.

[tompe]

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?

No, and the effect last year was not so disastrous. It takes two consecutive years to change the rule and it is hard to formulate rule changes that will pass.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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

Read the rules. It takes two consecutive Worldcons at least. Here are the rules:

http://www.wsfs.org/bm/rules.html

I do not attend business meetings at Worldcon. I just returned from Eastercon and there was a lot of discussion there.

There has been some proposed rules changes but also opinions that The Hugo now is broken and cannot be fixed.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I make no such assumption, because I don't really see this as a major problem, but several people in this thread have suggested that a rule change would be desirable.

You do not see it as a major problem that the whole nomination process is distorted and that what gets nominated is not even less what the voting population consider to be the best books? It is a major problem for the Hugo award because now this year the result will have no meaning at all.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

You do not see it as a major problem that the whole nomination process is distorted and that what gets nominated is not even less what the voting population consider to be the best books? It is a major problem for the Hugo award because now this year the result will have no meaning at all.

It's a major problem for the Hugos, certainly, but even as an SF fan I really don't see the Hugos as being that significant. The presence or absence of a Hugo has never influenced my decision to buy a book, because they have always been a popularity contest. I pay more attention to the Clarke Award, which at least attempts to judge books on their merits.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's a major problem for the Hugos, certainly, but even as an SF fan I really don't see the Hugos as being that significant.

That's not uncommon on the other side of the pond. And rightfully so. Probably at least in part due to the fact that Worldcon has only taken place in England once in the last 20 years. Here in the states, publishers chomp at the bit to release a new edition of their books with "Hugo Award Winning" emblazoned on the cover. It makes careers. But there's not really a lot of "World" in the Worldcon.

I have no doubt that the Hugos could be "fixed" over time. But I also have very little doubt that they probably never will be. The core group is a little too arrogant in their belief that things will self-adjust in time. "We've weathered storms in the past;" "The rules are in place to.." blah, blah, blah. They were forewarned what was going to happen this year and still they instituted no plan to get the first year of the two-year process started.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's a major problem for the Hugos, certainly, but even as an SF fan I really don't see the Hugos as being that significant. The presence or absence of a Hugo has never influenced my decision to buy a book, because they have always been a popularity contest. I pay more attention to the Clarke Award, which at least attempts to judge books on their merits.

I look at all short lists for book to read and this mean one less short list.

The Clarke Award have had some strange books lately but I used to read all book on the short list. I am now trying to read the BSFA short list and the Nebula Award short list.

Bur the Hugo nominated books fills another function. Going to a Worldcon it is the books and short stories you can count on most people have read. It creates a common language were you can refer to book or short stories and people know what you talk about. That is now lost.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That's not uncommon on the other side of the pond. And rightfully so. Probably at least in part due to the fact that Worldcon has only taken place in England once in the last 20 years.

Well, it has taken place in Great Britain 3 times the last 20 years. And 2 times in Australia if I do not mis-remember and once in Japan.

I have no doubt that the Hugos could be "fixed" over time. But I also have very little doubt that they probably never will be. The core group is a little too arrogant in their belief that things will self-adjust in time. "We've weathered storms in the past;" "The rules are in place to.." blah, blah, blah. They were forewarned what was going to happen this year and still they instituted no plan to get the first year of the two-year process started.

What do you mean start the process? The coming Worldon in August is the first business meeting after the effect of the firt Sad Puppy slate was known. And what core group are you talking about? Everybody that go to the business meeting can vote.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by tompe

What do you mean start the process? The coming Worldon in August is the first business meeting after the effect of the firt Sad Puppy slate was known.

You're claiming no one at last years business meeting saw the effects Vox Day's machinations had on nominations earlier that same year? Or saw the direction things were headed? Sad Puppies weren't the first to exploit the weaknesses of the system. They were only the first to be wildly successful at it.

Originally Posted by tompe

And what core group are you talking about? Everybody that go to the business meeting can vote.

Yes. That is the exact core group I'm talking about. How many people (and how much turnover) do you believe those business meetings actually have? You don't believe there's a core group of "regulars" for several years at a time? Especially when in the frequent North American venue?

And the fact that Worldcon is most commonly a North American-hosted event is pretty undeniable. Even simply increasing the frequency that Worldcon happened outside North America would probably help things get better.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by tompe

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"?

Well, as a direct quote from the Sad Puppies 3 slate
"If you agree with our slate below — and we suspect you might — this is YOUR chance to make sure YOUR voice is heard. This is YOUR award (as SF/F’s self-proclaimed “most prestigious award”) and YOU get to have a say in who is acknowledged."

That seems to me more like a recommendation than a political vote (Yes I know that if you read a lot of the background stuff it is political).

Still, the Hugo's are a popularity award, quite how you rig a popularity award by popular vote is beyond me.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You're claiming no one at last years business meeting saw the effects Vox Day's machinations had on nominations earlier that same year? Or saw the direction things were headed? Sad Puppies weren't the first to exploit the weaknesses of the system. They were only the first to be wildly successful at it.

Well, it would have been impossible to get any change just from the nomination observation. And the actual voting showed that the system self corrected so after the vote there was no new reason/strong argument that would have been able to push through a change. As I understand it it is very hard to change things.

Yes. That is the exact core group I'm talking about. How many people (and how much turnover) do you believe those business meetings actually have? You don't believe there's a core group of "regulars" for several years at a time? Especially when in the frequent North American venue?

And the fact that Worldcon is most commonly a North American-hosted event is pretty undeniable. Even simply increasing the frequency that Worldcon happened outside North America would probably help things get better.

Yes, there is a core group but I do not think they have power to change things alone.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Well, as a direct quote from the Sad Puppies 3 slate
"If you agree with our slate below — and we suspect you might — this is YOUR chance to make sure YOUR voice is heard. This is YOUR award (as SF/F’s self-proclaimed “most prestigious award”) and YOU get to have a say in who is acknowledged."

That seems to me more like a recommendation than a political vote (Yes I know that if you read a lot of the background stuff it is political).

Eh? There is a big difference between recommending 50 book or saying vote for these 5 if you want.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Well, as a direct quote from the Sad Puppies 3 slate
"If you agree with our slate below — and we suspect you might — this is YOUR chance to make sure YOUR voice is heard. This is YOUR award (as SF/F’s self-proclaimed “most prestigious award”) and YOU get to have a say in who is acknowledged."

That seems to me more like a recommendation than a political vote (Yes I know that if you read a lot of the background stuff it is political).

Well, it was the Rabid Puppy slate that dominated most:

We of the science fiction Right do not march in lockstep or agree on everything. We span a fairly wide variety of political perspectives and we have very different opinions concerning the optimal way to deal with the corruption and ideological rot that is rife within the world of modern science fiction and fantasy. My recommendations for the Hugo Awards last year were not precisely the same as Larry Correia's in Sad Puppies 2, nor are they identical to Brad Torgersen's recommendations in Sad Puppies 3. But they are similar because we value excellence in actual science fiction and fantasy, rather than excellence in intersectional equalitarianism, racial and gender inclusion, literary pyrotechnics, or professional rabbitology.

What follows is the list of Hugo recommendations known as Rabid Puppies. They are my recommendations for the 2015 nominations, and I encourage those who value my opinion on matters related to science fiction and fantasy to nominate them precisely as they are. I think it is abundantly evident that these various and meritorious works put not only last year's nominations, but last year's winners, to shame.

[jdege]

Seems to me that if you disagree with the Sad Puppies, or with the Rabid Puppies, the solution is to offer your own suggestions, and to encourage more people to get involved.

In other words, to do exactly what the Sad Puppies are doing.