Finalists: 2015 Hugo Award

[jwhayn]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's a democratic process; if anyone doesn't like the outcome, the answer is to campaign for those books that you think are better, just as in any other electoral process. Did everyone here who's complaining about it buy a WorldCon membership and make their own nominations?

I agree. I had ignored this whole issue until I recently started reading the commentary. I went back and compared previous winners to this years slate. I far prefer the latter as the former books were not appealing to this reader. I did not say that they were not good but just unappealing to me. This combined with the self righteous nonsense from the unhappy defenders of the previous system mean that I have decided to get a Worldcon membership and will vote for my favorite authors -- especially those from Baen.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I very much fear that any electoral process in which only supporters of the extremists do any campaigning can have only one outcome: the candidates supported by the extremists will win, because they will be the ones that people will have heard of.

It's almost like we're speaking different languages.
I consider ALL campaigning for literary award nominations to be extremist.

While it's true that campaigning could never be entirely eliminated from an award like the Hugos, it's also true that some subtle tweaking to the rules/process could drastically reduce the influence any one particular extremist campaign could bring to bear on the nom process (by lowering the barrier to nominate, but not the final vote). Why would people fight that kind of change?

EDIT: I'm done. The fact that there's been more discussion about the Hugo Awards themselves in recent years than there has been about the books that have been nominated is proof positive the award is becoming irrelevant. It should always be all about the books... and it's not. If the direction Sad Puppies wants to go is representative of fandom in general, then participation will only grow and the award and the Con will thrive and I will be wrong. So be it.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It's almost like we're speaking different languages.
ALL campaigning for award nominations is extremist.

But there is always campaigning for award nominations, it's just that most of the time, the campaigning is informal and behind the scenes. The only thing different about this is that it's out in the open (and the inside clique absolutely hates the idea that they are being bypassed).

[jdege]

I see serious problems with people who consider anyone who disagrees with them to be a "right wing hate group".

[DrNefario]

I did nominate. I nominated my favourite five books from 2014, which is the idea. My choice was fairly limited by the fact that I hadn't read many more than five books from 2014 (I think I'd read seven or eight). I might as well not have bothered.

There is no inside clique. The "opposition" that the puppies pretend they have is entirely of their own imagining.

Yes, there have always been some dubious nominations. There have always been self-promoters. There have always been writers with well-mobilised fan followings. There have occasionally been campaigns like last year's Wheel of Time thing. Sometimes, they are in fact actually popular books that I simply don't like and therefore I imagine foul play. These usually come out in the wash at the voting stage, because there are "real" alternatives which actually stand up on their own quality. (Or they end up winning a pity Hugo after a couple of years, usually for the wrong book, and go away.) This time there are no legit alternatives. All five nominees in all three of the short fiction categories come from the Puppy slates. All five related works come from the puppy slates.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by jdege

I see serious problems with people who consider anyone who disagrees with them to be a "right wing hate group".

I don't consider the sad puppies a right-wing hate group, but I do consider the rabid puppies and their allies to be that. Look them up.

Edit: Oh, and I disagree with plenty of people I don't consider to be right wing hate groups.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I very much fear that any electoral process in which only supporters of the extremists do any campaigning can have only one outcome: the candidates supported by the extremists will win, because they will be the ones that people will have heard of.

In the US, we call them caucuses.
And like the Hugos they are all about insider/outsider grievance politics.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

While it's true that campaigning could never be entirely eliminated from an award like the Hugos, it's also true that some subtle tweaking to the rules/process could drastically reduce the influence any one particular extremist campaign could bring to bear on the nom process (by lowering the barrier to nominate, but not the final vote). Why would people fight that kind of change?

You can't lower the barrier of the reading that needs to be done. I think opening nominations wider would make it easier to game, not harder.

I think my favoured solution would be reduce the voting slots so no one slate can flood a whole category.

But yes, I expect I'll be looking to other awards for inspiration in the short term. I've enjoyed my few years of participation in the Hugos, but I did fine without taking part for several decades before that, and I imagine I'll get by now.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

But yes, I expect I'll be looking to other awards for inspiration in the short term. I've enjoyed my few years of participation in the Hugos, but I did fine without taking part for several decades before that, and I imagine I'll get by now.

Yes. This is my exact feelings. I've only been involved with the Hugos for the past 3 years. I survived the previous 50 years without worrying about the award and I suspect I'll survive my remaining years without it also. There's plenty of places to get worthwhile recommendations (here, Goodreads, Reddit's Fantasy sub) that I won't be without good books to read.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

You can't lower the barrier of the reading that needs to be done. I think opening nominations wider would make it easier to game, not harder.

I think my favoured solution would be reduce the voting slots so no one slate can flood a whole category.

You could be right, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe the ONLY reason any one faction is able to garner the percentages necessary to sweep a category's nominations is precisely because of the small size of the pool of nominators. I don't believe any single slate could survive in a vastly bigger nominating pool. Namely because there would be factions and subfactions and infighting the bigger they got. So while a group like SP might be able to get A work nominated, I don't believe they'd ever be able to get the percentages needed to sweep a category in anything but the tiny pool they're swimming in right now. I just don't see any individual slate's influence scaling well to a vastly larger nominations pool where every faction (no matter how moderate or extreme) is welcome to swim. *shrug*

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I did nominate. I nominated my favourite five books from 2014, which is the idea. My choice was fairly limited by the fact that I hadn't read many more than five books from 2014 (I think I'd read seven or eight). I might as well not have bothered.

There is no inside clique. The "opposition" that the puppies pretend they have is entirely of their own imagining.

Yes, there have always been some dubious nominations. There have always been self-promoters. There have always been writers with well-mobilised fan followings. There have occasionally been campaigns like last year's Wheel of Time thing. Sometimes, they are in fact actually popular books that I simply don't like and therefore I imagine foul play. These usually come out in the wash at the voting stage, because there are "real" alternatives which actually stand up on their own quality. (Or they end up winning a pity Hugo after a couple of years, usually for the wrong book, and go away.) This time there are no legit alternatives. All five nominees in all three of the short fiction categories come from the Puppy slates. All five related works come from the puppy slates.

There very much is an insider clique and has been for years. All long term groups have insider cliques. Baen's web board has an insider clique, heck this board has an insider clique, though it's not as exclusive as most.

[Ekaros]

I would think that solution is to increase number of works on final poll while decreasing number of nominees per person. At the same time different slates should be allowed to fight it out... Then again, I don't really think that Hugo ever will present the whole spectrum of readers as they are linked to single con and people who tend to participate in such activities. As such I would much prefer award without any such link with much lower entry fee, while still having nominal one.

But then again, reading the hate this generates proves that some people need to get disappointed once in awhile...

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm saying that it's lack of participation in elections by those with moderate views which lets in the extremists; this happens time and time again in all sphere of life; I've seen it repeatedly. The solution is not to throw away the democratic process, but to encourage more people to participate.

You did not answer the question. The FAQ or the Hugo says you should have read the book or seen the work for you to nominate it. So are you saying you should not respect this just to fight a political fight? Why is that better than just abandon the award?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by jdege

I see serious problems with people who consider anyone who disagrees with them to be a "right wing hate group".

Can you please read what Vox Days opinions are before saying stuff like that. It is an informed opinion and not just something you say because a disagreement.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I did nominate. I nominated my favourite five books from 2014, which is the idea. My choice was fairly limited by the fact that I hadn't read many more than five books from 2014 (I think I'd read seven or eight). I might as well not have bothered.

There is no inside clique. The "opposition" that the puppies pretend they have is entirely of their own imagining.

Yes, there have always been some dubious nominations. There have always been self-promoters. There have always been writers with well-mobilised fan followings. There have occasionally been campaigns like last year's Wheel of Time thing. Sometimes, they are in fact actually popular books that I simply don't like and therefore I imagine foul play. These usually come out in the wash at the voting stage, because there are "real" alternatives which actually stand up on their own quality. (Or they end up winning a pity Hugo after a couple of years, usually for the wrong book, and go away.) This time there are no legit alternatives. All five nominees in all three of the short fiction categories come from the Puppy slates. All five related works come from the puppy slates.

Exactly. Things have not been perfect but kind of worked. Until someone decide to destroy a working system. I just find it strange that some people here seem think that destroying things are OK if the rule have not been broken.