Finalists: 2015 Hugo Award

[tompe]

Originally Posted by 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.

There are such awards. Go and vote for the Locus Award. Anybody can vote.

In the same way that the Oscars are not intended to represent all movie going people the Hugo is not intended to represent all SF readers.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

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*

I understand your reasoning here, but I believe it to be incorrect.

There are a lot of SFF books published over the course of any year. There are currently about 2000 nominating ballots, of which slate voting is estimated to affect about 10-15%. Slate voters are subject to the same restrictions as non-slate voters; the same pricing barrier affects all would-be participants. Non-slate voters are picking from a huge field, with no limits on it. Slate voters are picking from a narrower field (because they have to share some common viewpoint to be attracted to the campaign in the first place) that is drastically narrowed when the slate is compiled, then slightly expanded when its adherents submit their nominating ballots and decide whether to vote the whole slate or only part of it.

Going no further than that, a slate has impact disproportionate to its number of members. Any rules change that affects "both sides" (slate and non-slate) equally has to be considered in that light.

Imagine this as a literal voting pool - as in, a body of liquid. Non-slate nominations look like a puddle: wide and shallow. Slate nominations look more like a straw: tall and skinny. If the goal is to reduce the impact slates can have, the puddle has to get deeper and the straw has to get shorter. Agreed?

So, what happens if you ease the entry requirements? Well, more of the people who saw the slates but weren't motivated enough to overcome those requirements are now sufficiently motivated to participate - so slate voting increases. My instinct is to say that it increases even in proportion to total participation, but let's set that variable aside for now. Say instead that the entry barrier is lowered enough to multiply the voting pool by ten. Instead of 2000 nominating ballots, there are now 20,000. Instead of 1700-1800 people nominating from an open field, now there are 17-18K doing so...versus the 2000-3000 who are not.

The award-winning question is, therefore: is the increase in non-slate voting a big enough difference to offset the impact of the slate?

I don't think so. For that to happen, one of two things needs to be true. First, the influx of non-slate voters would have to not increase the number of works they nominate, making the puddle deeper and not wider. I think that's unlikely, to the point of "not happening." Second, the straw has to get wider and shorter. Again, not happening; if anything, the straw gets much taller, because each slate has its own winnowing process. The produced slate is not appreciably bigger (wider straw), but there are more people voting for it (taller straw).

No, lowering the barriers to participation won't solve this problem. It may be a good thing for other reasons, but it is an insufficient measure at best. It could work to drown a "whispering campaign" slate, such as the one the Puppies have alleged exists Behind The Scenes, but it doesn't stand a chance against public slates. A whisper slate is by nature a short straw; the secrecy requirement means there can't be many people involved, and that's why that possibility hasn't been seen as much of a problem in the past.

That was longer than I wanted it to be, but hopefully it's clear and correct. If not, I'm sure someone will speak up and show me where I'm fuzzy or wrong.

[DiapDealer]

I'm not looking to "drown" any particular slate. I mean to dilute them with many other competing slates--public or whispered. I don't believe any slate would continue to grow proportionally with an ever increasing pool size. So since there's no real way to entirely stop slate voting, I would only seek to reduce their ability to sweep entire categories. I still contend and believe that a massive increase in the number of nominators would achieve just that (if only because more and more slates would develop as a result). And as always, the final voting would continue to dismiss the truly unworthy nominations. I repectfully remain unconvinced that I'm wrong in this regard.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm not looking to "drown" any particular slate. I mean to dilute them with many other competing slates--public or whispered.

Same thing, different word. Basically, you'd prefer to see the puddle become a handful of straws, lessening one slate's influence at what I consider too high a price: a narrower breadth of nominees.

(Note that I'm not talking about a demographic shift in the works nominated, just that ten slates of five nominees is fifty competing works, whereas a thousand people nominating without slates would list far more than that. A slate of demographically diverse nominees is, in my opinion, just as bad as an "all-MilSF" or an "all-Paranormal Romance" slate.)

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I don't believe any slate would continue to grow proportionally with an ever increasing pool size.

Why not? It happens in the United States every time there's an election; regardless of the turnout, the proportions stay fairly consistent. Why should I expect this slate to behave differently?

[doubleshuffle]

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 read a lot of scifi and thus are not particularly interested in the Hugos. But last year's hubbub was loud enough for me to notice, so I followed a few links and ended up reading some of Vox Day's blog posts, especially the ones where he slanders (and that's a harmless word for what he does) John Scalzi. No more evidence needed that Day alone is a right wing hate group all by himself.

And anybody who isn't appalled enough by that guy to stay away from him can't be much better.

[Barty]

Note to self: ignore the Hugo. That is all.

[murg]

What's a Hugo?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

I don't read a lot of scifi and thus are not particularly interested in the Hugos. But last year's hubbub was loud enough for me to notice, so I followed a few links and ended up reading some of Vox Day's blog posts, especially the ones where he slanders (and that's a harmless word for what he does) John Scalzi. No more evidence needed that Day alone is a right wing hate group all by himself.

And anybody who isn't appalled enough by that guy to stay away from him can't be much better.

The slandering isn't exactly one sided there. Charles Stross (whom I actually like as an author) calls him a jackbooted neo-nazi. Ted Beale (i.e. Vox Day) and John Scalzi (whom I also like as an author) are currently engaged in a flame war all across the internet. Can't say that I've ever read any of Ted Beale's books, nor am I a fan of some of the view points he pushes, but then again I'm not a big fan of Stross or Scalzi's political views either and even less fond of their method of discussing different views.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The slandering isn't exactly one sided there. Charles Stross (whom I actually like as an author) calls [Vox Day] a jackbooted neo-nazi.

To be slander, it must be untrue. I can't speak to VD's taste in footgear, but after reading his posts, the "neo-Nazi" part appears to be accurate. He literally considers minorities to be subhuman, and has explicitly said so on multiple occasions. How is acknowledging that slanderous?

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The slandering isn't exactly one sided there. Charles Stross (whom I actually like as an author) calls him a jackbooted neo-nazi. Ted Beale (i.e. Vox Day) and John Scalzi (whom I also like as an author) are currently engaged in a flame war all across the internet. Can't say that I've ever read any of Ted Beale's books, nor am I a fan of some of the view points he pushes, but then again I'm not a big fan of Stross or Scalzi's political views either and even less fond of their method of discussing different views.

Problem is.. Vox Day **is** a jackbooted neo-nazi. And a racist. And a Misogynist. Whatever your views of Stross and Scalzi, they are no match to the vile person Vox Day is.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The slandering isn't exactly one sided there.

As far as I've seen, there is a big difference between what the two sides here do. Well, I can't really say much about Stross, not having read any of his contributions to the debate, but I've read a bit of what Scalzi has to say about VD, and while he calls him many colourful names, he never even comes close to what VD did in his "McRapey" campaign, for which he took a quote from an obviously sarcastic satirical piece by Scalzi to publicly accuse him of confessing to being a rapist - even after being told Scalzi's article was satirical (which he had known from the start of course.)

That is what I meant by slander: repeatedly falsely accusing someone of a serious crime in order to discredit their views. That's on a whole other level than namecalling.

How anybody can take someone who resorts to such tactics seriously as a contributor to public debate (rather than as a threat to society, common decency and intelligence) is beyond me.

[piper28]

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

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.

Of course, that's exactly what every union, political group, and newspaper do for US elections. Unions in particular are particularly vehement that their members should take the list of their approved slate of candidates to the polls and vote that slate. So is it really any surprise that this can happen in other types of votes?

Inherently, the problem boils down to the fact that the average person voting in most elections is probably an idiot that shouldn't be allowed to vote because they can't think for themselves. But that's true in almost any election, for anything. Either that or I have no faith in humanity . With as few votes as there are for the Hugo's, it's just too susceptible to any type of influence.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by piper28

Of course, that's exactly what every union, political group, and newspaper do for US elections.

Which is why the NRA gets an effective veto on gun laws and Wall Street writes financial "reforms." I do not consider that a system to which we should aspire. Frankly, I consider it more of a "See that? Don't be like that!" example.

[DrNefario]

If the Hugos become more the like the US election, then I think that's tragedy enough for anyone.

[kennyc]

And here's what George R.R. Martin thinks per his blog:

http://grrm.livejournal.com/417125.html

http://grrm.livejournal.com/417521.html

and Charlie Stross:

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog...-publishe.html