2015 Hugo Award winners

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I think the problem here is that the slate nominations are not about having your say but about denying everyone else their say.

I nominated this year, and might as well not have bothered since I didn't have a few hundred willing drones to back up my votes. I foolishly nominated the best things I'd read. I feel that it's personally disrespectful to me and everyone like me to block-vote a slate like that, and the thousands of unaligned fans like me would seem to agree.

Is that message getting across on the social media sites where the slate promoters are pushing their message? Perhaps more needs to be done to get across the message that you do consider it to be disrespectful? Social media campaigns are so influential these days that it seems that whoever spends the most time putting forward their point of view attracts the most support.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by tompe

It was a simple question. Why can you not answer it? It was not a question about how to detect things. It was a question about if you thought a certain action was OK or no (morally).

No, you are implying that part of the puppy slate nominators/voters did not read every book they nominated while everybody else did 100%. Unless there is a rule in place that prohibits (not merely encourages) that a book has to be read. Are you quite certain that every "no award" resulted from the voter actually reading the complete slate (in a category)? Not just a few that claim they did so, but all of them. If you think it is not morally necessary to read through a book to vote "no award", but it is for nominating, then you are on a really slippery road.

Every rule change to discourage, disable, not allow slate voting that is put in place will effectively take away campaigning. That would, have to agree with Harry there, take away part of the democratic nature of the nominating / voting process.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

@Tommy,

Because, unlike you, I'm not willing to set myself up as a moral arbiter on the "correctness" or otherwise of someone's decision about whom to vote for. I'm disagreeing with what seems to be an attempt to make the process less democratic by restricting the right to recommend books. That's where we differ.

OK, so you seem to think it is OK to nominate a bad book with the intent to destroy the award.

Sorry, but I cannot fathom that kind of ethic or lack of ethic.

And "moral arbitrer"? I asked if you thought it was OK. Your opinion. Not anything universal. Like do you think it is OK to torture innocent children? Is your answer there also that you will not set yourself up as moral arbiter and say that it is wrong to torture innocent children. Or wrong in almost most cases.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by HarryT

@Tommy,

Because, unlike you, I'm not willing to set myself up as a moral arbiter on the "correctness" or otherwise of someone's decision about whom to vote for. I'm disagreeing with what seems to be an attempt to make the process less democratic by restricting the right to recommend books. That's where we differ.

But it is questionable that a slate makes the process more democratic. In my view it makes it less democratic and the results underline that. There are two stages at play: the nomination and the voting for the nominations. Due to the rules of the nomination, a small but concentrated slate can push books into the second stage. The second stage is where most people actually vote and where not an indefinit number of different books compete. Here it shows, that the nomination process failed, because the vast majority of voters dismissed the slate nominated works. It doesn't add to the democratic process, but halts it, if the desired output of the vote should be the books the voters found best that year.

So the question is, what to do with the first stage, the nomination. Either campaigning for different slates - changing the concept of the nomination in the process - or changing the rules, so that slates aren't possible.

The sad thing is, that it is necessary to change the rules. The social contract is broken and that is nothing that could be mended easily. Look at games. Nobody wants to play with "that guy", who always bends the rules and argues over them instead of just playing.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

No, you are implying that part of the puppy slate nominators/voters did not read every book they nominated while everybody else did 100%. Unless there is a rule in place that prohibits (not merely encourages) that a book has to be read. Are you quite certain that every "no award" resulted from the voter actually reading the complete slate (in a category)? Not just a few that claim they did so, but all of them. If you think it is not morally necessary to read through a book to vote "no award", but it is for nominating, then you are on a really slippery road.

Every rule change to discourage, disable, not allow slate voting that is put in place will effectively take away campaigning. That would, have to agree with Harry there, take away part of the democratic nature of the nominating / voting process.

I am not implying anything of the sort. I wanted to understand the opinion. And I am sure that people nominated books and other work without reading them. Or for just political reasons.

If you think voting with the intention to destroy an award is OK I think you have a disgusting opinion. Refusing to state that you think this kind of voting is wrong is just for me confirmation that you have this kind of opinion.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

But it is questionable that a slate makes the process more democratic. In my view it makes it less democratic and the results underline that.

I'm not saying that a slate makes the process more democratic, Dick, but rather that an attempt to ban slate voting will make the process less democratic, which is not the same thing. I don't see how you can ban slate voting without also curtailing the freedom to campaign for your favourite books.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by tompe

I am not implying anything of the sort. I wanted to understand the opinion. And I am sure that people nominated books and other work without reading them. Or for just political reasons.

If you think voting with the intention to destroy an award is OK I think you have a disgusting opinion. Refusing to state that you think this kind of voting is wrong is just for me confirmation that you have this kind of opinion.

It really depends what exactly the reason is for destroying. To destroy things in order to annihilate is not morally right, IMPO. If the intent is to shift the outcome of the Hugos to appeal to a different kind of reader, then I am not automatically against some violence if that is the only option. Freedom isn't free.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you deliberately setting out to misrepresent my views? You certainly seem to be. Please don't tell me what I'm saying when you get it so very wrong.

Let me try to make it clear:

I am not encouraging anyone to do or not to do anything. It's none of my business why someone chooses to vote for a book, and I don't think it should anyone's business except the voter's.

Why do you keep going on about "legislation"? I'm not suggesting that any rules be changed. Please stop suggesting that I am!

Well, I could've sworn you were strongly suggesting that they did nothing wrong because of something along the lines of "nothing in the rules says it's wrong" and furthermore advocating that the rules are the rules and we should stop complaining.
Where did I suggest that you suggested the rules be changed? I am deeply confused as to how you could have misunderstood me that badly.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by tompe

What does available for viewing mean? Why not suggest 50 works? Why just 10? 10 works will probably have to much impact.

The reason why the slates were so successful is that members could nominate up to 5 candidates, and the top 5 vote getters are the final nominees, and the slates provided (in most categories) exactly 5 candidates. Since the typical Worldcon member was often not nominating 5 works in each category, and not coordinating with other people (even if they were looking at things like the Locus recommended reading list, or Nebula nominees, etc.), the 200-400 puppy nominators voting a 5 candidate slate had a lock in on most categories. 10 candidates might provide a lock-in, for example, if everyone chooses to pick the first 5 candidates, but if the voters are using the lists as recommendations and picking the 5 they liked best, the better candidates will be more likely to get votes, people using the Sad Puppy guide may vote more like the typical Worldcon voter (not necessarily voting all 5 slots), and there won't be 200 nominees in lock step. Many Worldcon voters are aware of the influence that lists like the Locus recommended reading list have in the nomination process. If the Sad Puppies provide another influential reading list that provides enough choices that it's clear that it's not a simple "vote my ballot and we'll stick it to the SJWs", it will be much less contentious next year. Unfortunately, I don't expect Vox Day to follow Kate Paulk's lead.

[darryl]

I am getting the impression from posts here that all with the Hugo's was as pure as driven snow before the advent of the Puppies. Human nature and politics, however, make this quite unlikely. What the Puppies have done is to introduce one very public slate for their group. But before this, how did nominations work in practice? Was there a particular group that dominated such nominations, whether out of their own strength or the apathy of others? I have been an avid reader of SyFy from virtually the time I could read. But I am not a fan in the sense used. I have never attended a convention nor taken any special interest in the Hugo's or other awards. I do not have an axe to grind. But I can see fault here on both sides of the fence. And I don't see much of a future for these awards.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by darryl

I am getting the impression from posts here that all with the Hugo's was as pure as driven snow before the advent of the Puppies. Human nature and politics, however, make this quite unlikely. What the Puppies have done is to introduce one very public slate for their group. But before this, how did nominations work in practice? Was there a particular group that dominated such nominations, whether out of their own strength or the apathy of others?

Bleah, lost reply when I timed out. In the past, there were always recommendations by fans/fanzines/bloggers/magazines (like Locus) out during the nomination window. Some were probably more influential than others. I think it was common to for fans to list of few of their favorites, and most that I've seen included some commentary why they thought them nomination worthy. Recommended reading lists, like the ones from Locus, NEFSA and Emerald City usually had at least 15-20 recommendations for each writing category. While Frank Wu's analysis of the 2001-2005 Hugos showed that most of the winners and nominees showed up in these recommendation lists, it's hard to say whether the list compilers just had similar tastes to the nominators, or if the nominators were using the lists as a guide.

There have been a couple of cases where someone was known to have tried to buy a Hugo, like the time a set of Worldcon memberships were bought with mail order checks with serial numbers in order, and then they all voted for the same work(s). I think it may have been for Battlefield Earth or another Hubbard novel.

There's no doubt that fanzines, bloggers and other social media can be very influential. The backlash against the puppy slates this year and last were in large part due to social media campaigns. Likewise, I think various authors, fans, and bloggers have been influential in the nominations and votes for best editor. For example, I think Charlie Stross campaigned for a Hugo for his editor Ginjer Buchanan, who was retiring last year, and she won. I don't think anyone prior to Ted Beale (Vox Day) had ever so blatantly campaigned for the Hugos by publishing a slate where 4 of 5 nominees for Novella were published by him, 1 of 5 Novelettes, 2 of 5 short stories, 2 of 5 related works, and of course, him for editor in both categories, and then advertised on it his blog as "sticking it to the SJWs" (or something close to that).

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by darryl

I am getting the impression from posts here that all with the Hugo's was as pure as driven snow before the advent of the Puppies.

Of course they weren't, but losing one or two slots out of five still leaves you with a reasonable choice. Five slots out of five leaves with No Award.

[DuckieTigger]

@bgalbrecht: so in other words what you are trying to say is that the Hugo has always been pretty much predetermined from the beginning. Unless a book had already been on one of those reading recommendations it never had a chance of a nomination let alone a win. No wonder that so many point fingers to the bad wolf (puppy) for disrupting the pattern. It has been tradition to only associate award worthy to those few books that made the shortlist of them reading recommendations. It is not really that far fetched to imagine a master puppeteer (or a group) that secretely pulls the strings to influence those more successful reading lists.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Precisely the opposite. I am opposed to rule changes that will restrict choice.

And yet, the proposed rule changes were proposed and voted on completely within the rules of the award system. The potential to change the rules is built in and perfectly legal.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by meeera

And yet, the proposed rule changes were proposed and voted on completely within the rules of the award system. The potential to change the rules is built in and perfectly legal.

Not every change to an organisation's rules is a good one, and this (IMHO) would not be if it restricted the freedom of Worldcon supporters to nominate and campaign for their preferred choice of book. It's not the legality or otherwise of it that I was commenting on. I don't believe anyone's suggested that anyone's done anything which is against the rules.