2015 Hugo Award winners

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by tompe

No but it was what the rabid puppies were doing.

But here I just wanted people to say that is is wrong to vote with the intention of destroying the award regardless of if anybody have done it. The question if anybody has done it we can discus if people think it is wrong. But since people refuse to admit that it is wrong it is not necessary to discus if it has happened.

Sure, it's wrong to vote with the intention of destroying the award. Of course the only person saying people are voting to destroy the award is yourself.

Still, now I've admitted it's wrong to vote to destroy the award I assume you will be admitting that it is wrong to vote because the author/work is ticking some diversity boxes instead of being voted on the quality of writing/story.

And while I think about it how about all the lockstep slate voting of all the puppy nominations for No Award, I read it all and although some of it wasn't great, placing all of it below no award was a bit harsh and could very easily fit your claim of voting with the intention of destroying the award.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Would it prevent it? Could it not still be achieved by having two slates, with three of their favourites on each one? You'd need twice as many people to achieve the same goal, with 50% submitting one slate, and 50% the other, but it could still be done, couldn't it?

Well sure. But the organization and logistics involved in a multi-headed campaign like that would be harder to pull off. "Everyone nominate these" is trivial compared to "You nominate these and you other yous nominate these others (making sure there are sufficient numbers for each subcampain)."

@pdurrant: which other proposal were you referring to? None of them really struck me as unworthy--with the exception of the one proposed rule change to ensure a single, specific movie would still be elegible.

[darryl]

Deleted. Wrong thread.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Well sure. But the organization and logistics involved in a multi-headed campaign like that would be harder to pull off. "Everyone nominate these" is trivial compared to "You nominate these and you other yous nominate these others (making sure there are sufficient numbers for each subcampain)."

@pdurrant: which other proposal were you referring to? None of them really struck me as unworthy--with the exception of the one proposed rule change to ensure a single, specific movie would still be elegible.

I'm guessing pdurrant is talking about the rule where you get 1 point per category for a nomination and it is split between all your nominations.
So if you vote for 5 things each is worth a 1/5 of a point in the initial nomination. As works are excluded in the run-off you still have a full point (So if you nominated 5 things and only 2 are left in the run-off then each would be worth 0.5 point).

This seems the most likely to defeat slate nominating in my mind.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

@pdurrant: which other proposal were you referring to? None of them really struck me as unworthy--with the exception of the one proposed rule change to ensure a single, specific movie would still be elegible.

The other proposal that passed. That each nominator has a single point per category that gets spread over their nominations that are still in contention.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

The other proposal that passed. That each nominator has a single point per category that gets spread over their nominations that are still in contention.

Yes, the one called the "E Pluribus Hugo" proposal on the business meeting agent meera kindly provided a link to above.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

I'm guessing pdurrant is talking about the rule where you get 1 point per category for a nomination and it is split between all your nominations.
So if you vote for 5 things each is worth a 1/5 of a point in the initial nomination. As works are excluded in the run-off you still have a full point (So if you nominated 5 things and only 2 are left in the run-off then each would be worth 0.5 point).

This seems the most likely to defeat slate nominating in my mind.

Yes, it's basically a "single transferable vote" system as is widely used in many electoral systems.

[DiapDealer]

Oh. That one just sounded overly complicated to me (though it certainly has merits and could work). I prefer simple.

When you say it passed ... do you mean it's now in effect? Or was that the first year of the two consecutive years rule-change rule?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Oh. That one just sounded overly complicated to me (though it certainly has merits and could work). I prefer simple.

These things tend to be more difficult to describe than to actually use. It's precisely the same system that's being used at the moment in the election of the new leader of the British Labour Party, as a matter of interest .

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

These things tend to be more difficult to describe than to actually use. It's precisely the same system that's being used at the moment in the election of the new leader of the British Labour Party, as a matter of interest .

How's that working out?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

How's that working out?

We'll know on 12th September. And that's the last I'm going to say about it here.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We'll know on 12th September. And that's the last I'm going to say about it here.

I mean the process in general. Not the politics of it. There's no one's screaming about the process being broken or anything? All parties happy with their ability to nominate and campaign?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I mean the process in general. Not the politics of it. There's no one's screaming about the process being broken or anything? All parties happy with their ability to nominate and campaign?

It's a system that's been used for many years in all sorts of different elections. Seems to work well enough. It's not exactly the same as what's been proposed for the Hugo, but it's very similar. The only difference in the electoral system is that the voter ranks their choices from, say, 1-4, and if their first-place candidate is knocked out, their vote is transferred to their second-place candidate, and the process continues until only one candidate is left. The basic idea of it is exactly the same, however.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's a system that's been used for many years in all sorts of different elections. Seems to work well enough. It's not exactly the same as what's been proposed for the Hugo, but it's very similar.

I'll have to look into it. It may be like cribbage: much harder to explain how it's played than it is just play it.

No one said whether this was E Pluribus Hugo's first or second year.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'll have to look into it. It may be like cribbage: much harder to explain how it's played than it is just play it.

No one said whether this was E Pluribus Hugo's first or second year.

First year, I believe, as was the other.