Finalists: 2015 Hugo Award

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

Here's the "fun" part: the SP4 plans have already commenced. By all available evidence, this isn't a stunt to prove something and then stop - it's an ongoing campaign. It wasn't enough last year to show that a determined group could put something on the ballot. It's not enough this year to utterly control the ballot. What will be enough? Most likely, nothing.

I think it's time for the Hugos to change their nominating process in such a way that no slate - Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies, the supposed Sekrit Libruls, or anyone else - will be able to exert this kind of influence. Off the cuff, two suggestions come to mind, either independently or in tandem:

1. Nobody gets to nominate more than two works in any category. (The shortlist is typically five.)
   
2. Two nomination rounds. The first is wide open, anyone eligible to nominate can toss in any number of eligible works. Those nominations are then reduced to a manageable field that's still much larger than the planned shortlist - say, 25 or 50 that will get pared down to five. Maybe the reduction is just "top X votes to nominate," or maybe there's some anti-slate rule added in, but the second round of nominations pulls exclusively from that pool. If combined with #1 above, this is where "vote for two" comes in - and heck, call 'em "primary choice and alternate" if you wish.

It's not a perfect solution, and I'm not sure what sort of fair anti-slate criteria could be devised, but it's something.

They could also just abolish the thing.
For a decade or so.

When children fight over a toy you take it away until they learn to behave.
It's not as if the world would end.

[DiapDealer]

The suggestion I've seen bandied around that intrigues me is the one based solely on greatly increasing nominations. Nothing else really changes.

Under this new plan, a $40 supporting membership would buy you a LIFETIME of nomination rights. To get the voter pack and to vote, you still need to pay for a membership that year.

The full explanation and rationale: https://storify.com/jdiddyesquire/my-hugo-proposal

[jdege]

Simple truth is that a small group of zealots had taken over the Hugos, mainly because most fans weren't paying much attention. A couple of writers suggested that there were a lot of Good writers and good stories that were not being considered, because the small group that had taken control disapproved, and offered examples.

And Fandom noticed, listened, and mostly agreed with them.

[murg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The suggestion I've seen bandied around that intrigues me is the one based solely on greatly increasing nominations. Nothing else really changes.

Under this new plan, a $40 supporting membership would buy you a LIFETIME of nomination rights. To get the voter pack and to vote, you still need to pay for a membership that year.

The full explanation and rationale: https://storify.com/jdiddyesquire/my-hugo-proposal

So, making it cheaper to manipulate the nominations is the solution?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by murg

So, making it cheaper to manipulate the nominations is the solution?

If I got the price of this year's supporting membership wrong, then by all means, feel free to insert $"whatever-the-current-price-for-a-supporting-membership-costs-this-year" in place of the $40 I mentioned. The price can change sometimes from year to year after all.

But regardless, I fail to see how more and more people nominating would help facilitate manipulation of the the nomination process--no matter the price. That there's a relatively "smallish" number of people who nominate (and vote) for any particular year is a big part of the reason the nomination process is being so easily manipulated in the first place.

A one time fee for the right to nominate in perpetuity guarantees a larger and larger nomination pool; and the con still gets to sell new annual voting priviledges/memberships. Which will make it difficult to stack the nomination deck.

The actual voting has never been particularly surprising or shocking. Whatever the choices are, voters rarely seem to completely ignore the relative merits of the choices they're given.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by jdege

Simple truth is that a small group of zealots had taken over the Hugos, mainly because most fans weren't paying much attention. A couple of writers suggested that there were a lot of Good writers and good stories that were not being considered, because the small group that had taken control disapproved, and offered examples.

And Fandom noticed, listened, and mostly agreed with them.

And GamerGate really WAS all about ethics in journalism, and they all dined on green cheese brought back from the moon.

(Translation: Pull the other one.)

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I do like the Dresden Files books, but do I think they are worthy of a Hugo? I don't think they are worthy of a Hugo. What's happened is that these pathetic puppies have insulted these authors they put on their lists. They are making fun of them big time.

Actually, one of their complaints is that hugely successful authors never seem to get awards anymore, except the evil Scalzi (whose NYT Bestseller Redshirts won the Hugo). I think Jim Butcher, Kevin Anderson, and maybe Marko Kloos (as their nod to Amazon indie authors) were on the Sad Puppy slate for that reason. Plus, the Anderson and Kloos works are both interstellar warfare space opera, which they especially like. I haven't read any of them, but I did like Charles Gannon's Trial By Fire and nominated it (and nominated the first book in the series last year), but it wasn't on Vox Day's Rabid Puppy slate. I think it was the Vox Day fan base that drove the nominee list, every one of his choices for novella was a nominee, including three by John C. Wright published by his publishing house.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The suggestion I've seen bandied around that intrigues me is the one based solely on greatly increasing nominations. Nothing else really changes.

Under this new plan, a $40 supporting membership would buy you a LIFETIME of nomination rights. To get the voter pack and to vote, you still need to pay for a membership that year.

The full explanation and rationale: https://storify.com/jdiddyesquire/my-hugo-proposal

The solution I've heard that I like better is the single transferable vote. Everyone gets a single vote that is transferable if your first choice drops out. This makes it much harder for a block of voters to overload the nominations. Instead of being able to vote for 5 works, and getting a block of X people to vote for the same 5 works, and shutting out all other nominees (as happened for the novella award), you'd need 5 discreet groups for the shutout. It's still possible to game the system, but a lot harder to monopolize a category.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

Actually, one of their complaints is that hugely successful authors never seem to get awards anymore, except the evil Scalzi (whose NYT Bestseller Redshirts won the Hugo). I think Jim Butcher, Kevin Anderson, and maybe Marko Kloos (as their nod to Amazon indie authors) were on the Sad Puppy slate for that reason. Plus, the Anderson and Kloos works are both interstellar warfare space opera, which they especially like. I haven't read any of them, but I did like Charles Gannon's Trial By Fire and nominated it (and nominated the first book in the series last year), but it wasn't on Vox Day's Rabid Puppy slate. I think it was the Vox Day fan base that drove the nominee list, every one of his choices for novella was a nominee, including three by John C. Wright published by his publishing house.

Hugely successful and award worthy don't always go hand in hand. 50 Shades of Grey is hugely successful and it's a pile of dog poo (to be kind).

I'm not saying that Jim Butcher is dog poo. I like his books. But I do feel that the awards should be about the quality of the work. Lots of hugely successful authors aren't award worthy. If some sick twisted puppies are going to game the system, then the system is broken and needs to be closed until the system can be fixed.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Hugely successful and award worthy don't always go hand in hand. 50 Shades of Grey is hugely successful and it's a pile of dog poo (to be kind).

I'm not saying that Jim Butcher is dog poo. I like his books. But I do feel that the awards should be about the quality of the work. Lots of hugely successful authors aren't award worthy. If some sick twisted puppies are going to game the system, then the system is broken and needs to be closed until the system can be fixed.

I'm just repeating the gist of a conversation I had with one of the Sad Puppies. He was arguing that because last year's winner Ancillary Justice had a lower sales rank than, for example, several Star Trek and Star Wars novels, Ender's Game and several 99 cent space operas, that proved it was unworthy of the Hugo award, and that it was a sign that the Hugo voters were out of touch and picking unpopular works instead of picking good, popular novels.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

I'm just repeating the gist of a conversation I had with one of the Sad Puppies. He was arguing that because last year's winner Ancillary Justice had a lower sales rank than, for example, several Star Trek and Star Wars novels, Ender's Game and several 99 cent space operas, that proved it was unworthy of the Hugo award, and that it was a sign that the Hugo voters were out of touch and picking unpopular works instead of picking good, popular novels.

If sales numbers matter, just look at the sales data and crown a winner. No voting required.

If quality matters, the sales numbers are irrelevant and said SP walloped you with a large red herring.

Finally, the "popular works don't get Hugos" premise itself is easily disproven. Just look at the 21st century's winners in the Dramatic Presentation (Long) categories. All three LOTR movies, The Incredibles, Serenity, WALL-E, Inception, first season of Game of Thrones, Avengers, and Gravity. For short form, the last decade amounts to Doctor Who and Game of Thrones, plus one episode of BSG and some SJW's indie musical about "Dr. Horrible." (I hear the guy now makes movies about guys in tights. Whadda loser, amirite?)

If those ain't "popular works," just what qualifies?

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

If sales numbers matter, just look at the sales data and crown a winner. No voting required.

If quality matters, the sales numbers are irrelevant and said SP walloped you with a large red herring.

Finally, the "popular works don't get Hugos" premise itself is easily disproven. Just look at the 21st century's winners in the Dramatic Presentation (Long) categories. All three LOTR movies, The Incredibles, Serenity, WALL-E, Inception, first season of Game of Thrones, Avengers, and Gravity. For short form, the last decade amounts to Doctor Who and Game of Thrones, plus one episode of BSG and some SJW's indie musical about "Dr. Horrible." (I hear the guy now makes movies about guys in tights. Whadda loser, amirite?)

If those ain't "popular works," just what qualifies?

Dramatic Presentations are almost always popular movies / TV shows. For Novels, we had a Harry Potter novel, Chabon's Yiddish Policeman's Union, a couple of Neil Gaimon novels, all of which I'm pretty sure made the NYT bestseller lists as well as most SF best of lists. It was his website, and I wasn't interested in trying to spend any time arguing with him over what I thought was a stupid premise. He also claimed he knew (SJW) nominators were nominating stuff they didn't care for but they thought were important. Probably neither provable nor widespread in my opinion.

For what it's worth, I've only nominated a couple of times because I generally don't read that much of the current year's books, and my favorites of the nominees usually don't win the awards. However, I don't take that as a sign that there's a conspiracy to rig the awards.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

It was his website, and I wasn't interested in trying to spend any time arguing with him over what I thought was a stupid premise. He also claimed he knew (SJW) nominators were nominating stuff they didn't care for but they thought were important. Probably neither provable nor widespread in my opinion.

That's the part that gets me. The SP/RP faction is literally a group of conspiracy theorists, and their solution to the conspiracy is to make... another conspiracy! But out in the open, where everyone can see it!

I mean, if their premise is correct - that a secret cabal has been gaming the nominations - then why hasn't the Righteous Majority the Puppies claim to represent "kicked over the table" by using the No Award protest tactic that's being discussed by some non-Puppies this year? It's not a new provision in the rules, after all.

I just can't follow their stated reasoning at all.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

For what it's worth, I've only nominated a couple of times because I generally don't read that much of the current year's books, and my favorites of the nominees usually don't win the awards. However, I don't take that as a sign that there's a conspiracy to rig the awards.

It's quite difficult to nominate properly. I don't read that many brand-new works. I'm not often willing to pay hardback prices, for a start. This year was the first year I'd actually read more than 5 books from the previous year, and I hadn't read any short fiction I thought was good enough.

As long as that is the case and the barrier to entry is low, it will be possible for a small organised group to put something on the ballot.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

Here's the "fun" part: the SP4 plans have already commenced. By all available evidence, this isn't a stunt to prove something and then stop - it's an ongoing campaign. It wasn't enough last year to show that a determined group could put something on the ballot. It's not enough this year to utterly control the ballot. What will be enough? Most likely, nothing.

I think it's time for the Hugos to change their nominating process in such a way that no slate - Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies, the supposed Sekrit Libruls, or anyone else - will be able to exert this kind of influence. Off the cuff, two suggestions come to mind, either independently or in tandem:

1. Nobody gets to nominate more than two works in any category. (The shortlist is typically five.)
   
2. Two nomination rounds. The first is wide open, anyone eligible to nominate can toss in any number of eligible works. Those nominations are then reduced to a manageable field that's still much larger than the planned shortlist - say, 25 or 50 that will get pared down to five. Maybe the reduction is just "top X votes to nominate," or maybe there's some anti-slate rule added in, but the second round of nominations pulls exclusively from that pool. If combined with #1 above, this is where "vote for two" comes in - and heck, call 'em "primary choice and alternate" if you wish.

It's not a perfect solution, and I'm not sure what sort of fair anti-slate criteria could be devised, but it's something.

I really don't understand what the issue is. If these guys can push to get their favourite authors on the shortlist, why can't you, or anyone else, do the same? Isn't that what an electoral process is all about? Persuading other people to support your viewpoint?