Sasquan Final Hugo Ballot Adds Novel Three-Body Problem, Short Story “Single Samurai”

In the wake of two authors pulling their nominated works from contention, Sasquan Hugo administrator John Lorentz has made two more adjustments and locked the final 2015 Hugo ballot.

In the Best Novel category, The Three-Body Problem by Cixin Liu (translated by Ken Liu) replaced Lines of Departure, which was withdrawn by its author, Marko Kloos.

And in the Best Short category, Steven Diamond’s “A Single Samurai” filled the vacancy left by “Goodnight Stars” by Annie Bellet, which also was withdrawn by its author.

The ballot is now going to the printer and there will be no further revisions.

The Hugo administrator explained The Three-Body Problem was originally published in Chinese in 2008, but the 2014 publication by Tor was the first English-language version, rendering it eligible again for the Hugo, according to section 3.4.1 of the WSFS Constitution.

Lorentz also corrected the listing for “The Day the World Turned Upside Down” (by Thomas Olde Heuvelt) which originally did not include the name of the translator, Lia Belt.

The full press release, which outlines all the revisions made since the original announcement on April 4, follows the jump.

In respect to the Sad Puppies 3 and Rabid Puppies slates, the cumulative turnover has replaced four nominees on a slate with two nominees not on a slate – The Three-Body Problem and “The Day the World Turned Upside Down” – and two nominees that were on a slate, “A Single Samurai” (Sad Puppies 3, only) and artist Kirk DouPonce (Rabid Puppies, only).

MEDIA RELEASE #2015-4
Sasquan, the 73rd World Science Fiction Convention

19-23 August 2015 at Spokane WA USA

http://www.sasquan.org

pressrelease@sasquan.org

Hugo Awards Final Ballot – REVISED AGAIN: FINAL VERSION

Spokane, 16 April 2015

Since the version of the ballot sent out two days ago, there have a few more changes. They are detailed at the start of this Media Release, followed by the final version of the ballot.

In the Best Novel category, Lines of Departure by Marko Kloos has been withdrawn by its author.  It has been replaced by The Three-Body Problem by Cixin Liu (translated by Ken Liu).

In the Best Short category, “Goodnight Stars” by Annie Bellet has been withdrawn by its author.  It has been replaced by “A Single Samurai” by Steven Diamond.

In the Novelette category, the listing for “The Day the World Turned Upside Down” (by Thomas Olde Heuvelt) originally did not include the name of the translator, Lia Belt.  That has now been corrected.

It is believed that this is the first time that multiple fiction finalists were originally written in languages other than English.
The ballot is now going to the printer and there will be no further revisions.

Previous changes:

The nominees that follow were chosen by popular vote of members of Loncon 3 (the 2014 Worldcon), Sasquan (the 2015 Worldcon) and MidAmeriCon II (the 2016 Worldcon). Note that this is revised from the first ballot which was released on 4 April 2015. In particular:

In the Best Novelette category,  “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus” by John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House) was replaced by “The Day the World Turned Upside Down” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt (Lightspeed Magazine, April 2014) – it had not been substantially revised since its original online publication in 2013;

In the Best Professional Artist category, Jon Eno was replaced by Kirk DouPonce.

We also misnamed Adventures in SciFi Publishing.

A total of 2122 valid nomination forms were received (2119 online and 3 paper).

A list of the top 15 nominees in each category, along with the number of nominations received by each, will be released after the Hugo Awards Ceremony on Saturday, 22 August, 2015 at Sasquan.

Best Novel (1827 nominating ballots, 587 entries, range 212-387)
• Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie (Orbit US; Orbit UK)
• The Dark Between the Stars by Kevin J. Anderson (Tor Books)
• The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison (Sarah Monette) (Tor Books)
• Skin Game by Jim Butcher (Roc Books)
• The Three-Body Problem by Cixin Liu, Ken Liu translator (Tor Books)

[The Three-Body Problem was originally published in Chinese in 2008.  The 2014 publication by Tor was the first English-language version, and therefore it is again eligible for the Hugos, according to section 3.4.1 of the WSFS Constitution.]

Best Novella (1083 nominating ballots, 201 entries, range 145-338)

  • Big Boys Don’t Cry by Tom Kratman (Castalia House)
  • “Flow” by Arlan Andrews, Sr. (Analog, Nov 2014)
  • One Bright Star to Guide Them by John C. Wright (Castalia House)
  • “Pale Realms of Shade” by John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
  • “The Plural of Helen of Troy by John C. Wright (City Beyond Time: Tales of the Fall of Metachronopolis, Castalia House)

[Both Big Boys Don’t Cry and One Bright Star to Guide Them were previously published in much shorter versions, and were significantly expanded to novella-length in their 2014 publication.  Following previous precedents, for the purposes of the 2015 Hugos they are designated as new works.]

Best Novelette (1031 nominating ballots, 314 entries, (72-267)

  • “Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Earth to Alluvium” by Gray Rinehart (Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show, May 2014)
  • “Championship B’tok” by Edward M. Lerner (Analog, Sept 2014)
  • “The Day The World Turned Upside Down” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt, Lia Belt translator (Lightspeed Magazine, April 2014)
  • “The Journeyman: In the Stone House” by Michael F. Flynn (Analog, June 2014)
  • “The Triple Sun: A Golden Age Tale” by Rajnar Vajra (Analog, Jul/Aug 2014)

Best Short Story (1174 nominating ballots, 728 entries, range 132-226)

  • “On A Spiritual Plain” by Lou Antonelli (Sci Phi Journal #2, Nov 2014)
  • “The Parliament of Beasts and Birds” by John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
  • “A Single Samurai” by Steven Diamond (The Baen Big Book of Monsters, Baen Books)
  • “Totaled” by Kary English (Galaxy’s Edge Magazine, July 2014)
  • “Turncoat” by Steve Rzasa (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)

Best Related Work (1150 nominating ballots, 346 entries, range 206-273)

  • “The Hot Equations: Thermodynamics and Military SF” by Ken Burnside (Riding the Red Horse, Castalia House)
  • Letters from Gardner by Lou Antonelli (The Merry Blacksmith Press)
  • Transhuman and Subhuman: Essays on Science Fiction and Awful Truth by John C. Wright (Castalia House)
  • “Why Science is Never Settled” by Tedd Roberts (Baen.com)
  • Wisdom from My Internet by Michael Z. Williamson (Patriarchy Press)

Best Graphic Story (785 nominating ballots, 325 entries, range 60-201)

  •  Ms. Marvel Volume 1: No Normal written by G. Willow Wilson, illustrated by Adrian Alphona and Jake Wyatt (Marvel Comics)
  • Rat Queens Volume 1: Sass and Sorcery written by Kurtis J. Weibe, art by Roc Upchurch (Image Comics)
  • Saga Volume 3 written by Brian K. Vaughan, illustrated by Fiona Staples (Image Comics)
  • Sex Criminals Volume 1: One Weird Trick written by Matt Fraction, art by Chip Zdarsky (Image Comics)
  • The Zombie Nation Book #2: Reduce Reuse Reanimate by Carter Reid (The Zombie Nation)

Dramatic Presentation (Long Form) (1285 nominating ballots, 189 entries, range 204-769)

  • Captain America: The Winter Soldier screenplay by Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely, concept and story by Ed Brubaker, directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo (Marvel Entertainment, Perception, Sony Pictures Imageworks)
  • Edge of Tomorrow screenplay by Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, and John-Henry Butterworth, directed by Doug Liman (Village Roadshow, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, 3 Arts Entertainment; Viz Productions)
  • Guardians of the Galaxy written by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman, directed by James Gunn (Marvel Studios, Moving Picture Company)
  • Interstellar screenplay by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan, directed by Christopher Nolan (Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures, Legendary Pictures, Lynda Obst Productions, Syncopy)
  • The Lego Movie written by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, story by Dan Hageman, Kevin Hageman, Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, directed by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller (Warner Bros. Pictures, Village Roadshow Pictures, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, LEGO Systems A/S Vertigo Entertainment, Lin Pictures, Warner Bros. Animation (as Warner Animation Group))

Dramatic Presentation (Short Form) (938 nominating ballots, 470 entries, range 71-170)

  •  Doctor Who: “Listen” written by Steven Moffat, directed by Douglas Mackinnon (BBC Television)
  • The Flash: “Pilot” teleplay by Andrew Kreisberg & Geoff Johns, story by Greg Berlanti, Andrew Kreisberg & Geoff Johns, directed by David Nutter (The CW) (Berlanti Productions, DC Entertainment, Warner Bros. Television)
  • Game of Thrones: “The Mountain and the Viper” written by David Benioff & D.B. Weiss, directed by Alex Graves (HBO Entertainment in association with Bighead, Littlehead; Television 360; Startling Television and Generator Productions)
  • Grimm: “Once We Were Gods”, written by Alan DiFiore, directed by Steven DePaul (NBC) (GK Productions, Hazy Mills Productions, Universal TV)
  • Orphan Black: “By Means Which Have Never Yet Been Tried” written by Graham Manson, directed by John Fawcett (Temple Street Productions; Space/BBC America)

Best Editor (Short Form) (870 nominating ballots, 187 entries, range 162-279)

  • Jennifer Brozek
  •  Vox Day
  •  Mike Resnick
  •  Edmund R. Schubert
  •  Bryan Thomas Schmidt

Best Editor (Long Form) (712 nominating ballots, 124 entries, range 166-368)

  •  Vox Day
  •  Sheila Gilbert
  •  Jim Minz
  •  Anne Sowards
  •  Toni Weisskopf

Best Professional Artist (753 nominating ballots, 300 entries, range 118-188)

  • Julie Dillon
  • Kirk DouPonce
  • Nick Greenwood
  • Alan Pollack
  • Carter Reid

Best Semiprozine (660 nominating ballots, 100 entries, range 94-229)

  • Abyss & Apex Wendy Delmater editor and publisher
  • Andromeda Spaceways In-Flight Magazine Andromeda Spaceways Publishing Association Incorporated, 2014 editors David Kernot and Sue Burtsztynski
  • Beneath Ceaseless Skies edited by Scott H. Andrews
  • Lightspeed Magazine, edited by John Joseph Adams, Wendy N. Wagner, Stefan Rudnicki, Rich Horton and Christie Yant
  • Strange Horizons Niall Harrison (Editor-in-Chief), Brit Mandelo, An Owomoyela and Julia Rios (Fiction Editors), Sonya Taaffe (Senior Poetry Editor), Abigail Nussbaum (Senior Reviews Editor), Rebecca Cross (Columns Editor), Anaea Lay (Podcast Editor) and Tim Moore (Webmaster)

Best Fanzine (576 nominating ballots, 162 entries, range 68-208)

  • Black Gate, edited by John O’Neill
  • Elitist Book Reviews edited by Steven Diamond
  • Journey Planet edited by James Bacon, Chris Garcia, Alissa McKersie, Colin Harris, and Helen Montgomery
  • The Revenge of Hump Day edited by Tim Bolgeo
  • Tangent SF Online, edited by Dave Truesdale

Best Fancast (668 nominating ballots, 162 entries, range 69-179)

  • Adventures in SciFi Publishing Brent Bowen (Executive Producer), Kristi Charish, Timothy C. Ward, Shaun Ferrell & Moses Siregar III (Co-Hosts, Interviewers and Producers)
  • Dungeon Crawlers Radio Daniel Swenson (Producer/Host), Travis Alexander & Scott Tomlin (Hosts), Dale Newton (Host/Tech), Damien Swenson (Audio/Video Tech)
  • Galactic Suburbia Podcast, Alisa Krasnostein, Alexandra Pierce, Tansy Rayner Roberts (Presenters) and Andrew Finch (Producer)
  • The Sci Phi Show Jason Rennie
  • Tea and Jeopardy Emma Newman and Peter Newman

Best Fan Writer (777 nominating ballots, 265 entries, range 129-201)

  • Dave Freer
  • Amanda S. Green
  • Jeffro Johnson
  • Laura J. Mixon
  • Cedar Sanderson

Best Fan Artist (296 nominating ballots, 198 entries, range 23-48)

  • Ninni Aalto
  • Brad Foster
  • Elizabeth Leggett
  • Spring Schoenhuth
  • Steve Stiles

The John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer (851 nominating ballots, 220 entries, range 106-229)

Award for the best new professional science fiction or fantasy writer of 2013 or 2014, sponsored by Dell Magazines (not a Hugo Award).

  • Wesley Chu*
  • Jason Cordova
  • Kary English*
  • Rolf Nelson
  • Eric S. Raymond

*Finalists in their 2nd year of eligibility.

Direct administrative questions about the 2015 Hugo Awards to the Sasquan Hugo Administrators.

The Hugo voting ballot will be available to members of Sasquan online and by mail later in April.

For more information about the Hugos, please see http://sasquan.org/faq-hugos/

Full details of how to become a member of Sasquan are available at

https://sasquan.swoc.us/sasquan/reg.php

ENDS

For general media enquiries about Sasquan please contact media@sasquan.org.

To unsubscribe, click here: pressrelease-request@sasquan.org?subject=unsubscribe

ABOUT THE WORLD SCIENCE FICTION CONVENTION

Founded in 1939, the World Science Fiction Convention is one of the
largest international gatherings of authors, artists, editors,
publishers, and fans of science fiction and fantasy. The annual Hugo
Awards, the leading award for excellence in the fields of science
fiction and fantasy, are voted on by the Worldcon membership and
presented during the convention.

Sasquan is organized under the banner of the SWOC: http://swoc.org/contact.php

“World Science Fiction Society”, “WSFS”, “World Science Fiction
Convention”, “Worldcon”, “NASFiC”, “Hugo Award”, the Hugo Award Logo,
and the distinctive design of the Hugo Award Trophy Rocket are service
marks of the World Science Fiction Society, an unincorporated literary
society.

51 thoughts on “Sasquan Final Hugo Ballot Adds Novel Three-Body Problem, Short Story “Single Samurai”

  1. I’m not glad Marko Kloos withdrew his book, but since he did I’m very glad The Three-Body Problem took its place. I had been wanting to read that one.

  2. I’m very glad to see The Three-Body Problem on the shortlist. I intend to vote for it and expect it to win Best Novel. I would have put it on the Rabid Puppy list if I had read it sooner.

  3. Mark: You are one fast worker. I frequently use sfadb and appreciate all the time you invest in maintaining it. Certain types of award discussion would never happen without it.

  4. Did the Hugo admins again update the range of nominating numbers? I’m curious how close behind these new additions to the list were: if they were close, then SP+RP likely didn’t have much more effect than the usual general consensus that some story was Hugo-worthy; if it’s a large gap then complaints about logrolling (unintentional, according to Brad & Larry) would be more valid.

  5. The numbers given are the total number of ballots that voted in that category; why would they change?

  6. Earlier in the process there was an announcement to the effect of, “In Best Novel, the (unidentified) top nominee on the ballot got x nominations and the (unidentified) bottom nominee on the ballot got y nominations”. More detail will be given after the awards are announced at WorldCon, but I was hoping for just a bit more information now—particularly as that might make the extent of the Puppies’ impacts on the nominations more clear.

  7. I have added the nomination ranges. For reasons unknown to me, they are not in the press release sent to me, but they were included on HugoAwards.org. So I thieved them.

  8. This is no doubt obvious, but Vox’ statement highlights the problem with slates: when you concentrate nominations on a small group of works, selected by one or two people, you run the risk of eliminating works that even those people would have preferred if only they had read them.

    The effect of this depends on the size of the slate. If your recommendation list is 20-30 works long, you’re reducing the risk of this happening. It is possible that 20-30 work long lists still have an overall bad effect on the process and I’m certainly glad recent events have given me cause to think harder about that.

  9. Thank you, Mike. Now I just need to find where the old values were…

    Who was it that was doing this sort of statistical analysis in the last few days, does anyone remember?

  10. Waiting to see if “Three Body Problem” is forced to withdraw since it was effectively an alternate in the Rabid Puppies Slate.

  11. GK: I would have been willing to wait longer to see another contrived way to remind us of your agenda.

  12. @GK: In what way is it “effectively an alternate” in the Rabid Puppies Slate? The stigma that attaches to works from the puppy slate, after all, is that they got on the ballot due to shenanigans rather than merit.

    The Three-Body Problem, by contrast, was pushed off the ballot by puppy shenanigans. It would seem to be entirely untainted.

    I won’t vote for any puppy-tainted nominee, but at this point I’ve got no qualms about voting for the Three Body Problem. I detect not a whiff of puppy stink on it.

    What am I overlooking? Or is this just another manifestation of the hilarious puppy urge to declare any possibly outcome a victory?

  13. I haven’t read it so I can’t comment. I’d be more than happy to and will as part of this whole thing. I do take my votes seriously.

    Association with Vox though has forced too otherwise worthy candidates out. This was a book that was discussed on Vox’s site at some length. I’m fine with it being there; what you still fail to get is while we aren’t thrilled with bad works we do indeed intend to give all finalists a fair shake because the upbuilding folks in puppies want good works to win.

  14. @laertes You’re not overlooking anything, it is indeed another manifestation of the puppy ability to shoot off their own foot, and declare a Stunning Victory for Free Exercise of Gun Rights

  15. @GK: Well, I’m certainly ready to be persuaded that the work got on the ballot because of puppy electioneering, but so far you’ve made a weaker case than nothing at all. The story appears to be that the puppies, through ignorance, pushed a worthy work off the ballot. When one of the beneficiaries of your shenanigans recoiled in horror and honorably fled the ballot, it managed to get where it deserved to be in the first place, and where it surely would have been but for the shameful puppy campaign.

    If it finishes ahead of the puppy nominees, that’ll represent a stinging defeat for the idea that the puppy slate was necessary to bring worthy work to the attention of the hugo voters.

  16. Here’s my take on the numbers:

    Novel: was 256–387, now 212–387; one double Puppy replaced with non-Puppy.
    (Small change in numbers.)

    Novelette: was 165–267, now 72–267; one Rabid Puppy replaced with non-Puppy.
    (Big change.)

    Short Story: was 151–230, now 132–226; one Double Puppy replaced with a Sad Puppy.
    (Small change. BTW, I must be missing something: how did the high number change?)

    Pro Artist: was 136–188, now 118–188; one Double Puppy replaced with a Rabid Puppy.

    I’ll focus on Best Novel, because outside the Puppies lists, there were three novels I’d heard being talked about a lot: Ancillary Sword, The Goblin Emperor, & The Three-Body Problem. (Also The Martian, but that probably wasn’t eligible.) And now they’re all there.

    It seems that the combined SP+RP lists were only a little more powerful than the weakest of the “Internet consensus” candidates—and that there really was this sort of consensus. My prediction is that there will be a large gap between The Three-Body Problem and the best performing un-nominated book.

    Reading VD’s blog, it seems Rabid Puppies supporters were asked to nominate the whole slate as-is. (Coming from the Sad Puppies side myself, that was an unpleasant surprise to me.) Assuming most of them did so, the size of the RP contingent can be guestimated:

    From the Short Story numbers you get a maximum of 30–50 “pure” RP voters. (Why not 151?132 = 19? Since most Sad Puppies supporters I’ve heard from have said they varied from Brad’s list, their effect was weaker than their numbers.)

    From Novelette, even assuming that all votes for “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus” came from Rabid Puppies, the maximum number of RP-leaning nominators is 165.

    It’s harder to be clear about the size of the Sad Puppies-leaning electorate from these numbers alone; someone’s done some analysis but I can’t find the blog post now. I’m guessing around 150 or so, and probably stronger than RP, but I’m not at all confident in this guess.

  17. J.C. – The Dread Ilk, the loyal readers of Vox Popoli, at least, were expected to vote the straight ticket. And when I opined it looked to me like they had maintained discipline Vox highly approved of the remark on his blog.

    I think the real controversy was the back-and-forth about whether the two slates carried with them a call to vote now and read when you get around to it. Correia denied this, and the Dread Ilk took offense as well. However, the other day Doug Wardell went off-script in a comment on Monster Hunter Nation and admitted he was waiting to read everything when it came to him in the Hugo Voter Packet… Doesn’t mean others failed to read the stuff, though it’s an amusing gaffe.

  18. Interesting analysis, J.C. I’ve been doing some of this work on my website Chaos Horizon; that might have been the post you were looking for. The top number changed in Short Story because that was must have been the Bellet story that was withdrawn. You’re lower than me on your guess of RP voters. Using the Best Professional Artist category (which placed a RP pick with the recent change), I’m guessing 100+ Rabid Puppy voters. Keep in mind the low number in the Short Story could be the John C. Wright work, which wasn’t on the Sad Puppy slate. Since all 151 of those votes could have been RP votes, subtracting the new number doesn’t necessarily tell us how many RP there were.

  19. GK: You don’t have to vote the slate to make me happy, though how will you be able to show your face at the next Ilk convention?

  20. GK thinks it will get voted down purely because VD said he enjoyed it. Apparently the SJW contingent will cut off their own noses to avoid letting VD smile.

  21. Tintinaus: Did you think GK needed a translator? I assure you, everybody understood what he meant.

  22. That’s a bold prediction on GK’s part, and when it’s tested against reality in a few months we’ll learn something.

    I think that anti-puppy voters are going to vote against works that the the puppies promoted with their slates, on the principle that organizing slates is unfair because it artificially magnifies the voting power of small factions. So we’ll vote against works that the puppies actually did help, but not against works that they somewhat pathetically claim that they wish they had helped but didn’t because derp.

    GK thinks that I and voters like me are lying when we talk about principle, and we’re in fact motivated primarily by hatred of he and his. If he’s right, then Beale’s kind words about The Three-Body Problem will lead to us voting it down along with the rest of the puppy nominees.

    We shall see who’s right and who’s wrong when the votes are counted.

  23. I thought I was explaining it to GK. He didn’t seem to want to own the reality of what he insinuated. Watching him dance around the truth was getting boring.

  24. The behavior of one individual cannot be projected up a whole group of voters. After all… do you expect me to believe that everyone that nominated Red Shirts read it?

    Why surely soomeone who’d vote to nominate something by John Scalzi simply because they liked John Scalzi would they?

    They it is just crazy talk.

  25. I’d buy Lorentz a beer if I was going. That guy has hard job made even more difficult but he appears to be still doing his best even when dealt a bad hand. I hope his efforts will not get lost in all the fighting. Congrats to the new nominees as well, getting nominated is an honor regardless and this year there have been more nominees than ever before 🙂

  26. @nate “they it is just crazy talk” indeed.

    I don’t know if whatever point you’re trying to articulate deserves the effort, but if you decide to restate it, remember to proofread.

  27. J.C. Salomon:
    Short Story: was 151–230, now 132–226; one Double Puppy replaced with a Sad Puppy. (Small change. BTW, I must be missing something: how did the high number change?)

    That means that Annie Bellet’s story was the one that got most nominating votes, I guess. Now that it was eliminated, we know that the second got only four votes less, so margins are terribly small among some of the Puppy works.

    From the Short Story numbers you get a maximum of 30–50 “pure” RP voters. (Why not 151-132 = 19…

    I don’t think that’s correct or I misread what you mean. 19 is the difference between RP-only and SP-only short stories.

    It seems that the combined SP+RP lists were only a little more powerful than the weakest of the “Internet consensus” candidates—and that there really was this sort of consensus. My prediction is that there will be a large gap between The Three-Body Problem and the best performing un-nominated book.

    That’s possible, but I think there was also some buzz around City of Stairs, Lock-In, Annihilation and Station Eleven, for example. They may not be that far behind.

  28. Novella range 145-338

    Note that this entirely disproves all of the claims that the Sad Puppies or Rabid Puppies are bloc votes. Every single novella on the shortlist is a Rabid Puppy recommendation. And yet, there is a 193-vote variance between them. That considerably exceeds the 25-vote variance in Best Fan Artist, in which there were no Puppy recommendations.

    Meanwhile, there was a 3-vote variance back in 2008 between Scalzi (Best Novel), Stross (Best Novel), and Scalzi (Fan Writer).

    So, the anti-Puppies are trying to claim that a 193-vote variance in a single category is a bloc vote, but a 3-vote variance ACROSS CATEGORIES where one category historically gets about 2.5x the votes of the other is not. To simultaneously make both claims requires a) dishonesty, b) a stunning level of statistical ignorance or c) a willful determination to not look at the evidence.

  29. VD, that’s wildly incorrect.

    Every single novella on the shortlist is on the Rapid Puppies slate, AND some of them are ALSO on the Sad Puppies slate. Thus, high end is RP + SP and low end is only RP.

    It’s true that there’s some variance in RP and SP blocks across the board, but they are still tactically-voting blocs.

  30. Furthermore, if simple numbers are proof of a bloc, it’s likely that Scalzi’s Last Colony (41), Stross’s Halting State (40), the fan-writing Scalzi (43), David Langford’s Ansible (41), New York Review of Science Fiction (41), the movie Enchanted (44) and related work The Arrival by Shaun Tan (44) are all part of the same conspiracy. Probably also the novella “The Fountain of Age” by Nancy Kress (39) and the novelette “Dark Integers” by Greg Egan (45).

  31. ‘Waiting to see if “Three Body Problem” is forced to withdraw since it was effectively an alternate in the Rabid Puppies Slate.’

    Actually what’s far more interesting is that the possibility of some sort of SP/RP-SJW consensus about Hugo-worthy nominees isn’t as far-fetched as one might suppose.

  32. Chaos Horizon: Yes; it was your site I was thinking of; and thanks for pointing out that Bellet’s withdrawn story must have been the top nominee. And of course all my estimates ought to be redone (I knew it was too late at night to be doing statistics) but I see you’ve already posted Ballot Changes: Updating the Hugo Math.

    Mike: Unlike Correia & Torgersen, VD explicitly said, “They are my recommendations for the 2015 nominations, and I encourage those who value my opinion on matters related to science fiction and fantasy to nominate them precisely as they are.” (Sad Puppies later made explicit what they’d thought was implicit.) Doug Wardell, about whom you said, “went off-script in a comment on Monster Hunter Nation and admitted he was waiting to read everything” identified himself as a Rabid Puppies supporter in that same comment: he was decidedly on-script.

  33. To clarify: (Sad Puppies later made explicit what they’d thought was implicit: Read and nominate what you think worthy; and here are some things we recommend for your reading list because we think you’ll like them.)

    (Mike: if you want to edit my previous comment instead of having this correction floating below it, go right ahead.)

  34. So now that VD has blessed “The Three-Body Problem” as a Rabid Puppies alternate, if it loses the Hugo, that would proves how the SJWs will dogmatically vote against anything the Puppies say they like… and if it wins the Hugo, that would prove how the Puppies truly have their finger on the pulse of great SF.

  35. I’m looking forward to Mike’s compilation of reactions to the inclusion of The Three-Body Problem on the ballot, to see what the No Award side now has to say.

    If the argument for NA was that the Puppy slates kept the worthy candidates off the ballot, now, Lo!, the worthy candidate is on the ballot. Will this change minds, or will the candidate now be rendered unworthy by its presence on the ballot, or be relegated to collateral damage?

  36. “GK thinks that I and voters like me are lying when we talk about principle, and we’re in fact motivated primarily by hatred of he and his.”

    No we know you are. We know you are because there were other slates _this_ year that have been linked and _none_ of the hate is showering on them. There has been plenty of dancing around what a slate is, but the slates existed. We also know this because as VD points out the variance was _less_ in years where non-puppy slates existed by _total percentage_. That is, the facts are against you.

    Also note how this is discussed upstream, “I won’t vote for any puppy-tainted nominee, but at this point I’ve got no qualms about voting for the Three Body Problem. I detect not a whiff of puppy stink on it.”

    It has a stink. Puppies liked that story and it was discussed for inclusion. Now, I think voting against it is absolutely ridiculous on those grounds. If it sucks vote it down, if it doesn’t vote it up and all of that. But every fact is against you. You have declared voters voting on “whiffs” and a more diverse voting pattern in the “block” voting.

    So do tell me more about how we “ruined” the Hugos.

    @Kitten,
    “Furthermore, if simple numbers are proof of a bloc, it’s likely that Scalzi’s Last Colony (41), Stross’s Halting State (40), the fan-writing Scalzi (43), David Langford’s Ansible (41), New York Review of Science Fiction (41), the movie Enchanted (44) and related work The Arrival by Shaun Tan (44) are all part of the same conspiracy. Probably also the novella “The Fountain of Age” by Nancy Kress (39) and the novelette “Dark Integers” by Greg Egan (45)”

    That you posted that without a trace of humor is telling. Here’s things the non-blind see. The voting went up by at least four fold. The overall percentage differences is larger between the candidates. If diversity of the electorate is the goal it happened in our world not yours.

    @JC

    RP did the same and you are being an idiot trying to split hairs and drive a division in allies. You are either bordering on concern trolling or you are taking steps that Brad and Larry have been very careful to not take. You are also casting one man’s words onto an entire group. I read. I voted off slate. You are in short starting to be a bit of a dick.

    @rcade

    No we are playing “facts”. He did like three body. He regretted not posting it shortly after posting the list. He claimed it was worth a hugo immediately before the replacement in what I linked. We like facts. We’re in the objective reality group remember.

  37. @ Tintinaus

    In fact let me ask a direct question:
    1.) Do you think the number of overall votes went up in this election
    2.) Is that a good thing
    3.) Did the diversity of votes (that is from top to the bottom of the nominated slate there was more percentage variation) than say the 2008 nominee list?

    If you answer “yes” to all three of these questions what the blazes is your problem. If no which and why. And don’t give me the slates are evil line because variation has proven we didn’t vote straight.

  38. GK, care to comment on my previous post which showed how VD is lying through his teeth? You continue the same reasoning in comments above, even though the numbers make it 100% clear that RP bloc voted heavily with 120-150 votes.

  39. Lois, I think there were actually very few people who said “I will vote No Award in every category,” or even “I will vote No Award first in every category that has any slated candidates.” (Not none, mind you–as has been said before, there are extremists on both sides–or every side, probably more accurately, since I think there are more than two “sides.”) I think that most of the potential No Award voters said something like: I will vote No Award above every non-slated candidate on the ballot, and rank the remaining candidates as best I can.” Even that was more extreme than a lot of people planning to make extensive use of No Award, I believe–there were lots of people who said, “I will try to read everything, but the slated works will have to be Really, Really good to be ranked anywhere on the ballot above No Award” (or, alternatively, “anywhere on the ballot at all”).

    I say all this not because I agree with voting No Award at all, but because I honestly don’t think the inclusion of The Three-Body Problem is going to change many minds on the extreme end(s) of the No Award spectrum . . . so there might not be all that many reactions for Mike to compilate.

  40. The increase in the number of people nominating this year couldn’t *possibly* have anything to do with over 10,000 people from last year being eligible to nominate. Nope. It’s all down to the K9s.

    And the record number of people joining WSFS last year couldn’t *possibly* be due to WorldCon being in Europe for the first time since 2005 and the entire Wheel of Time (plus many other novels) appearing in the Hugo packet for a mere $40. Nope.

  41. @gk “3.) Did the diversity of votes (that is from top to the bottom of the nominated slate there was more percentage variation) than say the 2008 nominee list?”

    umm, “Did the diversity of votes than say the 2008 nominee list?” (your question with the parenthetical insertion taken out) isn’t a question which makes sense.

  42. If it was ‘discussed’ for inclusion, why wasn’t it included? If it’s not a ‘slate’ and purely a list, why not recommend 6 books? Or 8 or 10 or 15? Assuming you’re not trying to play silly buggers with the nomination process, except, you were.

  43. GK,

    I don’t do slates. In Australia to vote for the Senate there is the easy slate way of doing it: Choose your favourite party by placing 1 next to them and their slate will be followed, or the hard way: number all the candidates, sometimes numbering up to 150. I number the candidates.

    I can’t remember if you said you didn’t nominate the slate or didn’t nominate at all. It doesn’t really matter. There is always variation in Slate voting, but that doesn’t mean that slates don’t effect outcomes and you are, frankly, either disingenuous or stupid if you say otherwise.

    To answer your questions.
    1: Huge turnout last year would lead to higher rates of nomination: Your Question is Invalid, but Yes
    2: Pretty much everyone says more people being involved in WorldCon, and therefore the Hugos would be good thing, so Your Question is Invalid, but Yes
    3: I don’t know anything about the 2008 nominating stas, but on general principals, if you are asking if there being a large gap between top and bottom ranked nominations is a good thing, well the answer is No.

    A large voting spread tends to show one of two things.
    1: Someone has gamed the system(cough, cough) or
    2: The quality of nominees is very poor and so a few preferred selections are getting the bulk of the attention.

    I hope this answers your questions. Have a nice day:-)

  44. Voting spreads are gaming the system? At this point I have to stop trying to convince you. You have adopted a position that is unreasonable and allows you to work both ways (close votes bad! not close votes bad!).

  45. GK,

    If you read what I said in answer to 3, you would know how I interpreted you rather mangled question. My answer was based purely on that interpretation.

    What I would expect to see in a good years nominating would be lots of small clusters with small drop-offs between clusters gradually tailing off to zero. Any time there is a large drop off between clusters there is a problem. I have already told you what those problems are likely to be.

Comments are closed.