Sad and Rabid Puppies are spending unlimited effort to find old Hugo recommendation lists in order to prove with geometric logic that people were trying to manipulate the awards before they came along.
Allow me to spare you further digging!
I now provide definitive evidence that the earliest appeal to organize bloc voting for the Hugos occurred in the very year the awards were invented.
What may surprise you is that the appeal came from the Philcon II committee itself. See the second paragraph below from the August 1953 Progress Report.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Well, if you liked living under rationing and all that jazz too, England was just peachy – not to mention the whole, ‘great if you’re a straight, white (non-Irish) bloke’ and all that. My father had still been having problems at work and in getting lodging in the glorious early 50s over his nationality, even having left his home country to join the Royal Navy and fight for Britain, but you go ahead and get all misty eyed.
Even helping to save civilization didn’t get you a ‘by’ if you were gay too, so again your mileage my vary.
Personally, I like the forward arrow of time myself.
@Nick
Again, note reader the above.
Nick says I manufacturer a quote which I call out specifically. @rcade responds to my calls of tribalism but not my paraphrase. Why? Because it is a good paraphrase.
But I’ll let the reader decide if, pre-scandal, puppies weren’t mentioned as “one of many”
https://file770.com/?p=21290
Note too those “only five” recommendations that are evidently a qualifier of slates as we have been told.
In fact from a post a bit behind that one, which started my attendance here we get the following quote from Mike:
“I have been mocking Sad Puppies 3 because humor seemed the most effective tool at my disposal to get people to realize that whatever moral or ethical basis they claim for their choices will be undercut if they dishonestly vote for a bunch of stuff they haven’t read or seen.
On the other hand, if people have read a story on Sad Puppies 3, another list, or nobody’s list at all, and loved it — then their opinion is as good as any other voter’s.”
This was from before the sweep. Now to Mike’s credit he’s been silent on this since people like myself have been able to point to stories and why we voted one way or the other on the last Hugo. While he hasn’t apologized to Larry yet, which I think is long overdue (unless I missed it) he has had the good grace to at least not continue with an obviously wrong track.
“Remember the whole “message fic” thing?”
In fact I do. That was where you made the claim that Sad Puppies had said something they hadn’t (at least as a group) and demanded that we go through and do your research for you. That is you made a claim, a claim that would be easy to prove by your side, then demanded the other side do the work. Such things are tacky by definition.
But now to the claims:
* recommendations aren’t slates
They are unless you can enforce the slate. If Vox or Larry or Brad could enforce the slate let me know how they could.
* and no you are certainly not aware of “my” tribalism
I am. Otherwise you wouldn’t be upset. Look, tribalism doesn’t upset me in the slightest. It isn’t a bad word. We all have allegiances. Yours is to something other than mine. Noting that you are not an island is not lying. And, I _do_ have an idea of how you will vote because of your position on the puppies. You have made that _very_ clear.
* a bloc isn’t…100%
Ok. I imagine some of you _might_ vote for puppy candidates. Thank-you.
Oh lord I hadn’t gone back and read that thread…you are…an epic dick. I am, right now, sitting in the waiting room for my wife. Good news, no cancer so far. But hey, DO be more of an epic dick.
And yes, please the rest of you do read Nick “rubbing my nose in it.”
Holy Crap, you are actually published and you talk like that? I am flabbergasted. I had mostly written you off as a standard troll. Do you talk to all potential customers like that?
GK, it is especially stupid to lie in a textual environment. Please link to the comment where I bellowed in all caps I DON’T SEE PROOF.
Please point to the comment where I defined a slate as a group of five.
Please note that I already linked to the prior exchange, which didn’t stop you from lying about it again.
It really is a pathology with you.
You know, because I’m a man and not a dick, I apologize if the misspelling and all caps was not enough to signal humor.
You on the other hand, have now slighted my family. I’ll remember that. For a damn long time. One wonders if you would repeat that in person.
GK,
I take the epic change of subject as a sign of the fact that you do indeed know that I never said the quote you attributed to me, but that you are too much of a coward to admit it.
Pro tip: pretending to be aghast that a writer would speak to a potential customer that way works a bit better when you have even a glancing familiarity with the writer’s work. My stuff is for honest people with average or above average IQs. It’s not your sort of thing.
Finally, I thought I already made it clear that I, as a rule, do not believe what pseudonymous people tell me about their personal lives. Feel free to identify yourself and your wife and I’ll arrange for flowers to be sent to her room. Don’t want to add a name to your nonsense, then keep the details of your daily life to yourself.
Oh, and if you want to play the say-it-to-my-face game, let me know if you’ll be in Spokane. I’ll be happy to arrange some mat time for us at a local gym.
GK,
If you answered my earlier question (What were the other, non-Puppy, slates for this year’s Hugos that you referred to?), I missed it. I know of no such slates and I want to know what you’re talking about, since you’re accusing those of us who decry the slates of either lying or ignorance. Enlighten us.
GK,
OK, I missed your latest post. Thank you; let me digest this.
Nick, At least you’re getting a response. I proved him wrong, and amazingly he doesn’t seem to have revisited that thread either. Almost like a pattern…
GK,
Didn’t see the “apology” post–it’s not the sort of thing a lot of people accept since it’s an “I’m sorry…if” but one of my rules is to always accept any sort of contrite noise in my direction. (It’s why I’m still married.) So thanks, I appreciate the apology. Please don’t misattribute quotes to me again, even in fun, unless it’s actually hilarious.
Ed Green: I can so see you as one of the lead characters in CSI: Fanac. If only I could afford to hire you, Tadao, and others in your professional capacities….
So GKC linked to Mike’s post at file770.com/?p=21290 and said that the links there were to non-Puppy slates, thus proving that Puppies aren’t the only people who push slates.
Well, no. The others aren’t slates. (And I can’t find anywhere that Mike says they are.) A slate is something you campaign for, and encourage others to vote for. None of these non-Puppies do that. These are people just reporting what they personally are voting for. Some of them do suggest, diffidently, that their lists might be of help to others:
Sanford: “many people don’t like these award-promotion lists … If you feel like that, don’t check out the novels and stories below. But if you are interested in the stories and authors I’m hoping will hit the awards this year, and the stories and authors who are influencing our genre right now, read on.” [And later he added:] “Don’t straw man me. Don’t vote for my award picks simply because I liked them.”
Book Smugglers: “Here’s our ballot – whaddya think?”
Steffen: “I’ve shared my Hugo nomination ballot as well as the final Hugo ballot, on the general principle that people might enjoy reading through stories they hadn’t been aware of before and it might remind them of something they would nominate.”
But many of them are actually asking for advice to finish filling out their own ballots!
Hickey: “Here’s what I’m going for so far … So given my tastes … what came out last year that I should read before making my nominations, especially if it’s by a woman?” [And I can’t wait to hear that mischaracterized as his prioritizing the sex of the author over the quality of the story]
Tomaras: “So readers, tell me: If those are the sorts of things that I like, what are some stories I may have overlooked that are worthy of my attention?”
Ciocco: “My current nomination ballot, some thoughts on same, and some things I’d like to read before I finalize my ballot are below. … if you have any recommendations, feel free to email me”
Or just to start a discussion:
Lytherus: “feel free to dive in and tell me how very wrong I am, and what you’d put on your own list!”
Now, contrast that with what the Puppies wrote about their lists:
Torgerson: “the SAD PUPPIES 3 list is a recommendation. Not an absolute … If you agree with our slate below — and we suspect you might — this is YOUR chance to make sure YOUR voice is heard.”
Beale: “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.”
They are both specifically encouraging people to vote for those lists as is (Torgerson, with “Not an absolute,” notes you don’t have to, as if anybody thought you did), and they also both make clear that their motivation is grievance with past nominees and winners, not the pure joy of getting to vote for the Hugos, a joy palpable in the comments of most of the other writers.
If you really don’t see the difference, no wonder you fell into the trap of Puppydom.
Further, the last two are explicitly a political platform, looking to counteract or defeat the supposed “Affirmative Action” of prior years etc.
Remember, a slate is a list of candidates presented as part of a political platform. “This is the stuff I like” is not politics, but winning back the Hugos and the culture at large from the clutches of the SJWs *is* a political platform.
On the subject of being blinded by one’s sympathy to a political movement, I noticed 1967 WorldCon voters nominated Chester Anderson’s The Butterfly Kid: “The Hippies Had a New Kick – From Space!”
“The Butterfly Kid (Chester Anderson novel – cover art)” by Source (WP:NFCC#4). Licensed under <a href="//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Butterfly_Kid_(Chester_Anderson_novel_-_cover_art).jpg" title="Fair use of copyrighted material in the context of The Butterfly Kid“>Fair use via Wikipedia.