Paulk Proclaims Puppy Party 4

They can’t be that sad.

Writers on the Sad Puppies 3 slate have been demurely preparing to take a victory lap when the Hugo nominations are announced on April 4. They’ve been marking their territory on Facebook. Significantly quoting Jabberwocky. Effusively giving thanks for nothing in particular with promises to “say more when I can.” Or just blurting it right out like Michael Z. Williamson.

And Lou Antonelli, who appears twice on the Sad Puppies slate, may not have needed a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows in this forecast:

My prediction is that Sad Puppies will take 30 percent of the nominees in the writing categories, while the more hardcore Rabid Puppies slate will take half as many, 15 percent. That will give Puppies of either stripe 45 percent of the total noms.

So what comes next? More of the same!

Kate Paulk of the Mad Genius Club just announced Sad Puppies 4.

…in a fit of even greater insanity than usual, yours truly, Kate the Impaler of the Evil Legion of Evil, will be picking up the banner for Sad Puppies 4 and running with it. I even promised not to impale anyone with it (it’s such a pretty flag, and getting blood and… stuff… all over it would make those poor sad puppies even more sad. Even the Evil Legion of Evil has standards, you know. We’re completely against letting Sad Puppies stay sad. We want them to be happy).

There won’t be much action from Sad Puppies 4 for quite some time, but rest assured I will be lurking in the shadows looking for worthy candidates for the campaign to End Puppy-Related Sadness. When the time is right, announcements will be made and campaigning will begin in earnest. In the meantime, I shall rub my hands together and practice my evil cackle.

121 thoughts on “Paulk Proclaims Puppy Party 4

  1. “WaterBoy”: My appreciation for your mea culpa. In response to your question as to where I had If You Were A Dinosaur, My Love on my ballot, I don’t mind your asking, but I’m not going to answer as I don’t think it’s relevant. Where I put it was based on my reading the stories on the ballot and my opinion as a decades long reader of f&sf. Just as people should have done. Sometimes I really like what wins, sometimes it’s “Not my cup of tea, but I can see why others liked it”, sometimes it’s “Well, that was a weak year in general in that category”, sometimes it’s “The voters have spoken. The idiots.” And that’s how it should be; it’s the Hugos, not the Toms.

    The problems I have with Sad Puppies are 1) an odd insistence that the Hugos have been “taken over” by some sinister SJW cabal. As I’ve noted, if there’s any sort of organized bloc voting of any significance other than by the Puppy folk or various one-off fanbases (i.e. the Wheel of Time thing from last year…which I also put below No Award since they were trying to stretch a reading of the rules to cover something that was never intended to be in the category), this cabal’s being sufficiently subtle about it that I’ve heard nothing about it. In other words, there is no such cabal, just that the voters haven’t been sharing the Puppies’ criteria for quality work.

    2) Instead of doing a “We’d like to compile a Hugo suggestion list of what we like for consideration”, the Puppies do a “Here’s what you nominate/vote for” list with the same or fewer number in each category as there are slots on the final ballot. The Puppies aren’t trying to up the visibility of stuff they like; they’re explicitly encouraging bloc nomination/voting on a specific slate. And said slate has at least a powerful, if not completely limited to, political basis in addition to work quality. Bonus points for how Puppy organizers keep showing up on that slate.

  2. “Ratseal” writes: “Dude, you have lost the plot. Either you can’t keep track of who you are responding to, you are an EASL speaker, your meds are overdue or you are trolling. Possibly all four.”

    Ah, and s/he goes for the ad hominem. Now, here’s the disadvantage of doing that when you don’t actually know the person. What you choose to try to use may just be hysterically wrong to the person you’re attacking and the people who actually know them. To hit a couple, I’ve been anti-trolling going back decades on Usenet and other net locations. “EASL speaker”…well, for starters, you really should’ve used reader and/or writer instead of speaker, since this has all be in text rather than verbal. And I suppose “Southern” is considered a different language from standard American English by some.

    But, I make my living as a writer (no, nothing you would’ve read; I don’t write fiction and the majority of my stuff is written for a very limited audience). And I make an extremely good living as one. So, in the opinion of a number of folks who pay me, I’m pretty good at it, and I value their opinion *much* more than yours. To the point where I almost certainly make more than you do just in salary, and have almost certainly made much more in my life from writing than you’ve ever earned from whatever it is that you do. (No, I don’t know who “RatSeal” is; I’m basing this off various income and wealth statistics).

    Similarly, the implied claim that I’m so stupid I can’t keep track of who I’m responding to. Well, I’ve got a lifetime of external evidence that yes, I am smarter than the average bear. Ranging from where I went to universities, having a graduate degree in a technical STEM field from a top school, where I’ve been hired, and comments by people generally judged to be quite smart (i.e. by many others than myself).

    I will confess that I do wish I were off my meds. I’m in the latter stages of a minor gout attack, and since I need to take medication until that ends, being off the meds would mean no more joint pain.

  3. Tom, you’ve stumbled upon the solution. We can settle this whole thing the way they do on Celebrity Apprentice. Whoever can round up the most donations from their rich friends wins the argument.

  4. Tom Galloway: “I don’t mind your asking, but I’m not going to answer as I don’t think it’s relevant.

    I considered it relevant since you introduced your criteria of “really fantastic level” to be worthy of winning, and I wondered what that equated to in terms of previous nominees. It would help me decide if your complaint has merit.

    Especially in light of your declared intention to sabotage the chances (“I forget which actually does them the most damage“) of any of the SP entries which do not measure up to such a lofty level, and to do so intentionally (“and would check to do that before filling out my ballot)”.

    It would seem that the SP accusations of bias may have been valid all along.

  5. Mike Glyer: “Tom, you’ve stumbled upon the solution. We can settle this whole thing the way they do on Celebrity Apprentice. Whoever can round up the most donations from their rich friends wins the argument.

    Hey, why not? It worked for John Scalzi….

  6. “It would seem that the SP accusations of bias may have been valid all along.”

    In the sense that I am biased against organized attempts at controlling what gets on the ballot/wins, yep.

    Let me make this very clear. I am against the tactics being used by the Puppies and think they have real potential to cause the effective demise of the Hugos, at least for some period.

    If these same tactics were being used by SJWs/English majors/literary critics/[fill in your most opposite the Puppies group] I’d feel the same way and be doing the same thing on my ballot.

    If these same tactics were being used by my family/close friends/the Tom Galloway Fan Club/people I really like, I’d feel the same way and be doing the same thing to my ballot, even if I were personally on it. (yes, I would withdraw from the ballot and if I didn’t manage to do that for some reason would put my name below No Award).

  7. “Whoever can round up the most donations from their rich friends wins the argument.”

    Mike, you really don’t want me to go there. : -)

    I’ll start the bidding with being known to and able to get an appointment with three multi-billionaires. One of whom I paid their salary two years running.

  8. I used to type the Dean’s List certificates as part of my student job at USC. Some of those folks must be rich by now…or may have been at the time, come to think of it.

  9. “Instead of doing a “We’d like to compile a Hugo suggestion list of what we like for consideration”, the Puppies do a “Here’s what you nominate/vote for” list with the same or fewer number in each category as there are slots on the final ballot. ”

    So what? It’s perfectly legal. You’re whining because it’s out in the open instead of disingenuous? Because you don’t like the phrasing?

    Look, I’m sure you are very smart and all, but clearly you’ve never done any analysis of the past voting. It clearly never struck you as obvious what was going on when Scalzi got 41 nominations for Best Novel in the same year Stross got 40 nominations for Best Novel and Scalzi got 43 nominations for Best Related Work.

    Total coincidence, right? We’re doing in-depth statistical analyses on the Tor authors going back to 1986 which appear to show that Tor-affiliated authors significantly overperform in terms of both nominations and awards in comparison with their Amazon rankings and average star-ratings compared to non-Tor-affiliated authors. I suspect Tor has been manipulating the awards since around 2000.

    The fact that a lot of you haven’t noticed what has obviously been going on doesn’t change the fact that it has been taking place. Hell, TNH all but admitted it when she talked about how she and her husband knew Sad Puppies had done well BECAUSE THEY WERE TALKING TO THE AUTHORS WHO DIDN’T GET THE EXPECTED NOTIFICATIONS.

    “I almost certainly make more than you do just in salary, and have almost certainly made much more in my life from writing than you’ve ever earned from whatever it is that you do.”

    Well, just one of my games sold over 4 million copies, so I tend to doubt that. But, you know, good for you. I’m not sure what this is supposed to prove.

  10. Tom Galloway:

    Regarding your second point a few posts up.

    There was, in fact, such a post. Here are Brad’s exact words:

    “Thus, I am going to slowly compile a slate. Of books and stories (and other things, and people) for the different categories. So that hopefully deserving works and artists — who tend to be snubbed at awards season — get a chance on the final ballot. It doesn’t take a massive number of nominating votes to secure a final spot for a specific work or person. All it takes are a few dozen interested people (with Worldcon memberships) to list a given work when they nominate.

    So, here we go. I will periodically post updates as the list expands. Of course, comments are open. Anybody want to make suggestions?”

    Here is the link in case you want to check for context: https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/announcing-sad-puppies-3/

    There are 150 comments with suggestions on that post. In addition, Larry Correia posted something similar asking for suggestions. 118 comments followed. I’m sure there is overlap there, but it’s fair to say many dozens of works were considered.

    On top of this, you will notice the lack of any call for political partisanship in this round of Sad Puppies. Brad’s stated goal has nothing to do with right wing politics.

    Given these two facts, would you concede your second point is mistaken?

  11. @ Galloway: Having either successfully trolled or obfuscated a losing argument, you now play the dual value victim + sympathy card. You win. ‘Grats.

    Bonus Internets for being the smartest, richest person in the room.

  12. Just as a note regarding trying to prove things:

    You can’t prove a negative (lack of political agenda, say) by cherry-picking individual statements out of context. You have to look at the entire relevant corpus, including the interpretative context provided by its audience (so comments are doubly important, not just the posts themselves).

    That entire body of data is permeated with political rhetoric, toxic references to those who are likely to disagree, &c.

  13. Of course the Sad Puppies have a political agenda. They were *founded* on a political agenda. If they wanted to renounce their political agenda, and say “this year will be different; this year we will behave better; this year we are not going to choose works for their politics,” they had every chance to do that, but they didn’t. And they obviously continue to have a political agenda as demonstrated by “Wisdom From My Internet”

    They are also putting popular works by authors who are not openly liberal on their ballot, for cover. But WFMI makes it pretty clear they haven’t given up on the politics.

    In the meantime, any work that got a boost from a slate to get nominated is under suspicion to start with. If it’s really that good, what did it need with a slate? Life is short and I expect to have a lot of reading to do for the Hugos, so such a work has to grab my interest early, and then hold it. Political works don’t tend to do that.

    And non-Puppy fans tend to be pretty annoyed by people gaming the Hugos. The L. Ron Hubbard book didn’t do so well. Last year’s Sad Puppy works didn’t do so well. Will the non-Puppy fans take it better this year? We’ll see.

  14. As I once stated on this issue, if a Sad Puppy story gets read by me, it would start off with my interest slightly diminished and overly prejudiced. Someone has handed me something that already has a bad odor.

  15. It IS scary to have your familiar, comforting and insular voting group potentially changed with the influx of new participants. In the long run it is healthier.

    Look at it this way: if the scary puppies don’t get as many nominations as last last year AND no awards, then much of the criticism is validated. Celebration time! Tweet in all caps time!

    If they get a lot more noms and/or some winners due to bringing in fresh participants then…. celebrate! More readers supporting Worldcon and SFF is a good thing!

    Everyone wins- unless you were part of a mythical group organizing behind the scenes to steer the Hugo nomination process. Since that kind of directed campaign definitely doesn’t exist… right? …everybody wins. Yay!

  16. ratseal: Despite claims, I do not believe that there was ever a deliberate conspiracy to fill all the slots in every category with a dedicated “slate” of works. There clearly have been campaigns to get individual works on the ballot, some of them going beyond the technically legal.

    The various other groups that compile lists of “things we like that we think you should consider on your Hugo ballot,” never go out of their way to make the number of items precisely equal to the number of spaces on the final ballot. A dedicated campaign by a noisy minority that insists that they are the Real True Fans Who are A Majority of Everyone is what is ticking people off.

    The current Hugo Award system has only one built-in defense mechanism against people gaming the system by exploiting the ability of a dedicated minority to limit choice to an ideologically-driven slate of candidates: No Award is a real choice, not the pretend one that “None of these Candidates” is in Nevada where I live. Yes, the last time it won was 1977, but that doesn’t mean that it can never win. And the final ballot (as opposed to the nomination stage) is deliberately designed to not be able to return a winner that is opposed by a majority of the entire electorate.

    Shorter version: You can buy a Hugo nomination, but buying a win is much harder and more expensive.

  17. I should have said that I do not think that before this year there was ever a deliberate conspiracy to fill all the slots in every category.

    I agree with Vox that what’s been done (at least from the rumors rumbling around) isn’t illegal. It’s not against the rules. It’s simply exploiting a heretofore never-considered loophole in the rules that has never come into play because fans are traditionally not very well organized.

  18. @ Kevin: thank you for the civil tone. I welcome any pause in the mutually delivered rancor on this topic.

    Using best novel as a test case, and further postulating that a) SP3 -is- ballot stuffing AND b) SP3 is successful – the resulting five choices for best novel include 2 or 3 authors who are clearly not in the group of Baen Barflies, Correia blog lurkers or those dsmvwld at Making Light.

    That result is not consistent with a campaign whose aims are primarily political.

  19. “Despite claims, I do not believe that there was ever a deliberate conspiracy to fill all the slots in every category with a dedicated “slate” of works. There clearly have been campaigns to get individual works on the ballot, some of them going beyond the technically legal.”

    I’m not aware of anyone making that claim. Especially since even SP1, SP2, SP3, and RP have all conspicuously failed to fill in all the slots in every category. But I concur, there have clearly been campaigns to get individual works on the ballot. I believe 2008 is an example, when John Scalzi received 43 votes for Best Fan Writer, 41 votes for Best Novel, and Charles Stross received 40 votes for Best Novel. Compare that bloc vote to the 183 votes Larry Correia received vs the 69 I did last year.

    “A dedicated campaign by a noisy minority that insists that they are the Real True Fans Who are A Majority of Everyone is what is ticking people off.”

    I think that is a simple misunderstanding. Neither Brad nor Larry nor I have claimed that Sad Puppies is the only voice of the Real True Fans. Nor do we believe we are a majority of everyone in the greater SF/F community. We merely insist that a) we are genuine readers of SF/F, b) our opinions are as valid as anyone else’s, and c) we outnumber the SJWs who have been the dominant influence on the SF awards for the last 15 or so years.

    “The current Hugo Award system has only one built-in defense mechanism against people gaming the system by exploiting the ability of a dedicated minority to limit choice to an ideologically-driven slate of candidates: No Award is a real choice, not the pretend one that “None of these Candidates” is in Nevada where I live.”

    What a pity that we couldn’t possibly care less. If the SJWs want to blow up the Hugos and devalue them out of petulance that they can no longer quietly manage the awards process behind the scenes, that’s on them. We played openly, honestly, and as you graciously conceded, by the rules.

    Larry and I were accused of gaming the system last year and my novelette finished 6 of 5 last year when we did nothing of the kind; my only involvement in SP2 was to appear on the recommended list. So, perhaps you’ll understand that I am totally indifferent to any accusations of gaming the system and threats of No Award this year. Been there, done that.

    On a related note, this year they’re accusing us of bringing in #GamerGate. We didn’t, except in that I happen to be an original #GamerGater. But you can rest assured that #GamerGate is watching now that the likes of TNH are publicly calling for us to be investigated for imaginary Federal felonies. Epic stupidity.

    “It’s simply exploiting a heretofore never-considered loophole in the rules that has never come into play because fans are traditionally not very well organized.”

    Before Sasquan reacts mindlessly changing the rules, you may wish to keep in mind that professional game designers are required to anticipate exploits by millions of the most mischievous griefers in the world. So, in response to your honesty and in the interest of fair play, a fair warning: not only will rules changes make Worldcon look as if it is unfairly weighing in on the side of the SJWs, which perception will inevitably be exploited, but the sort of rules changes proposed so far will have precisely the opposite effect of those intended.

    Considering how prone so many people have been to accuse Brad Torgersen of not telling the truth about Sad Puppies, ask yourself this: are you absolutely certain that seeing the Hugos blown up by the SJWs is not the true nefarious goal of the Evil Legion of Evil?

  20. Sasquan as an entity does not have the ability to change the rules. Members of Sasquan might bring a proposal to the WSFS Business Meeting this year to address the issue of organized block voting, but even if it passes there, it would have to be ratified by the members of the following Worldcon, and wouldn’t have an effect until 2017 at the earliest.

  21. Just a little note: we, the proud members of “Sad Puppies”, are not ourselves sad puppies. No, we just wish to fight the scourge of puppy related sadness, which is caused by ideological voting on Hugo Nominations and Awards.

    You know, like when people announce they’re going to vote No Award in a category where they haven’t read a single nominee, just because they don’t like the politics of some of the people who recommended the nominees. Note: it’s not even teh politics of the nominee, they’re objecting to, but the politics of someone else who liked the nominee’s work.

    <This is what makes puppies sad.

Comments are closed.