The claim “Over the decades the Locus Awards have often drawn more voters than the Hugos and Nebulas combined” is repeated by Paul St. John Mackintosh in his latest article “Locus Awards finalists show the power of open voting”.
The claim is quoted from the SF Awards Database. While true in past years, therefore still true in a literal historical sense, the statement does not represent the current state of affairs.
We’re all interested in the outcome of a readers poll where there is no charge to vote, however, it has now been many years since the number of ballots cast for the Locus Award was even close to the number cast for the Hugos.
| Locus Award Votes | Hugo Award Final Votes | |
| 2008 | 1,012 | 895 |
| 2009 | 662 | 1,074 |
| 2010 | 680 | 1,094 |
| 2011 | 785 | 2,100 |
| 2012 | 736 | 1,922 |
| 2013 | 770 | 1,848 |
| 2014 | 871 | 3,587 |
Participation in the Locus poll has never returned to the level it reached in 2008 when, after voting closed, Locus announced a new policy of counting subscriber points double the value of points voted on the ballots of non-subscribers.
Update 05/07/2015: Filled in Locus vote number for 2012.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Game? No. They just change often, and not uniformly, and as ranks are relative a book can sell a copy a day and be in the 100Ks the first three days of the week and in the 200Ks the second three days of a week depending on what other books are selling.
So looking at an amazon rank of one book at one moment and deciding that Author A is more popular than Author B just isn’t very useful.
I’m unsure about how asking people “Hey, everyone buy my book on amazon today!”, which is a common practice, is gaming anything.
You know what? I’m no expert anyway and that was probably a dumb question. I’m sorry for asking it.
Mr Beale: it must make you chuckle that the people who are supporting you haven’t got a clue about what it is they’re doing?
“amazon rankings aren’t a hard number”
…and you quintuple down, Nick. You continue to confuse variable numbers with the “least hard numbers in the world.”
Let me make it simple for you: if Author A has a book that ranks #1 in its category and Author B has a book that ranks #150,000 in the same category, which author has objectively sold more books within the Amazon snapshot being measured for that moments ranking?
Are the Puppy slates political? They are at least ideological. VD has made no secret that he is a culture warrior and only a bit less stridently so have Larry and Brad.
On the one side the most extreme and controversial item I have seen by those attacked by the Puppies, the SJW, was a suggestion by one that for one year people expand their reading and only read works not by the white male heterosexual writers who dominate the fantasy and science fiction and horror fields. I disagree with that by the way.
On the Puppies side we have Larry writing: “This is just one little battle in an ongoing culture war between artistic free expression and puritanical bullies who think they represent *real* fandom”, from above. Brad agreed but saying writers of other political persuasions and gender/race/sexual expression were included on his slate to demonstrate I can’t find the exact quote right now for Sad Puppies 3.
Vox Day often refers to his great culture war against the bad others dominating the culture. “Fiction, particularly fantasy fiction, a literary genre that was created and defined by devout religious men such as George MacDonald, J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, has been defiled and all but ruined by devout feminists and evangelical atheists, by authors who are more than willing to sacrifice historical verisimilitude, literary quality and history itself on their ideological altars.
I’m far from the only one to notice that the decline into moral nihilism and ahistorical irreligion has had a profoundly negative effect on the quality of fantasy fiction.
When the culture loses its way and devolves into degradation, intellectual relativism and moral barbarism, as has happened time and time again throughout the course of history, it is the responsibility of those who maintain the old ways to show the pathway out. Christians and conservatives cannot simply retreat from cultural pollution because the poisoned smog will always follow them and their children. Like all evils, the amoral culture of human degradation must be confronted and conquered; it cannot be ignored.” Part of VD announcing his own epic fantasy novel.
So If I vote for someone on at a Puppy slate I am fighting “puritanical bullies” or “the amoral culture of human degradation” while if I vote for someone on the other slate, wait, there isn’t another slate. Those bullies and their amoral culture must have already subsumed and conquered everyone else. No wonder we are getting metaphors from the Puppies of their donning old gray uniforms or suits of armor to ride forth into battle. The most I see on the non-puppy side is “hey, we’re fantasy and science fiction fans, we should read all kinds of things by all kinds of people.”
Larry seems to have confused the “puritanical bullies” side.
I don’t like being dragged into wars, on either side. So I will read and look at all the nominees and compare some to Locus Award nominees and see if the Hugo nominees are really the best from last year and worthy of awarding. My past preferences have always been I like all kinds of things from all kinds of people.
I didn’t realize it would not post what was in brackets. It should be “demonstrate (something or other) I can’t find”…
Intriguing question—it has nothing to do with GK’s claims about popular authors, or your claim about “velocity of sales” being measured “reliably” and hell, doesn’t even take into account price or format, but yes, generally speaking the #1 book will have sold more copies in that hour than the #150,000 book. I’m doing you the favor of leaving out “category” for two reasons:
1. many categories won’t even have 150,000 distinct items
2. categories are very easily manipulated, so being near the top of some category of book doesn’t necessarily mean much since subject tags influence ranking on a category basis significantly:
http://pimpmynovel.blogspot.com/2011/06/guest-post-my-novel-cracked-10-amazon.html
(The comments are also very much worth reading, especially this one:
Another way to generate a list you can use for PR purposes if you’ve uploaded your book in the last 90 days is to:
* Enter your subject tag in the search
* Click GO
* Choose BESTSELLING from the dropdown box on the right
* Click on New Releases > Last 30/90 Days from the choices in the left navbar.
I’ve now got my book in the #1, 2 and 3 spots on several “Recently Released” lists doing just that :o))
But yes, overall, the current #1 (not in a category of books, but in Books) right now has almost certainly sold more three hours ago than the current #150,000 right now did three hours ago.
However, it is not necessarily the case that the #150,000 book sold more copies than the #300,000 book in that same snapshot hour, or for that matter, historically. Other books moving between them is what differentiates them.
It is almost guaranteed that the #3,000,000 and the #3,150,000 sold the same number of copies in the last hour, day, week, and month (i.e., they both sold zero). For that matter, the #3,000,000 and #4,000,000 have also sold the same number of copies in the snapshot (zero) and likely have very similar historical sales data as well—the difference between the rankings here is almost always due to the movements of other titles.
If you want to call that set of numbers a reliable measure of sales *velocity* (you know, direction) and a *snapshot* at the same time, go right ahead. If you want to call rankings reliable when at the top they measure something and not much further down they are pretty much measuring nothing, you can. You can even call them “hard numbers” and imagine that to be a term of art, which it is not. You can hoot to yourself all you like, but it doesn’t really matter. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and you’re simply pretending that most amazon ranks seen at any given moments are quantifying any activity with those particular titles.
For the most part, encouraging your fans to group purchases together in time, is gaming the rankings in the sense that selling to all your devoted fans on Tuesday is better than having all of them buy the book sometime this month; it uses how the ranking system works to achieve maximum advantage. But so long as the sales are actual sales, this is ‘legitimate gaming’ – working within the rules for maximum advantage.
IIRC, there was a case where an author was accused of gaming ranks by buying in bulk and then returning, as an example of what would be illegitimate gaming (if true; can’t remember the case well enough to be certain).
There was a guy a few years ago who bought his Kindle title 200 times (and reviewing it 100 times) and then wrote a Kindle book about how to game Kindle titles, but I suspect he did not make more money for his good ranking than he spent in time and money buying his own files and writing reviews. Ah, here he is:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jan/05/amazon-ebook-manipulate-kindle-rankings
Tuomos Vainio: “Let us check the dictionaries:”
“A slate is a list of candidates, officers, etc., to be considered for nomination, appointment, election, or the like.”
“A slate is a list of candidates for nomination or election.”
“A slate is a list of the candidates of a political party running for various offices.”
If you want an accurate description explaining how Slates work, you go to a Political Science book, not a dictionary. What you (and your simplistic definitions) are missing here is that a Slate never has more candidates than the number of open positions. The goal of a Slate is to get all of its candidates to win.
That is why the Locus list is not a Slate. It lists far more possibilities than positions available for Finalists. There is no way that more than a small number of the suggestions Locus offers can possibly end up as a Finalist.
On the other hand, the Puppies Slates perfectly meet the definition of a Slate. The goal was to get all entries onto the final voting ballot.
> but regardless, your argument is different than the one you cited
Sure. I think it’s a required premise for the one that I cited, though
> Do you agree that a reliance upon a simple dictionary definition means one is conceding that one has no argument?
I’m not sure why my *personal* belief in the truth of that claim is relevant to my argument that it is possible for someone who is not a “dishonest SJW” to believe in the claim.
But this is somewhat entertaining as an intellectual exercise, so I’ll try to answer.
No. I think it’s definitionally impossible – if I am using a dictionary definition to support an argument, then I am clearly making an argument, which means I am not conceding that i have no argument.
That said, I do believe the following:
[a] a dictionary definition cannot be relied upon to be the final arbiter of meaning.
[b] in general, when arguing, people put forward what they believe to be their best argument.
I think [b] implies
[c] when people put forward dictionary definitions as the basis for their argument, they are implicitly demonstrating that the dictionary definition is their best argument (because otherwise, by [b], they’d use a different argument).
which combines with [a] to create
[d] when people put forward dictionary definitions as the basis for their argument, they are implicitly demonstrating that their best argument is something which cannot be relied upon to be the final arbiter of meaning.
(I recognize that there are two obvious problems with this – even if [b] is true, it’s not clear whether any *particular* argument is an instance of the “in general” in [b], and [d] reads differently depending on whether or not the speaker believes it to be true that dictionary definitions cannot be relied upon to be the final arbiter of meaning).
My sense is that when the person you were responding to said that ” relying on simple dictionary definitions means one is conceding that one has no argument”, a statement which I believe to be definitionally impossible, he (or she) actually meant something approximating the syllogism I’ve just stated.
That’s funny, JJ. So Aidan Moher advanced a slate?
http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2014/01/best-of-13-hugo-award-nominations-recommendations-ver-0-7-5/
And Diedre Saorise Moen?
http://deirdre.net/four-hugo-recommendations/
And George R. R. Martin? (Who justifies his five book slate thusly: ” There are five lines on the nomination form, after all, and it wouldn’t feel right to leave four of them blank when there were so very many good books published… ”
http://grrm.livejournal.com/262170.html
And…shall I go on?
xdpaul:
The specific examples you are citing here have already been debunked — several times — as not being Slates, in previous threads here on File770.
Please do try to keep up. If you can come up with an example which has not already been debunked, I’ll be happy to take a look at it.
So Aidan Moher advanced a slate?
No. You appear to have missed this part:
“Below are the writers, books, movies, videogames and other SFF-related goodies that, if I were filling it out today (I won’t be, I’ll fill it out in March, after I’ve had time to digest more work)”
That list isn’t even the list of works he intends to vote for. It was just “what I’ve read thus far this year that I thought was good”.
And Diedre Saorise Moen?
Who recommended exactly one thing in five categories and nothing else. So, no.
And George R. R. Martin? (Who justifies his five book slate thusly: ” There are five lines on the nomination form
And who then proceeded to recommend three books. So, also no.
Your evidence of other slates is pretty weak.
Nick: If I only had a dollar for everyone that didn’t count the value of their time in pricing their work…..
At this point, “the meaning of “slate”” needs its own thread (like the Football Outsiders making a separate thread for all Brady vs. Manning discussion), so at least the same arguments back and forth are grouped in one spot.
JJ, I guess SJWs really do always lie. You wrote that a “Slate never has more candidates than the number of open positions.”
xdpaul: “I guess SJWs really do always lie.”
If and when you decide that you’re willing to interact like a mature adult, you let me know.
Aaron
GRRM recommended 5 novels: A Dance with Dragons, Leviathan Wakes, Heaven’s Shadow, The Wise Man’s Fear, and 11/22/63. What may be confusing is that he only displayed 3 book covers.
I agree Craig, or maybe since Philcon II rendered any complaints of slates or campaigning completely null and void, the bitter slate clingers can simply abandon that bad territory altogether. The reason why any discussion of it is continuously repeated is because the slate clingers don’t really know how to define a slate or exactly how the slatey nature of past slates was fundamentally different from the 2015 slates and campaigns. It is amusing, however, to see so many flat earthers screaming “slate!” in defense of science fiction.
GRRM recommended 5 novels
Actually, he listed six, but only recommended three for the Hugo.
In terms of how awards work, the Locus list is stage two of a three stage process. Locus’ editorial team discusses and creates the list, which is then voted upon to produce a shortlist from which a winner is chosen.
In which case it is clearly not a slate, it is, as per the Clarke or the Booker or the Orange or any such juried or semi-juried award, a curated longlist.
Correction, he listed eight novels (one of which was his own), but appears to have only actually recommended four as his mentioning A Dance with Dragons doesn’t actually come with a recommendation from him. You missed The Heroes, The Magician King, and The Dragon’s Path.
Oh, what a lovely day to debate the definition of “slate” again.
On the plus side, this thread has put me a couple drinks in on the “VD-talking-points drinking game” so there is that.
This is off topic, but people are talking about amazon rankings. How hard is it to get amazon to accept you as a publishing house? I have wondered this for a while. Self published authors get locked into amazon, but if they use a business entity then they can claim to be a publisher. Castalia House doesnt exactly strike me as having alt of infrastructure. It does have a registered business entity. So if some self published author wants to get out of the amazon author lockin to just amazon…what kind of business entity is required?
I dont write, just curious.
Self-pubbed authors need not be locked into Amazon. Many small publishers also use POD technology, and supply Amazon via its own CreateSpace and other retailers via LSI (Ingram’s POD system). It’s pretty easy, actually.
Are we still trying to explain the difference between a slate and a rec list to a troll?
Either they’re deliberately ignoring data or they’re trolling. Either way they’re not going to stop.
Aaron
So what I took to be an honest error on your part was actually deliberate I now see.
GRRM wrote “I can’t do that, however. There are five lines on the nomination form, after all, and it wouldn’t feel right to leave four of them blank when there were so very many good books published in 2011.”
Since the only book from 2011 that GRRM had thus far mentioned was his own, A DANCE WITH DRAGONS, it is blatantly clear that he is recommending it for a Hugo as the title of his post suggests. You’ll note as well that GRRM himself is suggesting that he will be recommending four more novels for the Hugo.
“For science fiction, my favorite novel of the year was a classic old-fashioned space opera titled LEVIATHAN WAKES, by James S.A Corey,” GRRM writes. This would be his second recommendation.
GRRM then writes, “Also worthy of a good look when filling out your ballot is HEAVEN’S SHADOW, another solid and engrossing hard SF novel from David S. Goyer and Michael Cassutt.” This would be his third recommendation for a Hugo.
“Any of those books would be worthy nominees, but none of them were the best epic fantasy I read last year. For my money, that has to be THE WISE MAN’S FEAR, by Patrick Rothfuss,” GRRM writes as he make his fourth recommendation. You’ll note that GRRM also names several other novels that he believes were quite good but very clearly believes that they were overshadowed by THE WISE MAN’S FEAR.
Finally GRRM writes, “Last, but far from least, is yet another huge tome of a book that kept me up reading all night, a science fiction novel by a writer best known for horror — and that’s 11/22/63, by Stephen King.,” which completes his 5 suggestions for that year’s Hugo.
Did GRRM intend that list of 5 recommendations as a slate to be mindlessly voted on? He could easily be asked as he is active on his blog but my own guess is that no he did not. The tone of his post suggests that he simply thought that they were the 4 best SFF novels that he had read that year (and of course 1 novel that he himself had written which he clearly felt deserving of at least a Hugo nomination) and hoped that others would agree with him.
Is this what Brad Torgersen had meant as well with his suggested lists? I don’t know. As with GRRM you could simply ask him. Maybe he’d respond to a polite, non-sneering request. Maybe he wouldn’t. From his posts it seems to me that Torgersen was suggesting that the SP3 slate in a similar spirit to GRRM’s list in that he mentioned several times that people should read the works that he recommended and vote for them if they too thought that they were the best. This does not seem that different from what GRRM had done though his creating such a comprehensive list of nominees in most categories does seem to me to be something worth his discussing. That said, maybe he just thought that it wouldn’t feel right to leave so blanks when there were so very many good works published.
SP3 and RP were voting guides. GRRMs post was “stuff I liked this year”.
There is a distinction, and it’s not hard to see.
snowcrash: it is hard to see if you’ve got your hands over your eyes and are yelling “I’M NOT LOOKING AND YOU CAN’T MAKE ME”
Are people just going to ignore GRRM when he makes his suggestions? The possibility they might buy and nominate those works, or even worse nominate them without reading them (because GRRM would never nominate a bad book) is so small as to be irrelevant?
Andrew: “Are people just going to ignore GRRM when he makes his suggestions? The possibility they might buy and nominate those works, or even worse nominate them without reading them (because GRRM would never nominate a bad book) is so small as to be irrelevant?”
I look at suggestions from a lot of people, including GRRM. Many, many other people do the same. Of course GRRM’s suggestions are not irrelevant, because people have come to respect his opinion. The opinions of a great many people in the SFF world are not irrelevant.
I also respect the opinions of John DeNardo, Charlie Jane Anders, Andrew Liptak, Liz Bourke, Cory Doctorow, John Scalzi, and numerous other people. None of these people says “Nominate and vote for these things”; they say, here are some things I liked, which you may like, too.”
Let’s be honest, at this point, GRRM has so many avid fans now, all he would have to do is say “If you trust my judgment, Nominate these things” — and the Puppydogs wouldn’t know what had hit them. But of course, GRRM does not do this, because he has integrity — something which is clearly a novel concept for people who claim there is no such thing as “ethics”.
Again, not personally knowing either GRRM or Brad Torgersen I am only going by what they have written.
Torgersen on Feb 1 wrote, “And here it is! After much combobulating, the official SAD PUPPIES 3 slate is assembled! As noted earlier in the year, the SAD PUPPIES 3 list is a recommendation. Not an absolute.”
Torgersen on Jan 16 wrote, “It’s not designed to be an iron-clad ‘or else’ list. Rather, it’s a suggestion. Something to plant seeds and boost signal.”
What is interesting to me about this entire affair is that it seems almost everyone, whichever side of Sad/Rabid Puppies they are on, is completely lacking in empathy for the opposing side and unwilling to put even a modicum of effort to understanding anyone’s point of view but their own. For the record I disagree with how SP3 was conducted and would not consider them a political party but a group of loosely aligned activists.
If I had voted for Hugo novel nominees my list would have been much different than SP3s (Grossman’s THE MAGICIAN’S LAND, Beukes BROKEN MONSTERS, Faber’s THE BOOK OF STRANGE NEW THINGS, Priest’s MAPLECROFT, and Mandel’s STATION ELEVEN) and I have serious reservations that I would like any of their choices–though I feel like I *should* like Butcher’s novels I have never gotten past the first chapter of any I’ve tried. That, however, doesn’t mean that I can’t see that they have made several good points and that some of the SP detractors have made the Puppies point for them better than they themselves have.
Should SP4 launch with a similar slate (lest we forget that this is the first time they have put forward such a comprehensive list of recommendations) then I would find them fully responsible for any furor that should arise because to me it would be clear that they are acting in bad faith. Would I prefer that the SPs had reacted to the criticism that they received in a more polite way? Of course. But then I would have preferred the criticism to have been more polite as well.
“Let’s be honest, at this point, GRRM has so many avid fans now, all he would have to do is say “If you trust my judgment, Nominate these things” — and the Puppydogs wouldn’t know what had hit them. But of course, GRRM does not do this, because he has integrity — something which is clearly a novel concept for people who claim there is no such thing as “ethics”.”
First, the distinction between “here are five novels that just happen to be published this year and I just happen to mention thinking are really good in time for the nominations” and “vote for this slate” is disingenuous. The intention is precisely the same, to tell other people what are the best books that the list-maker thinks they should vote for. The only significant difference is one party does it openly and honestly and the other maintains plausible deniability.
Second, George RR Martin has no integrity. He’s a contemptible joke. He posted a call about the need for debate and honest dialogue after writing multiple posts about me, Larry, and Brad. I said fine, and told him I would engage him in debate and honest dialogue, to which he responded “um, well, gee, I don’t know what we would debate about?” and promptly ran away.
A few days later, he was calling for debate again. He’s a coward, a buffoon, and he has no integrity. I have more respect for the people here who do nothing more than call me names than I do for that clown. I mean, at least you show up and you show up without posturing or striking poses about it.
“Should SP4 launch with a similar slate (lest we forget that this is the first time they have put forward such a comprehensive list of recommendations) then I would find them fully responsible for any furor that should arise because to me it would be clear that they are acting in bad faith.”
Don’t worry, next year we will be sure to say “here are some things we liked, which you may like, too” while posting the SP4 list THAT IS IN ABSOLUTELY NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM A SLATE.
I request a promise from every single person here who has claimed an important distinction between what SP did and what others have done in the past that if we are careful to word our recommendations in that manner, they will not criticize SP4 for posting a slate.
You’ve criticized us. We’re willing to accept some of it. But, you see, I tend to expect that if we do exactly what you’re saying we should have done, and we sweep the nominations even more thoroughly next year, you’re all going to protest every bit as bitterly as you did this year.
Because, you see, SJWs always lie.
*takes a drink*
Looks like VD is planning on helping with SP4, all those “we”s and “us”s.
@Wildcat:
Ayup, looks that way.
@Darrell
Torgersen on Feb 1 also wrote, “Which is where YOU guys come in… If you agree with our slate below — and we suspect you might — this is YOUR chance to make sure YOUR voice is heard. This is YOUR award (as SF/F’s self-proclaimed “most prestigious award”) and YOU get to have a say in who is acknowledged. Remember: only YOU can combat puppy-related sadness!”
Torgersen on Jan 16 also wrote, “If SAD PUPPIES happens to make a few people cry a Grinchy boo-hoo-hoo along the way, and if we give the Hyper-Progressive Pissypants Club (HPPC) heartburn because we’re ruining things by trying to get the larger SF/F consumer world involved . . . well, that’s just a cross we’re prepared to bear — with a large cup of soda in one hand, and a big bucket of theater popcorn in the other.”
I mean, as long as we’re cherry-picking Torgerson quotes. 😉 Or “going by what he has written,” as it were.
I can understand where the SP sentiment is coming from, and I think Eric Flint and others have fairly good perspectives on the divergence between pop SFF books and awards (not just the Hugo awards, SFF awards in general). That said, the Sad Puppy movement has had a chip on its shoulder from the beginning, so I’m not surprised that the back-and-forth between its members and various other con-goers, authors, and general SFF fans has been heated. (I also like to think that the SP and the RP factions truly are separate, but then you have posts like the one at 12:52am and it becomes clearer why antagonism stirred up by the Rabid Puppies spills over onto the Sad Puppies too.)
I’m optimistic that the individual people who participated in SP are fellow fans who are passionate about sci-fi and fantasy works and will be more open to expressing their own preferences when the propaganda has died down. Right now I kind of feel like they are being lumped into a faceless mass of minions under the “Sad Puppies” banner and are being spoken for by the SP leaders, and the ongoing hostility is preventing other fans from actually getting to know them.
I’d be interested to meet these people outside of that context. Judging from the suggestion thread for SP, we like a lot of the same stuff!
Yes, while we’re cherry-picking Torgersen quotes:
“So, I think we can dispense with the accusation that SAD PUPPIES is doing something that is not done, or has not been done, for the sake of ethics. There is no ethic. A rule that is endlessly violated, is no longer a rule. It might be a quaint sentiment. But it’s useless. And arguing from a standpoint of propriety — in this context — is either naive, or obtuse. Or just flat out dishonest.”
http://www.donotlink.com/ewm4
— Mr. Upstanding Citizen and Member of The Church, on his “ethics”, which are disposable whenever he feels like not being ethical
‘I guess SJWs really do always lie.’
Puppies parrot.
‘The reason why any discussion of it is continuously repeated’
Actually, everything you say about this is invalid because of everything Theodore Beale says about this.
Day
Martin expressed a desire to hold a conversation with Torgersen and Correia. Dunno about Brad, but he did have some engagement with Larry.
You never entered the picture. Hope your ego survives it (who am I kidding, you’ll probably say it’s because he was fearful of your rhetorical SOOOPER GENIUS and promptly declare victory).
‘I request a promise from every single person here who has claimed an important distinction between what SP did and what others have done in the past that if we are careful to word our recommendations in that manner, they will not criticize SP4 for posting a slate.’
You have a wee bit of a branding problem because no matter what empty formulae you cynically mouth, there is literally everything you have said in these threads to set against it. I leave the problem of retrieving the benefit of the doubt from the bottomless pit into which you have giddily flung it as an exercise for your own monolithic intelligence.
@Robert West:
“My sense is that when the person you were responding to said that ” relying on simple dictionary definitions means one is conceding that one has no argument”, a statement which I believe to be definitionally impossible, he (or she) actually meant something approximating the syllogism I’ve just stated.”
A little late responding but that is essentially correct.
I’m afraid I said something carelessly imprecise which you laid out in much clearer terms. I thank you for that.
“You have a wee bit of a branding problem because no matter what empty formulae you cynically mouth, there is literally everything you have said in these threads to set against it.”
Are you serious? You to criticize us, you tell us it would have made all the difference if only we had WORDED something a little differently, and then turn around and tell us it doesn’t matter what we do in the future?
In that case, we may as well focus on crushing you into dust and ignoring absolutely everything you say.
So, which do you prefer?
If we play the “no-slate” game that you claim is real, we expect you to stand by your word and not attack us for presenting a slate when we have accepted your distinction between bad “slate” and acceptable “list of recommendations”.
Make up your mind. If you’re all just lying SJWs who are going to attack us for doing what you previously said was totally acceptable, then we may as well run the “DESTROY ALL SJWS SLATE” and actively work to make sure everyone on our side votes in perfect lockstep.
Which, the nominations prove, we have not done. But we can certainly do it next year.
‘You to criticize us,’
No. The Sad Puppies get criticised. You get treated like something noxious at the end of a stick. The Sad Puppies could easily become a credible and respected part of Hugo fandom, it seems to me, and, indeed, publishing recommendation lists would probably turn the disagreements back down to the more-or-less cordial level, barring simmering resentments. Not you, though. Rhetorically you’ve painted yourself into a bit of a corner there.
‘So, which do you prefer? ‘
What do I prefer? Who the fuck am I? I’m nobody. I speak only for myself. You’re the leader of a maybe-mob looking for someone to fight. You’re like John Cleese in that Monty Python self-defense sketch. Do what thou goddamn wilt but for God’s sake start taking responsibility for your actions and stop blaming your victims.
‘But we can certainly do it next year.’
You’re so handy with the threats. Don’t let the (maybe) power go to your head. It might damage your winning personality.
Does “If you’re all just lying SJWs, then…” count for the drinking game? I say yes.
*takes a drink*
To borrow an analogy from the comments section of the latest roundup, VD is channeling the little brother with the finger right about now.
‘*takes a drink*’
I’ve been eating chocolate. I feel like I’m being assassinated by remote control.
Every time you read “SJW” you do a facepalm.
http://www.facepalm.de/images/facepalm.jpg