629 thoughts on “Measuring The Rabid Puppies Slate’s Impact on the Final Hugo Ballot”

1. The thing about being on the SP4 list that entertained me the most was that John C. Wright posted the whole thing to his blog with the implication that his readers should vote for or at least go read those stories. Because I really don’t think he’d have promoted my story if he’d ever read it. It’s not his usual cup of fictional tea.

   I was pretty sure the SPs weren’t going to be a real factor this year: (a) they had way more than five items in each category, making it nearly useless as a slate; (b) their list came less than two weeks before the voting deadline, making it nearly useless as a recommendation list; (c) because they’d collated recommendations without any curation, their fiction recomendation were overwhelmingly just a collection of the same “lots of people liked this” buzz that you could find pretty much anywhere. Plus (d) the previous carriers of the Sad Puppy banner couldn’t even be arsed to blog about the list or tweet it or anything and (e) the organizers didn’t even get the list up on the main SPIV blog so unless you spent some time hunting it was surprisingly hard to find.

   I didn’t ask for an asterisk because I was dealing with illness, injury, and travel during that two-week period and I didn’t want to deal with Twitter harassment and puppy drama as well, so I decided that in the event that I got nominated I’d just have to trust SF fandom to assess me fairly. (Turned out not to be an issue, anyway!)

2. The Sad Pups were basically only able to piggyback on other groups to achieve “success”. Almost every Sad Puppy pick that made it to the finalist list falls into two categories:

   1. Sad Puppy picks that overlapped with the Rabid Puppies.
   2. Sad Puppy picks that overlapped with the Nebula nominees.

   The only exceptions were John Joseph Adams and OGH, both of whom have previously been nominated multiple times without any Puppy help. Alyssa Wong is kind of an exception, as there is no Campbell equivalent in the Nebulas, but she was nominated for a short story there, so there is some minor overlap in her nomination.

3. dann665:

   “Which is insane. And which makes every little subgroup feel they need the government to protect them.

   This is a dangerous road to go down, because no minority fares well under a totalitarian regime. “

   What Hoyt seems to say is that it would be a dangerous road to go down to protect the Human Rights:

   “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.”

4. This year’s RP’s are 5 for 5 in failing to get a video game onto the list. Given Beale’s platform when running for SFWA president, I find this hilarious.

5. Oh, failed to make it clear that the quote was from Hoyt and not from dann665. Sorry, dann!

6. @DMS

   VD has muttered darkly about them being disqualified. I don’t know if that’s true, and I’d be surprised if they had been given that knowledgeable people (i.e. Kevin Standlee) have opined that they’re definitely eligible. I wonder if Dramatic is a category where the slightly less lemming-like members of RP (or SP who are partially crossing over) wanted to throw in their own favourite shows or favorite game as well, and so the RP slate was marginally weakened?

7. @Hampus

   No harm done. I appreciate the clarification/apology.

   Regards,
   Dann

8. @Sean

   Dr. Who? Simple. Because it tells a good story. Which is what this was about, right?

   And yes, people can enjoy a good story when they don’t grab a long, powerful gun and feel it’s power in their hands… you should try it sometime.

9. Maybe at some point people wittering on about SJWs will grasp that Worldcons are World cons, and SJW is a US term which is unknown in the rest of the world. Those of us in the rest of the world who have had to waste our time watching VD’s petulant little tantrums are seriously bored with it.

   I understand Marc’s desire to get his work known, but he could have simply published it himself; that is, after all, what vast numbers of writers do, which means that there is no viable excuse when it comes to allying himself with someone who thinks throwing acid in a girl’s face may be a justifiable thing to do. That is what Marc chose, and he has to live with the consequences of his choice.

10. VD has muttered darkly about them being disqualified.

    I haven’t checked, but given his somewhat hilarious track record of not checking basic eligibility requirements, perhaps the games he slated were first published prior to 2015.

11. Naomi Kritzer:

    Just popping in to squee and let you know that I adored So Much Cooking and Cat Pictures, Please. Thank you for writing them!

12. Sean: Where did I mention “shadowy cabal”? I do not think one exists and never have said so. What I *have* said is that “a small group with similar tastes and interests can determine what is considered.” Do you dispute that this is true?

    Do you understand that this “small group” to which you refer are the Worldcon members who created, nurtured and supported the Hugo Awards for the last 6 decades?

    Why in the world is them giving awards to what they like a problem for you? Why is that wrong? That’s why they created the Hugo Awards, after all.

    Or are you just another one of the small minority of complainers with an unjustified sense of entitlement who insists that the Hugo Awards are broken because they don’t reflect your personal tastes?

13. Would you like to elaborate on why you think a weak correlation that would happen in any popularly voted award is anything like at all the same as an overt slating campaign to force dreck onto an award shortlist? Thanks!

    So I’ll omit the insulting/ad hominem part and address the question. (I’ve got skills like that.)

    It is “anything like at all the same” in that a certain type or flavor of book gets an unfair advantage as the critical mass of voters prefer that type of book regardless of what might actually be the best written book. It is the type of story the critical mass prefers, and, as such, it is the most popular and therefore frequently shows up on the shortlist

    Since the WSFS voting population doesn’t exactly change rapidly (barring puppy influx of course), the results the next year are the same or similar as well. Meanwhile, people who prefer different types of books feel ignored and that the process itself is unfair and biased.

    This is especially true when an author, say, Larry Correia, who does write the type of books they enjoy, finally gets nominated and reports that he was scorned and insulted by WSFS members. This further cements their perception that the results are unfair and biased.

    Comparing this to the RP debacle, it’s the same only taken to absurd and disgusting levels (which, I believe, was their point). They dominated the ballot and the usual WSFS choices (and even a lot of the SP choices) were excluded. Again, the other side feels the process was unfair and biased, because, well, it was.

    Catching the similarity?

14. I especially look forward to permanent stain upon the career of Aramini, who couldn’t be published unless it was by a criminal crypto-fascist on the run from the law.

    Wondering what personal animosity lies between Travis Creason and Aramini

15. Since the WSFS voting population doesn’t exactly change rapidly (barring puppy influx of course)

    Citation needed. Those who participate in Worldcon frequently change. It is in the nature of a floating convention.

    Meanwhile, people who prefer different types of books feel ignored and that the process itself is unfair and biased.

    As has been noted many times over, this “perception” is only held by many Pups due to their ignorance concerning what has been nominated and won over the last decade and a half. Numerous conservative authors have been nominated for and won Hugo awards in the recent past.

    This is especially true when an author, say, Larry Correia, who does write the type of books they enjoy, finally gets nominated and reports that he was scorned and insulted by WSFS members.

    A report that is wildly at odds with his original account of his experiences there, and much at odds with most other people’s experience at the event. Given his shifting story and the fact that LC has been well-established as being one of the thinnest-skinned men in the world, his credibility on this subject is highly dubious.

    Catching the similarity?

    No. Because there isn’t any. Your attempt to conflate people voting for things they liked with an organized bloc-voting campaign is utterly unconvincing. “Things people liked” not getting nominated is not the issue. “A slate of bloc voters strategically voting for things as a political statement” is the issue.

16. @JJ

    @Rose Embolism:

    For a parallel discussion, the metafilter thread on the Hugos: Puppies all the Way Down. There’s some succinct answers to the question “Why are they doing this?”

    OMG, there are some priceless comments there:

    you’ll all see the error of your ways when my good friend Ron Jingo and I complete our book, Why SJWs Are Worse Than The Allied Forces

    posted by Krom Tatman

    That’s a good one.

    I am also exceedingly tickled by this one, by RakDaddy:

    These dicktrees are going to make me GET UP on a PERFECTLY GOOD MORNING FOR SLEEPING IN so I can go the Business Meeting to VOTE AGAINST THEIR DICKTREE BULLSHIT instead of SLEEPING IN AND NURSING A HANGOVER.

    TWICE. Because there will be some PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE BULLSHIT that will require GETTING UP instead of SLEEPING IN to go to TWO GODDAMN WSFS BUSINESS MEETINGS so I can vote against all of the PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE BULLSHIT in order to keep these dicktrees from CONTINUING WITH THEIR FUCKERY.

    Fuck these dicktrees. Fuck their writing. Fuck their fuckery. LET ME ENJOY DRINKING AT WORLDCON AND GETTING TO SLEEP IN, YOU DICKTREES.

    —

    @TheYoungPretender:

    People rarely admit they’re flat out wrong, even the ones who’ve been on the record as wrong as often as Hoyt and Paulk….

    I have no substantial reply, but want to note that I misread that for just a moment as “Hoytsfield Park,” and I hope someone who is more familiar with the Austen than I can do something glorious with the connection.

17. Sean: This is especially true when an author, say, Larry Correia, who does write the type of books they enjoy, finally gets nominated and reports that he was scorned and insulted by WSFS members.

    Firstly, his account of that was a retcon, what, 2 or 3 years later? How much of the revised account was him changing history to suit his agenda?

    Secondly, Correia has a huge attitude problem. He loves to stir up shit. If he encountered any sort of hostility at the Worldcon as he claims, I find it entirely believable that it was because he started making provocative statements just to get a reaction.

    There’s not a whole lot of credibility to Correia’s claim that he was unfairly treated by people at Worldcon. There is, however, a whole lot of evidence which suggests that his retconned account was not an honest retelling. If Puppies choose to believe it and get indignant about it — well, I can’t see why Worldcon voters should be expected to give Hugo gifts to Puppies just because they feel affronted.

18. On the subject of Baen editors and Hugos, I would like to offer two points of evidence for consideration. Both are drawn from my recent read of John Ringo’s “Black Tide” series, published 2013-2015, and the fourth/final novel was on the Sad slate/list this year.

    The first point is the inclusion in book three of that “pregnant preteen in a lifeboat” scene I’ve mentioned before. That’s one hell of an argument against competent content editing: “Hey, let’s put a completely irrelevant scene bordering on kiddie porn in the book!” A decent content editor would’ve pointed out that the scene could be completely removed, and a good one would have insisted on it as detrimental to the book as a whole.

    The second example takes a little more explanation, and goes to copy editing. In book one, there are a couple of mentions of the Navy using a “Zodiac” – which is apparently a lifeboat with an outboard motor. The word pops up again late in book two, with a little more explanation. What’s being called a “Zodiac” in that scene is actually a “Brig,” and both are examples of something known as an “RHIB.” The only clue we get about what any of those three terms really mean is that this one’s a boat designed to carry four people and a driver. In book three, we see Zodiacs carrying multiple “Marines in battle rattle” – so apparently they’re fairly rugged. In the prologue to book four, we get this cryptic line:

    And the impact very nearly tore the bottom out of the RHIB. Which would have made it, very briefly, an “IB.”

    Whatever the hell that means; the abbreviation hasn’t been defined, so the line only makes sense if you go outside the book to look it up. Finally, two-thirds of the way through book four, near the start of chapter 18, we get this:

    The Zodiac, what the Navy called a “RHIB” for “rigid-hulled inflatable boat,”

    There. A dozen words that succinctly define the thing, without bogging down the story. So why the hell weren’t those words in books one or two? More to the point, why bother now, with only a few chapters left to go before the series-concluding book is over?

    That’s not merely “unworthy of a Hugo” editing – it’s actively bad editing. Given that “Zodiac” is only used a couple of times in book one, I can see not defining the word there, but it damned well should’ve been in book two with the “Zodiac vs. Brig vs. RHIB” narration.

    Naturally, none of the books list an editor. They’re from Baen, which claims to use “team editing.” Well, in that case, what choice is there but to hold the entire team responsible?

19. Since the WSFS voting population doesn’t exactly change rapidly (barring puppy influx of course), the results the next year are the same or similar as well. Meanwhile, people who prefer different types of books feel ignored and that the process itself is unfair and biased.

    “Unfair” in the sense that their choices were less popular that other choices? That is very odd notion of “unfair” in a competition/vote. The only way that situation could be made “fair’ would be to ensure everybody got a turn but then that wouldn’t be any kind of competition at all really.

    This is especially true when an author, say, Larry Correia, who does write the type of books they enjoy, finally gets nominated and reports that he was scorned and insulted by WSFS members.

    Hmm. You see the thing is there are a number of occasions where Larry has claimed that he has been attacked in various ways. In some cases we only have Larry’s report and in other cases (e.g. that Guardian piece by Damien Walters about binary gender etc) where we can go an read what was actually said and compare it with what Larry claims was being said.

    But my real question is why you even bothering bringing Larry Correia into the discussion. He has said he isn’t involved anymore. He pulled out of Sad Puppies the year before. He played not role in Sad Puppies 4 this year and Sad Puppies 4 itself was not particularly a problem this year. So what has Larry Correia got to do with anything?

    We don’t neecd any complex analysis of grudges or groupings etc to understand the motivation of the Rabids – it is a Vox Day temper tantrum not some expression of cultural angst by Larry Correia fans.

20. @Sean This is especially true when an author, say, Larry Correia, who does write the type of books they enjoy, finally gets nominated and reports that he was scorned and insulted by WSFS members. This further cements their perception that the results are unfair and biased.

    This comes across as a disingenuous retelling of history, it’s not just that Larry got nominated like normal and then was scorned by the big mean “cabal” but that he got nominated based on a campaign that said, explicitly and repeatedly, that he a) had no respect for those voting on the Hugos and felt their votes were insincere and/or part of a nepotism regardless of quality and b) he wanted his win to be a giant “F U” to those fans he felt were insincere/wrong/a secret cabal. Hardly an innocent bystander caught up in a political tussle.

    He and those of a similiar mindset can feel the reaction they got to their behavior/words was unfair, sure. Toddlers often think its unfair when those around them don’t immediately and fully concede to their irrational, selfish demands. Is that really “unfair”, in the greater sense of injustice? Or can we agree that just because someone feels they are being treated unfairly that sometimes it’s because they are behaving in a way that creates a negative/unsatisfying-to-them response because their demands/expectations are *also* unfair to start with, not to mention unrealistic or actively harmful, etc. Cause and effect. He said his FU, and then he got an FU back. Big surprise!

    (Perhaps you can tell I have little patience for those who feel entitled to nice things and use that desire as an excuse to justify behaving like a jerk to get them.)

21. This is especially true when an author, say, Larry Correia, who does write the type of books they enjoy, finally gets nominated and reports that he was scorned and insulted by WSFS members.

    If Correia feels “scorned and insulted” by the WSFS members who chose him as one of their nominees for the Campbell but didn’t give him a victory (i.e., he was considered one of the five best new writers but, alas, not as good as Lev Grossman), then I submit that it is Correia, not the WSFS, that needs some attitude adjustment.

22. @Sean —

    “a certain type or flavor of book gets an unfair advantage as the critical mass of voters prefer that type of book regardless of what might actually be the best written book.”

    Umm. Sean. That’s how competitions WORK. If a critical mass of voters prefers a certain book — for **whatever** reason — then that book gets to win. There’s nothing unfair about it.

    You are not entitled to have your preferred books win just because you want them to.

23. @Sunhawk

    Sean’s reading comprehension is something that concerns us all. He’s been here before saying, in no particular order, that Correia and Torgerson never had any thoughts of culture war in their heads when they started ran Sad Puppies, that they never mocked anything as pc message fiction, that they were always very civil in their running of said campaigns, that anyone who assumed that Sad Puppies had a political bent didn’t have a leg to stand on, etc. Considering how much documentation, in the words of the people he was talking about, contradicting a lot of that, I’ve had my concerns about his comprehension.

    Now he goes back and forth between alleging that the Puppies were in reaction to a secret cabal, that he never made any accusations of a secret cabal but that there was obviously something happening, etc. I think shrieking tantrum just about describes it.

24. What are you going to do, have a political vetting committee to weed out all the Wrongfans? That’s where this thing is going, you know. And it ain’t the Sad or even the Rabid Puppies in the driver’s seat.

    You should endeavor to make it less obvious that you fantasize about being a member of a persecuted minority. It’s off-putting.

25. @Sunhawk

    In this case Sean is referring to Larry’s Campbell nom, which was indeed acquired by normal means. He said he had a great time at worldcon, and later backtracked and claimed to have been snubbed etc.

    (Also, that’s a very snazzy gravatar you’ve got there!)

26. But my real question is why you even bothering bringing Larry Correia into the discussion. He has said he isn’t involved anymore. He pulled out of Sad Puppies the year before. He played not role in Sad Puppies 4 this year and Sad Puppies 4 itself was not particularly a problem this year. So what has Larry Correia got to do with anything?

    That’s a good question. Larry Correia had a novel that made the Sad Puppies 4 recommendation list and Beale didn’t slate it. Correia just reminded people on his blog that he retired from Sad Puppies last year. It is weird for people to carry on his WorldCon-wronged-me vendetta as a reason for anything when he let it drop.

27. @Mark – oh man, I forgot about THAT part of the story! Apologies for mixing up different parts of the timeline. But yeah, maybe it’s because I’m a visual artist and I’m used to having peers that are way more talented and/or get way more awards/popularity, it’s just not something I expect or feel I am owed, just because I make art that if I do it long enough I should just **get** an award or have people seek me out, like it’s **only fair** etc.

    Thanks about my icon, it was a painting I commissioned from the very talented and lovely MissMonsterMel, back when she used to do commissions. I highly reccomend her work, always making really cool stuff! 🙂

    (I am replying to people out of order, excuse me lol)

28. marc aramini said:

    And I suppose we should never have heard of Melville, since he wasn’t popular in his lifetime, eh? I do believe my work belongs there or I wouldn’t have accepted the nomination. I also believe Melville should have been better known in his lifetime, but his audience simply wasn’t ready.

    Pedantic moment: Melville was actually quite popular in his lifetime. His books Typee and Omoo (adventure novels set in the South Pacific) were bestsellers. It’s his later, more literary works–including Moby Dick–that were initially unpopular.

    Regarding your actual argument: Your analogy suggests that because your book might(!) become popular in 75 years, that it merits an award now. One bestowed on it by an unready audience, no less, who are presumably motivated by an overwhelming affection for the audience of 75 years from now, and screw the audiences of the intervening 74 years.

    But what about the books published last year that will become popular in 10 years, or 25 years, or 100 years? Or–here’s a wild thought–what about the books published last year that are popular right now? Should we deprive them of their chance in the sun just because you have a fond hope that your book is as brilliant as Moby Dick and that the rest of the world will catch on to this sometime in the next century?

    Also, just imagine what would happen if you were awarded a Hugo on the basis of your book’s potential popularity in 2090 and that potential was never, in fact, realized. Wouldn’t we all have egg on our faces then.

29. I’ve run the numbers using the power-law estimator, and from that I calculate that about 270 rabid puppies voted the slate this year, and that they kept fairly good slate discipline. I only get two anomalies:

    “Hyperspace Demons,” by Jonathan Moeller should have been a finalist for Best Novelette. If we assume that he quietly declined the nomination, the numbers are a perfect fit.

    Similarly, Bryan Thomas Schmidt should have been a finalist for Best Editor, Long Form. If we assume he too declined the nomination, those numbers are also a perfect fit.

    I’ll look into writing all this up for an RSR article, but these numbers look pretty good. I suppose we’ll know for sure in August. 🙂

30. Hoytsfield Park –

    “I have not thought well of him from the time of the nominations. I then saw him behaving so very improperly and unfeelingly – so I received an impression that will never be got over. Nothing could be more improper than the whole business.”

31. Sean:

    “It is “anything like at all the same” in that a certain type or flavor of book gets an unfair advantage as the critical mass of voters prefer that type of book regardless of what might actually be the best written book”

    What do you mean by unfair advantage? What is it that is unfair and how would something be more fair according to you? Worldcon voters are worldcon voters. Why would you expect them to represent people outside of Worldcon that are not voters?

32. @TheYoungPretender – Gotta love someone dedicated to a good ol’ obfuscation campaign :X I believe it’s a simple one-step operation: just keep piling on the contradictory bs until the floor gives out under the weight of it all and your original argument is long since crushed to nothing, leaving you free to claim whatever you like.

    As my aunt might respond to such attempts: Hey pull my other leg, it’s got bells on it lol

33. @ Greg Hullender. Bryan Thomas Schmidt asked to be removed from the Sad Puppies 4 List stating he did not want a nomination. So he may have declined. Or some people didn’t vote for him knowing he would decline.

34. (I hated Moby Dick with the fiery vengeance of a thousand suns.)

35. JJ:

    “OMG, there are some priceless comments there:”

    This is my favourite:

    “As with GG (which is more or less the same phenomenon, just with this faction attuned to being shit about a different thing), I think it has been hard for a lot of people to process what is happening because “a bunch of assholes are being assholes” just seems too simple or something. Like there is all this noise, so there must be some sort of nuance or complication or a meaningful pre-existing grievance somewhere to be found.

    Which I suppose is often a commendable, or at least understandable, pattern of thought. It is unfortunate that it scales badly in a world full of networked shitheads.”

36. @Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little : OH JANE AUSTEN NO

37. @CeeV: Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say Melville was briefly popular in his lifetime? After his books improved–I love some of them with the fiery warmth of a thousand suns–he dropped into obscurity. (Note to certain writers: Keep doing what you’re doing the way you’re doing it. You wouldn’t want to go broke.)

38. And MidAmericon2 supporting membership purchased – looking forward to voting against any and all slates

    hi everyone, long time no see, but the forces of evil have forced me out of my blissful isolation

39. @Dawn Incognito – (me too eep! I gave up reading it halfway through last time I tried oh Lord)

40. Greg Hullender on April 27, 2016 at 1:36 pm said:
    I’ve run the numbers using the power-law estimator, and from that I calculate that about 270 rabid puppies voted the slate this year, and that they kept fairly good slate discipline. I only get two anomalies:

    My quick guess was 200 but yours looks more plausible.

    Bad news for DragonCon awards or any award that wants an open vote and doesn’t want to get freeped by a wannabe Donald Trump with a trust fund.

41. @Lois Tilton: No more animosity towards him than to any other miscreant who deals with Mr. Beale. It would seem I’m not alone in that.

42. @Greg Hullender

    270 is very interesting, although it’s a depressingly small number required to run an effective slate. Did you work in any sort of SP effect, or did you assume they had minimal impact?

    ETA: also implies that perhaps half of Teddy’s Boys from last year could be bothered to stick around and do ten mins cut and paste.

43. @ Dawn Incognito. Moby Dick was the first novel that I didn’t finish.

44. @CeeV:

    Ninja’d! Melville as the first “Why doesn’t s/he make good books/movies like s/he used to?” case immediately popped to mind.

    @Dawn Incognito:

    I would much rather teach “Benito Cereno,” “Bartleby the Scrivener,” The Confidence-Man, or even Billy Budd. One of my students observed that MD might be the first novel that needed a fast-forward button to get through the whaling-methods chapters.

45. @John A Arkansawyer: Oh, absolutely. Melville was a popular writer for about seven years, then faded into obscurity, with a bit of a revival in the UK towards the end of his life. I just get annoyed at the ahistorical narrative that supposes that because 20th and 21st century fave Moby Dick was slow to become popular, that therefore Melville must have been completely unrecognized in his lifetime.

    ETA: I also feel compelled to share that I love basically every part of Moby Dick, including the hilarious (to me) sections on The Whale: Mammal or Fish? (Melville argues fish) and the tearjerky (again, to me) sections on whaling methods, knowing what we do now about the devastating impact of the whaling industry on our oceans.

46. Just dropping in as the loyal opposition to say I loved and love Moby Dick.

47. Camestros: Presumably the overall number of voters for the Dragons will be greater; and since it’s one nomination per category, slating as we know it won’t work. Besides which, it’s possible they have built safeguards in, making the process semi-juried in some way; we’re still a bit in the dark about this.

    Greg: So, the 525 voters don’t exist. However, 270 is enough to beat regular voters in most categories (except for Novel and DP Long Form), even with an expanded vote. This strikes me as reasonably good for EPH: in that system a work would need at least 54 votes to beat a slate vote of 270 (though it might need more, owing to the clumping provisions), but quite a lot of regularly nominated works do get 54, so the probability of a not-wildly-unbalanced ballot seems quite high.

48. @Mark

    270 is very interesting, although it’s a depressingly small number required to run an effective slate. Did you work in any sort of SP effect, or did you assume they had minimal impact?

    I assumed SP had no impact.

    As I started writing it up, I found a couple of mistakes. I now get 260, and I think one other long-form editor declined the nomination. Is that plausible?

49. Travis Creason – I see similar sentiments with less bile.

50. @Mark

    Thank you for pointing out SunHawk’s and TheYoungPretender’s reading comprehension fail. Or was it a knowledge fail? Not sure. Well done since TheYoungPretender, especially, likes to pretend everything I post is a “reading comprehension fail”.

Comments are closed.