474 thoughts on “Pixel Scroll 4/28/16 All My Hugos”

1. @Jim Henley & @Various: I wouldn’t want to remove EPH whether it totally fixes things (it won’t) or some other solution to slates comes up, or @Hampus Eckerman’s idea happens. IMHO EPH more perfectly preresents voter preferences than the current system. It’s is genius in this regard, and is useful on its own merits, regardless of slates or bad actors. To me, the other ideas (Standlee, Eckerman, etc.) are irrelevant to EPH, as it’s simply a better way to count/process nominations.

   EPH + @Hampus Eckerman’s second-nom-phase may be even better (I’m still thinking over his idea), but they don’t conflict and you get a cleaner and IMHO more accurate intermediate list anyway with EPH. One that’s more reflective of the aggregate votes.

   I would like to see how EPH shakes out, and how things change next year. No harm in starting a proposal now, but I dearly hope people don’t just throw EPH under the bus or have a silly “renew every year forever” attached to it, as if it’s not worthwhile on it’s own. I mean, shoot, hopefully see the problem with just removing a good new rule, thinking things solved. Do I need to spell it out?

   Sorry to ramble so much about EPH, but I really love it. 😉

2. What I want to make clear is that the second round in DN (without write-in) puts more workload on website designers, not that much more on administrators per se. Let me explain why:

   1) After round one, administrators will anyhow compile a list of 15 long list nominees during some time as they will be displayed after the Hugo-voting.

   2) They will be added using the website user interface for the next round.

   3) For all users voting in second round, they will have drop down boxes with all candidates. No possibility for wrong spelling, errors in authors name and so on. No need for cleanup afterwords.

   4) When voting has closed, running an algorithm to get the winners could be done immediately as no handling of write-ins needs to be done. Should be done within one hour.

   So lot less administration without write-ins and lots quicker to get the results. Lets add that works that are found out to be non-eligible should not be replaced on the long list and it shouldn’t need to be that much more work.

3. Kendall: but it’s at least 5 🙂 times better.

   I saw what you did there.

4. One note on my proposal to shun the Puppies…

   I am under no delusion that shunning them will make them go away. The loud street preacher shouting apocalyptic warnings at anyone in earshot will do so whether I pay attention to him or not. However, I see no need to reward his antics by giving him a giant megaphone. Not only would that not stop him, but it would extend his reach and encourage him to continue. It would be counterproductive.

   I keep coming back to the “Don’t Name Them” and “No Notoriety” campaigns with respect to mass shooting incidents and other high-profile crimes. When someone does something awful to become infamous, they should be denied that reward. It shouldn’t be about the macabre fascination of “why Person X did it,” but “what we can do to prevent this from happening again.” The focus shifts from the criminal to the crime.

   For the Hugos, consider how that tactic would change the coverage. Instead of hanging breathlessly on every Puppy blog post, or wringing our hands about how awful they are as people for tampering with the ballot, or speculating on what they’ll do in the future… we could shed all that and put our energy into solving the problem.

   Really, what do we gain by trawling through the muck to give megaphones to the guilty parties by covering (and discussing) their cackles of delight as they revel in the chaos they’ve caused? The damage is done. We know the culprits. We know their tactics. We know their motives. What useful purpose is served by covering Today’s Batch of Noxious Puppy Poo in loving, salacious detail?

5. Rev. Bob on May 1, 2016 at 3:38 am said:

   Really, what do we gain by trawling through the muck to give megaphones to the guilty parties by covering (and discussing) their cackles of delight as they revel in the chaos they’ve caused? The damage is done. We know the culprits. We know their tactics. We know their motives. What useful purpose is served by covering Today’s Batch of Noxious Puppy Poo in loving, salacious detail?

   Because in reality they don’t like it. Vox has a thicker skin than the Sads but we know Larry got sick of the attention, it did very odd things to Brad, the Mad Genii like to grumble but they get snippy when people discuss what they say. They concoct a bubble of belief around themselves and while getting a message through is impossible they don’t like the other intruding. A hefty chunk of the emotional reaction behind their politics is that resentment of the other world intruding into their bubble.

   I think your reasoning is sound in terms of shunning them but I think it rests on a false assumption about their motivation. They sort of think they want the attention initially but in reality they don’t (of which Brad is the prime example – all bluster and boasting initially).

6. Rev. Bob:

   It is called venting. It is actually a part of trauma treatment, let people discuss in detail what has happened with others which gives a sense of relief and also builds community. A connection with others with the same shared feelings.

   You acknowledge that Beale et al will not go away, regardless of if we stop writing, but still want to stop us doing what gives us relief?

   I agree with many of your points, but I’m not really interested if this gives Beale satisfaction or not. He is not that important to me.

7. @Hampus: “You acknowledge that Beale et al will not go away, regardless of if we stop writing, but still want to stop us doing what gives us relief?”

   It is wise to slow down when approaching a five-car pileup if it is a navigational hazard, but doing so just to look at the wreckage is in poor taste. Gawking at the bloodshed won’t make the victims any deader, but it’s not exactly respectful, either.

   There is a point at which discussing the situation turns into obsessing over it, and letting oneself develop such an obsession is unhealthy. Grief is a necessary step in coping with tragedy, but it has to be just that: a step. Followed by other steps. If someone doesn’t eventually come to terms with their pain, it will consume them. I’ve seen it happen.

8. One thing I will note is that we don’t yet know how much of the longlist the Puppies dominated. People have been dismissing the Sads as not affecting anything, but I think it’s quite possible that the Rabids dominated because they had slates of five and the Sads with their slates of ten diluted their unfair advantage by 50% but are waiting just down ballot where we can’t see them yet because the long lists haven’t been announced.

   If that is the case some longlist approval or renomination process that worked on the top fifteen nominations could be looking at ten slate entries among the fifteen.

   Rev, I think there’s going to be a lot of talk about bad actors for the same reason bad actors have a lot of chat about the things they attack; figuring out how to deal with something requires a certain amount of communication.

   Furthermore if someone is wrecked and you don’t see other people trying to give aid, it’s time to stop the car, get out the phone and go see if anyone is bleeding out while calling 911. Sometimes the victims of these things need to know that other people see what is going on, and care.

9. @Rev. Bob:

   I keep coming back to the “Don’t Name Them” and “No Notoriety” campaigns with respect to mass shooting incidents and other high-profile crimes.

   Is there any evidence that this has been effective? Can you point me to an analysis making a persuasive case that mass shootings have gone down because of these campaigns?

10. Pingback: NEWS FROM FANDOM: 5/1/16 - Amazing Stories

11. Rev. Bob:

    “It is wise to slow down when approaching a five-car pileup if it is a navigational hazard, but doing so just to look at the wreckage is in poor taste.”

    But that doesn’t stop people from doing it as it is a part of the human survival instinct. To watch accidents and try to learn from them.

    It has been less than a week. It is totally unrealistic to expect people to be quiet about it already.

12. @Jim Henley

    And indeed, a lot of people proposing “no notoriety” campaigns, in my experience, are gun rights types proposing it as a solution for actual gun control. They can feel virtuous, societally conscious, and put off the hard choices – and much as I like it 3SV would be an effort- until some “better” time.

13. “Is there any evidence that this has been effective? Can you point me to an analysis making a persuasive case that mass shootings have gone down because of these campaigns?”

    I actually agree with these campaigns and with a lot of Rev. Bobs arguments. There has been enough studies showing that serial shooters have studied others before them, taking inspiration from them. That fame and with that a sense of power is one thing that they go after.

    No Naming is only one solution to that problem. Other alternatives have been to instead discuss shooters as the people they are. Not discussing their deeds as their primary focus, but focusing on their lives where they mostly have been failures and losers. Hardly objects of inspiration.

    More or less what has been done regarding Beale in comments here.

14. @Hampus:

    There has been enough studies showing that serial shooters have studied others before them, taking inspiration from them. That fame and with that a sense of power is one thing that they go after.

    Yes, but the question is, does the effort to deprive today’s shooters of notoriety reduce the number of future shooters? There’s a causal explanation for why it might, but that’s not the same as evidence that it does.

15. I would strongly oppose any attempt to exclude supporting members quite generally. (I’m not sure anyone has actually proposed this, but just in case, I hereby record my opposition.) I would actually be OK with some limitation of nomination (not voting), to, for instance, attending members and those who have been supporting members for three years. The effect of this would be that one could not sign up with the specific intention of nominating a particular thing; choices would be made by people who were already committed to the process. This would have the advantage that it works not only against slates but also against single-issue campaigns, about which neither EPH nor 4/6 do anything (and EPH might in some circumstances make it worse).

    Unfortunately it is too late to do anything about this now, because by the time it came into force the slaters would have been members for three years anyway.

    On the other hand, 3SV would work against single issue campaigns as well: it would allow us to vote down/not vote up anything which we felt was on the ballot by unfair means, whatever the details.

16. Hampus Eckerman: Not discussing their deeds as their primary focus, but focusing on their lives where they mostly have been failures and losers. Hardly objects of inspiration.

    A great deal of acting out of all varieties has its roots in a person’s sense of shame and worthlessness. So although I agree that it would be useful to avoid glorifying shooters, I do not see as a solution reportage that dwells on their worthlessness. I also can’t say it would make it any worse, but it doesn’t strike me as likely to make things any better.

17. @Andrew M:

    On the other hand, 3SV would work against single issue campaigns as well: it would allow us to vote down/not vote up anything which we felt was on the ballot by unfair means, whatever the details.

    Yes, this is my concern about attempting to recast 3SV in terms of some “positive” mechanic like double nominations or whatever. It seems like it’s in denial of the problem, which is that the vast majority of slots on the ballot are being taken up by the sustained campaign of someone who means the awards harm. The WSFS needs a provision to smack down bad actors quickly. Trying to get that in effect while constructing the process to be “about what you love” seems like imposing an extra layer of complication on any proposal.

18. “Yes, but the question is, does the effort to deprive today’s shooters of notoriety reduce the number of future shooters? There’s a causal explanation for why it might, but that’s not the same as evidence that it does.”

    How do we know without trying?

    As I said, I agree with most of Rev. Bobs points. I think we shouldn’t focus on Beale as such, the important thing is building a troll defense. If not him, someone else later on. His opinions aren’t really important to us. We shouldn’t care if he is getting satisfaction or if he screams “WIN!” as a drugged TV-star. The important thing for us is to see what can be done to make the Hugos troll safe.

    We should not become a megaphone for Beale, what he says is unimportant. But it is still important for us to follow what the nominated candidates say because it might influence us. Were they in on the cheating or not? That will affect how some of us vote. Also, there is a need for venting.

    This is less than one week in. I do think talking will slow down quite soon. The Sads aren’t as involved as before. No one has cared to listen to the rabid toddlers for a long time. There is an amount of puppy fatigue.

    Then we are back to talking about benches and books again. But I do think we need to have a good proposal for a voting system that can stay as soon as possible. Not one that has to be amended every year after we learned about the next trolling attack. But one that from the beginning has taken the possible way of trolling in account and tried to counter them.

    Last year, people were conservative, didn’t like change, thought it couldn’t last. This year hopefully they know better. My guess is that with 2-3 years more of trolling, the Hugos are dead. Who wants to read as much as needed if a bunch of assholes will take 90% of the slots? And they will most likely up their game every year as it will be needed to create the same level of outrage.

    EPH isn’t enough. And if we want a better system, it needs to be discussed, it needs to be checked against former and possible future Hugo administrators, it needs to be written down, it needs to be campaigned for.

    All in three months.

    My guess personally is that there won’t be any change on this scale, that there might be fewer nominations from puppies next year, that people think that the danger is over and will be happy as it is. And then – BAM – in 15 years time another troll appears. And no troll defense to stop them.

19. Jim Henley: My ‘not vote up’ was meant to cover the positive version of 3SV. As far as I can see, if there is enough support for legitimate nominees to outvote a slate, there should also be enough support for legitimate nominees to outvote Black Genesis. But I may be missing something here.

20. Forgive me, but have we discussed making the Round of 15 in 3SV Attending only? It would seem to put the level of effort needed to implement it down, and would make the electorate those who are already quite committed to attending. And having the limiter against “Boaty McBoatface”, or TrollyMcTrollface -style Internet lolz be the meatspace attendees has some logic behind it.

21. Mike:

    “A great deal of acting out of all varieties has its roots in a person’s sense of shame and worthlessness. So although I agree that it would be useful to avoid glorifying shooters, I do not see as a solution reportage that dwells on their worthlessness. I also can’t say it would make it any worse, but it doesn’t strike me as likely to make things any better.”

    Agree in that fostering feelings of martyrdom is not a good thing either.

22. Jim Henley:

    “Trying to get that in effect while constructing the process to be “about what you love” seems like imposing an extra layer of complication on any proposal.”

    I think that is positive! We are in a discussion phase. We want to know as many pro:s and con:s as possible. We don’t want to discuss one solution, we want to discuss several and all possible tweaks to them. And think how about that would affect the pro:s and con:s.

    I don’t want to try to change the voting system every year. It is one thing to find better algorithm. But to change how people actually vote? What we decide on, we are most likely stuck with. So take as many factors as possible into the deal during discussion.

23. Kendall: I’m rather worried about the idea of EPH as better representing voter preferences. As I understand it, it was rather carefully adjusted so as not to make a difference to results in normal circumstances. (I’m not convinced this will apply to BDPSF, which did not exist in 1983, against whose figures EPH was tested; but since that category is widely seen as having problems anyway, this may not be a worry. In general, though, it’s meant to produce the same results as the traditional system. Or did you just mean that it will produce the same results, but in a more beautiful way?)

    I explained this in more detail on Camestros’s site a while ago, so let me just reproduce what I said:

    The aim of the system is not so much to represent everyone, as to point out good works of science fiction and fantasy; and there’s an assumption (not unreasonable, I think) that if a lot of people (non-conspiratorially) converge on a group of works as being good, that is evidence that they are good.

    This is not necessarily an objection to EPH, because it has been taken into account in constructing EPH. In the early stages people were proposing systems which were much more geared to representing everybody, so that convergence, even if accidental, would be penalised heavily; and some of us felt that this would have a dulling effect, favouring works that, individually, had a lot of fans, but very little cross-group appeal. The finished system was meant to deal with this; I don’t understand the maths, but my understanding is that the difference between EPH and plain SDV was planned so that accidental convergence wouldn’t be penalised. We were assured that EPH would not, in the absence of special circumstances, produce results different from the traditional system; and this is important if, like many people, you don’t value the Hugos because of some abstract ideal, but because of their actual success in finding good stuff.

    Of course, since EPH cannot read people’s minds, accidental convergence will still be penalised if it reaches the levels one would expect of a slate; but the figures we have so far suggest that this never happens. If it did happen, and as a result the works people were converging on didn’t get nominated, I think that would be a problem.

24. TYP:

    “Forgive me, but have we discussed making the Round of 15 in 3SV Attending only?”

    I am afraid this would cause a drop in supporting memberships and also a loss in goodwill. It might even affect attending memberships long term. So while I acknowledge that it would solve the problem, I am a bit nervous about it.

    I actually once had an idea about limiting voting to those who have attended at least once the last 10 years or so. But thought it would make too much work for the administrators.

25. TYP: No! Giving one body of members a veto over the choices of another body of members is a recipe for recriminations – especially as attending members are likely to be on average richer, or at least that is something that could be plausibly claimed.

    I would have no objection to an award straightforwardly given by those who attend a convention; but once an effort has been made to be more inclusive, it’s not a good idea to have special provisions which count against that.

26. @Andrew M

    I’m speaking as someone who’s never actually been in the flesh. But there’s a difference in commitment. While there are many supporting who are as committed to the ongoing survival of the Hugos, some are just here for the lulz. As it’s the ones who are here for the lulz we are worried about, and they are likely uncommon amongst the attending, I throw the offer out.

    Also, I think one of the problems of the Round of 15 could be turnout. If “no” has to be a majority of the nominators, we’ve made a paper screen, if a lot of people disengage after making their ballot. But if its a majority of those voting in the Round of 15, there could be a controversy if say 4000 nominate, 2000 vote in the Round of 15, and thus say 1500 no votes toss a nominee. I think this is an optics problem, not a real problem – 1500 is more than 200 odd man children – but it could come up.

    @Hampus

    I feel you are right, but also above. Not sure where I fall on this, just discussing.

27. So as to Hampus’s proposal: One advantage is that it would allow us, as it were, to detach things from a slate. If slated works get enough support on the second round to get on the ballot, that is evidence that they are not simply there because of the slate. This applies not only to the ‘would have been nominated anyway’ kind of work, like Penric’s Demon, but also to works that might have been brought to wider attention by the slate, but are nevertheless worthy – thus overcoming any Impostor Syndrome worries.

    Problems: One is multiple slates. I don’t think this year’s Sad list is that much of a worry, because it largely overlaps either with the Rabid list or with wider consensus. (Except for Honor at Stake.) But there certainly could be multiple slates, and it’s not clear how this system would deal with them. But then, I’m not sure anything else would either.

    Another is this: To outvote a slate, or undeserving parts thereof, the ten (or however many) non-slate works would have to get a lot of votes. Ideally, everyone would vote for five items in each category. Would we be able to do this? Would the top fifteen include, for each of us, five works we knew and found deserving? JJ mentioned that she had read about seventy novels published in 2015; I think I’ve read about fifteen, and that’s because I was making a special effort. I think quite a lot of nominators will be nearer to my situation, and that if we want to expand the number of nominators that means that more will be so. (And if a conclusive way of destroying slates once and for all were discovered, I would go back to reading stuff in the year after it’s published, and using award shortlists as a guide.)

28. The idea of limiting nominating(or second nominations) to only attending members has a weakness. This limits the pool of voters overall while increasing the impact of each troll vote. Sure it raises the cost bar, but makes it more possible for a committed group against a surprised community. I feel like we would be hurting ourselves for a perceived sense of security.
    I am more comfortable with limiting voting and nominating to that year’s attendees, however, the historical reasons that it was extended still stand.

    I agree that we are looking for a way to say, “not that one”, without actually saying that. The best I can think of with that is just asking which of these works should be considered for the Hugo. So, I support the idea of DN (or 3SV) in theory. What would the quorum need be, and how many checks or blanks would be needed for qualification or disqualification?

29. Andrew M:

    “Problems: One is multiple slates. I don’t think this year’s Sad list is that much of a worry, because it largely overlaps either with the Rabid list or with wider consensus.”

    If there are multiple slates on a level that they can take 15 positions, regardless of EPH being used in at least the first nomination phase, then the Hugos has too large a problem to be solved with a voting system.

30. Regarding limiting voting to the current years members, this is an example with ficti ve numbers of why I am against:

    1. Country A: 1500 regular voters, 1000 new attending members for country A, 300 trolls.
    1. Country B: 1500 regular voters, 1000 new attending members for country B, same 300 trolls.
    1. Country C: 1500 regular voters, 1000 new attending members for country C, same 300 trolls.

    Either we have 2500 voters against 300 trolls with limiting to current year. Or we have 4500 voters against 300 trolls when looking at all years.

    Trolls are more or less a constant, they wouldn’t attend any year. But there will be large differences otherwise with regards to who buys memberships.

31. Snodberry Fields on May 1, 2016 at 11:34 am said:

    I agree that we are looking for a way to say, “not that one”, without actually saying that. The best I can think of with that is just asking which of these works should be considered for the Hugo. So, I support the idea of DN (or 3SV) in theory. What would the quorum need be, and how many checks or blanks would be needed for qualification or disqualification?

    For Double Nominations, I don’t think you need a quorum. We don’t enforce one for the first round of nominations, other than the not-technically-defined rule that the Administrator can cancel a category for lack of interest. (The Administrator gets to decide what “lack of interest” means.)

    It appears that people really think you need a quorum for 3SV. I did go revise the LJ entry to include a discussion of it. I expect that if this one gets as far as a formal proposal, there will not be a consensus as to what the quorum needs to be and the Business Meeting will start arguing over multiple versions, just as they did over the different possible values in 4/6 before settling on … 4/6, the originally proposed value.

    Not needing to deal with a quorum discussion is, to me, an argument in favor of Double Nominations over 3SV. We’re already discussing adding a round of complexity to the process. Adding still more procedural gewgaws to a proposal reduces its utility and can discourage people from supporting it.

    Hampus Eckerman on May 1, 2016 at 11:37 am said:

    Andrew M:

    If there are multiple slates on a level that they can take 15 positions, regardless of EPH being used in at least the first nomination phase, then the Hugos has too large a problem to be solved with a voting system.

    Agreed completely. Just like I pointed out that if the Griefers can get a majority of the electorate behind them, they win, period. All of the proposals I’ve been helping with have a fundamental assumption that the majority of the members get to make the decisions.

32. Andrew M on May 1, 2016 at 11:19 am said:

    To outvote a slate, or undeserving parts thereof, the ten (or however many) non-slate works would have to get a lot of votes. Ideally, everyone would vote for five items in each category. Would we be able to do this?

    Working from the assumption that the Griefers are only about 20% of the electorate, unless the 80% of the rest of the voters ignored the second round, I don’t see how they couldn’t outvote them. Even if they spread their second-round nominations evenly among the other ten semi-finalists, they’d still represent four times the voting power of the 20%.

    Here’s a key thing: Democracy is won by those people who show up. That’s why No Award swept its way through the Hugo Awards last year, after the members stood up and said, “You shall not pass.” If you sit on your hands and don’t vote on the second round, you’re saying, “I don’t care, and I’ll let those who do care make up my mind for me.” That’s your right (I hate systems that force people to vote), but you have to live with the consequences of abstaining in that case.

33. How would double nominations tie in with EPH? Would the idea be that EPH would run on that second round as well or would the thinking be that the second round would be more cohesive anyway?

    My feeling would be that EPH is probably a sound method in the second round, not for its anti-slate properties but for its proportionality aspects. The second round would tend towards more organic non-slate groupings regardless, so a system that accounted for that would be good.

34. I’m not sure if EPH would be needed in the semi-finals. The proportionality aspects might not be as important when the number of possible nominees have been lessened to 15 alternatives instead of closer to infinity. Not sure if even 4/6 is necessary in semifinals or if that actually would have a negative effect.

35. Working from the assumption that the Griefers are only about 20% of the electorate, unless the 80% of the rest of the voters ignored the second round, I don’t see how they couldn’t outvote them.

    That wasn’t the question. Of course, if the other eighty percent voted, they would outvote the slaters. The question is, could the other eighty percent vote? If this is a positive vote, we should vote for things we have read. We’re not ranking stuff, so there’s no imperative to read everything (unless we decide not to, for reasons); but we should read all the stuff we are voting for – five things per category. During the actual period of the second stage vote, there won’t be time to do this. There’s an assumption that we have read it already. That’s a dangerous assumption.

    (This does not affect the negative version, where we need only read things we want to vote down, and not even that if we have principled reasons for excluding them.)

36. Andrew M:

    “The question is, could the other eighty percent vote? If this is a positive vote, we should vote for things we have read. We’re not ranking stuff, so there’s no imperative to read everything (unless we decide not to, for reasons); but we should read all the stuff we are voting for – five things per category. During the actual period of the second stage vote, there won’t be time to do this. There’s an assumption that we have read it already. That’s a dangerous assumption.”

    I think this is category dependent. Best Novela is almost safe anyhow, I think it would be again. As would, I guess, categories that are easy to review like best artists or BDP. I do think short stories readable for free would have a huge advantage here, pushing away other stories.

    I’m mostly afraid for categories like best fancast or best novelette. Thank you for this post. It convinced me that EPH would still be necessary in second round.

37. Camestros Felapton on May 1, 2016 at 12:30 pm said:

    How would double nominations tie in with EPH? Would the idea be that EPH would run on that second round as well or would the thinking be that the second round would be more cohesive anyway?

    Personally, I think that if we had Double Nominations or 3SV, we wouldn’t need EPH at all, and in my mind that is a feature, not a bug, because it means that each of the three stages is (relatively) easy to understand. (IRV still makes people’s brains hurt even after more than forty years, but I think it’s easier to explain than EPH.) But in any event, I really see no need to use EPH in the second round even if it’s used in the first.

    What I think some folks still don’t understand is that the “slate” issue arises precisely because the free-form nominations of the first round have such a huge long tail that a disciplined minority can exploit. In neither of the two forms of second-stage voting would this be an issue. 3SV gives members a chance to vote against works they think acted in bad faith. Double Nominations gives people a chance to vote on the five works from among the fifteen most popular (while retaining the chance to write in one work), and thus concentrates the attention of the electorate among the works most likely to be of interest to the membership as a whole, including those that a group of ~20% were convinced were the best.

    If you like, we have the entire electorate compiling a “slate” or recommendation list, and are then submitting it (un-ordered) to the membership of the current Worldcon while saying, “Pick five of these; you can add one of your own if you don’t find these to your own taste.”

    Hampus Eckerman on May 1, 2016 at 12:52 pm said:

    Not sure if even 4/6 is necessary in semifinals or if that actually would have a negative effect.

    I don’t think it’s necessary. The second round of voting (either system) deals with the Griefers pretty well in my opinion.

    Andrew M on May 1, 2016 at 1:02 pm said:

    That wasn’t the question. Of course, if the other eighty percent voted, they would outvote the slaters. The question is, could the other eighty percent vote? If this is a positive vote, we should vote for things we have read. We’re not ranking stuff, so there’s no imperative to read everything (unless we decide not to, for reasons); but we should read all the stuff we are voting for – five things per category. During the actual period of the second stage vote, there won’t be time to do this. There’s an assumption that we have read it already. That’s a dangerous assumption.

    If we’re looking at the fifteen works that are generally the most popular among those who voted in the first round, I would be very surprised if they weren’t works that were reasonably widely read. This is a popularity contest at heart, after all.

    There’s no way to enforce a requirement that you’ve read everything for which you vote. You can encourage it, but you can’t mandate it. I do not worry myself about such things.

38. If we’re looking at the fifteen works that are generally the most popular among those who voted in the first round, I would be very surprised if they weren’t works that were reasonably widely read.

    Of course they will be reasonably widely read – among those who regularly read such things. I really think people aren’t taking enough account of all the people who rarely read short fiction, who aren’t familiar with semiprozines, fancasts etc., and who, though they do read novels, don’t typically do so in the year in which they first appear. Such people, if they are to nominate these entities for awards, have to actively go in search of them. They may not be at all familiar with the field, beyond the things they have specifically checked out with a view to nominating.

    Case in point: I have read three novelettes this year. In the end I decided to nominate only one of them. Of the top fifteen, therefore, there will be at least twelve that I have not read.

    I think quite a lot of nominators already fall into this class – you see them, at nomination time, saying how busy they are with their award reading – and if we want to expand the number of nominators, more will do so.,

39. @Andrew M:

    Of course they will be reasonably widely read – among those who regularly read such things. I really think people aren’t taking enough account of all the people who rarely read short fiction, who aren’t familiar with semiprozines, fancasts etc., and who, though they do read novels, don’t typically do so in the year in which they first appear. Such people, if they are to nominate these entities for awards, have to actively go in search of them. They may not be at all familiar with the field, beyond the things they have specifically checked out with a view to nominating.

    This is my concern as well.

40. @Jim Henley

    And, yet, you have no such concerns with a down vote stage?

    My guess is you believe a down check would only be used against obvious trolling. I think though once a hammer is in the toolbox we need to consider it might be used other ways than intended. Down vote has the same issue of limited knowledge of the voting base in too short period of time to make informed decisions.

    Consider, quickly and blind, under 3SV:

    Is “Fuck me, Ray Bradbury” an unworthy troll nominee or a Hugo worthy expression of creativity? Certainly it has a trollish name…

    How about that weird dinosaur revenge story I’ve heard about “If you were a dinosaur, my Love”? I hear it’s all literary navel gazing and probably a furry nom anyways…

    Gene Wolfe has always bored me to tears. I can’t read that omnibus in time but it’s probably dreck. Down vote…

    Baen can’t edit it’s way out of a paper sack. I don’t have time to read that novel Still, Baen: nope…

    If I don’t have time to find out for myself, whose opinion am I supposed to take? If I’m just taking someone else’s word what’s so wrong with a slate?

    [All the above scenarios being what-if hypotheticals and not actual expressions of my opinion, ill informed or otherwise, about the persons, stories, or publishers used as examples]

41. @Stoic Cynic: I have worries, sure. It’s a matter of where you set the threshold, and how you ensure participation at the semifinal stage.

42. Regarding limiting voting to the current years members (discussion from many above):

    I wasn’t paying much attention when this was implemented, but I thought the purpose of allowing members of the preceding and subsequent Worldcons to nominate for this year’s Hugos, was to try increasing the low numbers of nominators.

43. Ken Josenhans on May 2, 2016 at 8:25 am said:

    Regarding limiting voting to the current years members…. I wasn’t paying much attention when this was implemented, but I thought the purpose of allowing members of the preceding and subsequent Worldcons to nominate for this year’s Hugos, was to try increasing the low numbers of nominators.

    As it happens, granting nominating rights to the previous year’s members was not primarily pushed as an “increase turnout” measure. It was because we were wrestling with the previous case of perceived ballot-stuffing. At that time, we set the deadline for being a member of the current Worldcon in order to be able to nominate to the end of January of the current year, which is generally before the end of nominating. (Prior to that, you could include your membership with your ballot, as you can currently do on the final ballot or with the site selection ballot.) When we set that deadline, there was a concern that we would be disenfranchising people who regularly participate every year who hadn’t gotten around to joining yet. To deal with that, we let the previous year’s members nominate, but not vote.

    Adding the subsequent year’s members was a relatively recent change. It first took effect for the 2012 Hugo Awards. It was ratified unanimously at the 2011 Worldcon after having been first passed at the 2010 Worldcon, whose minutes aren’t online. Maybe the recording of the 2010 Business Meeting where the proposal to extend eligibility forward was first proposed would shed some light upon the motivations of its advocates.

44. I prefer the approval-voting version (3SV) versus the double nom version. I am one of those who struggles to keep up with the field. For approval voting, I don’t need to decide which of these nominees is best. I just need to decide whether they were gamed on to the list or not. I think of that as positive, not negative. Yes, these 12 (say) nominees are honest nominees, and the top five should be allowed on the final ballot.

45. “Hampus Eckerman on April 30, 2016 at 12:04 am said:”

    A semi-final round is a great idea. It was proposed last year on Making Light, in the discussion that came up with EPH.

    It was shot down because “it would make too much work for the Hugo Administrators, having to validate all those extra nominees”

    The real reason it was shot down was because the Torlings are very happy with a system where 40 determined people voting as a slate can drive 1 – 2 nominations onto any of several different categories, and a semi-final round would destroy that capability.

    Personally, I think it’s a great idea, and wish you all the luck in the world pushing it. It needs no EPH, it requires no strategic voting, it beats even two full slates, it’s better than the current system, and infinitely superior to EPH, unless you’re a member of an “in” crowd that expects to have 1 – 2 nominees in every category every year under EPH.

    But I’d guess it will go nowhere, because of that in crowd.

    Oh, feel free to prove me wrong: push the Hugo Administrators to do what was promised last year at Sasquan, and release the anonymized Nomination ballots, to anyone and everyone, not just members of the in crowd

46. The real reason it was shot down was because the Torlings are very happy with a system where 40 determined people voting as a slate can drive 1 – 2 nominations onto any of several different categories, and a semi-final round would destroy that capability.

    Pushing idiot conspiracy theories like this just makes you look incredibly stupid.

    push the Hugo Administrators to do what was promised last year at Sasquan, and release the anonymized Nomination ballots, to anyone and everyone

    That was never promised.

47. @jonesnori/Lenore Jones on May 2, 2016 at 12:04 pm said:
    I prefer the approval-voting version (3SV) versus the double nom version. I am one of those who struggles to keep up with the field. For approval voting, I don’t need to decide which of these nominees is best. I just need to decide whether they were gamed on to the list or not.

    So, IOW, you want to vote your hate, rather than voting for what’s actually best.

    Thanks for clearing that up.

    Here’s a thought: If you don’t have any real opinion on what should be the top 5 works, and don’t want to put any effort in to figuring out the answer to that question, but are nevertheless quite eager to put effort in to voting down the “wrong” works, what you are is a tribal warrior eager to cast out all “bad thinkers”, not an actual Science Fiction / Fantasy fan trying to find the best works and recognize them each year.

    In short, if you want to know “who destroyed the Hugos”, just look in a mirror.

48. @Aaron on May 9, 2016 at 12:14 pm said:

    Pushing idiot conspiracy theories like this just makes you look incredibly stupid.

    Really? So you’re telling us you actually believe it’s not possible to anonymize the Hugo nomination ballots?

49. Really? So you’re telling us you actually believe it’s not possible to anonymize the Hugo nomination ballots?

    The idiot conspiracy theory I was referring to was your claim about “Torlings”. To be honest, using the term “Torlings” pretty much demonstrates you to be a blithering fool, but saying that the “real” reason is some imaginary slate you’ve conjured up out of nothing is what makes you look dumber than a bag of hammers.

    On the ballots, however, in practice, achieving true anonymization is far more difficult than you seem to assume, but that’s not surprising considering how limited your intellect seems to be. Further, it was never promised that the ballots would be released to “anyone and everyone”. Go read the actual minutes of the Business Meeting.

50. In short, if you want to know “who destroyed the Hugos”, just look in a mirror.

    The Hugos aren’t even close to being destroyed. Anyone who claims that they have been or are in imminent danger of being destroyed is lying to you. You may want to wonder why they are doing that.

Comments are closed.