Puppies To The Right of Them, Puppies To the Left of Them 4/14

Today leaders of the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies react to a ruling by the Hugo administrator that one work from each of their slates is ineligible and has been dropped from the Hugo final ballot.

David Gerrold and Connie Willis say it will not be business as usual at the Hugo ceremony.  Larry Correia, John C. Wright and George R.R. Martin parry and riposte. Laura Mixon says send a message by voting her a Hugo.

Then, while “you missed the point” is a phrase oft resorted to in these arguments, Michael Stackpole eloquently describes the point he says Sad Puppies have missed.

Vox Day on Vox Popoli

“John C. Wright work disqualified” – April 14

I think this is a serious mistake by Sasquan. Just as Dune and Ender’s Game served as precedents for a shorter work reworked and published as a longer one, which was the case with both “One Bright Star to Guide Them” and “Big Boys Don’t Cry”, John Scalzi’s Old Man’s War serves as precedent for a work that appeared on the web prior to being professionally published and subsequently declared eligible in the latter year.

 

Brad R. Torgersen

“Two Hugo final ballot changes, and a question” – April 14

I would like to take this opportunity (as the coordinator of the Sad Puppies 3 effort in 2015) to note that John C. Wright’s piece, “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus” was not on the Sad Puppies 3 list. It appears this story was on the copycat Rabid Puppies alter-ego slate, being put forth by Vox Day.

Many people have been conflating the two slates (Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies) for the past ten days, and I think it’s important to make clear the fact that the two slates are different, while still being similar. I congratulate Thomas Olde Heuvelt, whose story “The Day The World Turned Upside Down” (from Lightspeed magazine) now takes a place on the 2015 Hugo final ballot. Good work, Thomas! And good luck!

One person who was on the Sad Puppies 3 ballot — Jon Eno [http://www.joneno.com/] — has been disqualified. I am sorry about that, Jon! I tried as best as I could to do my due diligence in researching the Hugo qualification rules, when I put you forward in that category. I think you’ve been doing a lot of very beautiful spec fic art, and I hope you continue to share your illustrations with all of us who follow you on Facebook.

Taking Jon’s place on the ballot is Kirk DouPonce, from the Rabid Puppies slate. Kirk’s been doing a bang-up excellent job with cover design, many examples of which can be seen at his site. Congratulations, Kirk! Terrific stuff, sir.

My question for the masses is: the year-to-year interpretations of the rules seem to occasionally be inconsistent. For example, John Scalzi’s Old Man’s War was indie published (to Scalzi’s web site) long before it was licensed by TOR for traditional publication, yet Old Man’s War was on the short list for Best Novel in 2006. Did anyone (at that time) ask for clarification? Seems to me if John C. Wright’s story can be bumped for prior web publication, this would have applied in Scalzi’s case too; unless the specific rules have changed since 2006.

 

 

David Gerrold post on Facebook – April 14

I had asked Connie Willis to present the Campbell award — she declined. Because she cannot pretend that this year’s awards are business as usual.

In fact, none of us can. And as the host of the award ceremony, I can’t either.

So, Brad, Larry, Vox — congratulations. You’ve spoiled the party. Not just mine, but everyone’s.

I waited nearly a half century to get here, and when I do get here, there’s ashes.

It hurts.

Not just me. Everyone.

And I don’t care how you dodge and weasel, how you rend your garments and play the victim game, how you pretend it’s everyone else’s fault — that’s bullshit. You’ve made it impossible to have a Hugo ceremony that is a joyous celebration of the best in our genre.

I haven’t figured out how we’ll manage the Hugo ceremony yet. I’m still soliciting advice from the smartest people I know — people with experience, regardless of their politics. Right now, mostly what I’m hearing back is, “I’m so sorry this has happened to you, you deserve better, but I know you’ll figure it out.” (Plus a few suggestions on what to do if this or that or the other happens.)

I do have some ideas. (One of which is, “You won’t like me when I’m angry.” But you don’t like me already, so why should I give in to anger?)

There is another way to go. It’s something I learned watching Harlan Ellison. Did I mention he’s one of my role models?

So I have a choice. I can pretend it’s business as usual —

It isn’t.

Or, I can recognize that I’ve been trusted with the microphone for a reason — that the committee thinks I know what I’m doing — and use that responsibility in a way that serves the Hugos, the Worldcon, and most of all the generations of fans, thousands and thousands and thousands, from all over the world, who still respect our traditions and our awards.

 

Connie Willis

“Why I Won’t Be A Presenter at the Hugo Awards This Year” – April 14

And finally, to Vox Day, Brad Torgeson, and their followers, I have this to say:

“You may have been able to cheat your way onto the ballot. (And don’t talk to me about how this isn’t against the rules–doing anything except nominating the works you personally liked best is cheating in my book.) You may even be able to bully and intimidate people into voting for you. But you can’t make me hand you the Hugo and say “Congratulations,” just as if you’d actually won it. And you can’t make me appear onstage and tell jokes and act like this year’s Hugo ceremony is business as usual and what you’ve done is okay. I’m not going to help you get away with this. I love the Hugo Awards too much.”

 

Larry Correia on Monster Hunter Nation

“George R. R. Martin responds” – April 14

[Larry Correia] Okay. Then don’t accept our version. Go read reporter Damien Walter’s account in the Guardian about my sexist homophobic campaign to steal the Hugos last year. (by the way, how did he know about my nomination before it was announced?) Or go read his account in the Guardian where he libeled Toni Weisskopf. Or go read Entertainment Weekly, the Telegraph, Salon, Slate or the many other places where I’m a racist white guy from earlier this week.

Of course we tweak their words around to mock them, because bullies hate that.  You have to have fun with this stuff, or it’ll drive you nuts.

[GRR Martin] Take this “Wrongfan” moniker I now see popping up on Puppy sites. Neither I nor any of the other SMOFs or trufans or worldconners that I know have ever called you or your friends “wrongfans.” You guys made that up and applied it to yourself.

Damn right we did. I’m pretty sure I invented the word Wrongfun to describe how the perpetually outraged crowd on Twitter was perpetually offended that somebody somewhere was having fun wrong.

Let me give you an example of wrongfun. After my last letter to you went public I had three or four people concern trolling me on Twitter because I used the term “Twitter Lynch Mob” to describe a well-known type of behavior. They’re perched like falcons, waiting for somebody to transgress, so that they can swoop in and feel superior. If you use the wrong words, play the wrong games, read the wrong books, wear the wrong shirt, they’ll be there. These people are always looking for an excuse to shake their fingers at you for having fun wrong, hence the term, Wrongfun.

So when Teresa Nielsen Hayden (who somehow knew that SP3 had 3/5 of the best novel nominations before they were announced) started going off about us, and how we were outsiders, my people took Wrongfun and turned it into Wrongfan. I don’t recall who did that, but it was funny, and it made my people laugh, so it stuck.

Words are awesome like that. I do find it ironic that you don’t approve of my people making up words to describe the world as they see it, in the same sentence that you speak of SMOFs, Trufans, and Worldconners.

 

Kalimac on Kalimac’s Journal

“Hugonian Politics” – April 14

I think there are two courses of action here.

1) You can try to rewrite the rules to ban slates. I don’t think you will succeed. Slate advocates will find a way around the rules. Maginot line. The fathers of the U.S. Constitution thought they had eliminated political parties, and they were pretty smart guys, but in that respect they failed.

2) Or you can form a counter-slate. Many people are doing so, even among those who claim to oppose a counter-slate. They’re launching a campaign to vote for No Award. That doesn’t help them with next year’s nominations, but for the current election, No Award is their counter-slate candidate, whether they think of it as one or not.

 

Naomi Kritzer on Will Tell Stories For Food

“Vox Day’s involvement in the Sad Puppies Slate”  – April 13

So, hey. Obviously, whatever else the ELoE is, it’s an informal organization; it’s partly an in-joke and an amusing self-chosen nickname for a clique of friends. But here’s what I feel pretty confident about:

  1. This particular Evil League of Evil is Larry Correia, John C. Wright, Sarah Hoyt, and Vox Day. When Larry Correia talks about the ELoE, he doesn’t use the term like it’s a joke; he uses it as a straightforward shorthand for his clique. Vox Day is a member of the clique. In fact, the origination of the name for the clique came out of an indignant rejection of the idea that Wright might consider distancing himself from VD.
  2. Larry Correia said that the ELoE discussed and “came up with” the names and works on the SP slate.
  3. Larry Correia said that that VD “isn’t even on the slate” but I did not see anywhere that he said that VD had nothing to do with choosing the slate, and if he made that claim at this point, I guess I’d like him to unpack his previous statements about the ELoE’s involvement.

 

Michael Stackpole on Stormwolf.com

“Why Puppies Are Sad and Always Will Be” – April 14

To me, the oddest part about the Rabid Puppies and their lamenting that they don’t get awards is that they’re pointing to the wrong reason why they’re left out in the cold. It’s not because they’re an oppressed minority. It’s because they don’t write the kind of work that gets awards. The Hugo, Nebula and World Fantasy awards have traditionally been handed out to new voices addressing new ways of telling stories, addressing new issues and new technology. When geographical bias is factored out of the awards, over and over again they go to works which are imaginative, well-written and, more often than not, of diminished popularity. After the fact they might become classics, but their more-likely fate is to go out of print despite having won an award.

I’ve been working in this field since 1988 (when my first two novels came out). I’ve never been short-listed for an award of any sort in the field. Why? Because I write series fiction. Because I write fantasy. Because I write military SF. Because I write franchise fiction. I’ve been just as solidly frozen out by the literary establishment as any of the puppies, but it doesn’t bother me.

Why not?

1) Awards don’t move the needle on sales.

2) I can’t eat awards.

3) Awards are not a referendum on quality of writing.

4) Awards reflect notoriety during a mote of time, neither conferring immortality nor success upon the recipients.

5) Readers who only read or respect award-winning authors and their work are outside my target demographic: that being people who want to read a rousing good tale that, maybe, will allow them to reflect on an issue or conundrum now and again.

 

Laura Mixon

“Standing in the Borderlands of Discourse” – April 13

I’ve spoken to an expert in the matter who has studied our case, who tells me that RH’s abuses (like Vox Day’s) are highly unlikely to stop by themselves, if she follows the trajectory of other people who act as she has. Over and over, for more than a decade, she has blown up communities by positioning herself as a victim and finding people to cover for her, who either feel they don’t have a right to criticize her, or are willing to overlook her behavior for the sake of other concerns.

That’s why I accepted the nomination, and why I continue to speak. The community is still at risk. A vote for me sends a clear signal that the community stands firm on this basic principle: that our politics can’t outweigh our humanity. That everyone has a fundamental right to be here, to engage in online and in-person discourse without being threatened with annihilation. We have to find a way—not to deny our own beliefs and experiences—but to talk across the divides.

I don’t have good answers for how we can help the center hold, but I do believe we need to rally as a community around a set of norms. A covenant of sorts. An agreement that, whatever the fractures in our community—whatever our disagreements—whatever personal circumstances brought us to this genre in the first place—at its heart, SFF has room for all of us.

 

John C. Wright in a comment on George R.R. Martin’s Not A Blog

Sir, you commented “John C. Wright SIX TIMES!!! John C. Wright, a writer famed far and wide for having no opinions on politics, race, religion, or sexual orientation, and would never dream of injecting such messages into his Damned Good Stories.”

I assume here you are being ironic, and stating that I do indeed put messages into my fiction.

However, we have worked together in the past. You edited the anthology SONGS OF THE DYING EARTH in which my short story, ‘Guyal the Curator’ appeared.

Were there or were there not pro-conservative messages in that story? You may not recall it, but I know you read it.

If, since you are an honest man, you will say that story had no overt political message in it, on what grounds do you assume I put overt political messages in my other stories?

In other words, you are accusing me of hypocrisy, I, who have never said a bad word about you in public or private to anyone, and who have always hitherto held you in the highest esteem. What is the factual basis for the accusation please?

If there is no factual basis, why make the accusation?

 

George R.R. Martin replying to John C. Wright’s comment on Not A Blog – April 14

Actually, I don’t recall “accusing” you of anything. I was pointing out that the Sad Puppy stance against “message fiction” rang kind of false when they nominate someone (six times) who has lots of “message” in his fiction. It would have been more honest for the Pups to say they don’t want liberal/ feminist/ “SJW” / socialist/ atheist/ etc messages in their stories, but they think conservative, libertarian, and Christian messages are just dandy.

Truth be told, I think there are messages in every story, whether the author intended to put them in there or not. The things we write are invariably colored by the ways we see the world.

At this date, I don’t recall the details of your story in SONGS OF THE DYING EARTH. I would need to review it. Yes, of course I read it. I bought it. I liked it. You knew your Vance, and captured the Dying Earth quite well.

Jack Vance himself was quite conservative, as you may or may not know, and grew even more so in the last years of his life. You can see it in some of his stories, though it requires careful reading; he never stopped a story for a lecture. Vance is only one of many conservative SF authors that I hold in high esteem. Actually, Vance is probably my favorite SF writer, and as a fantasist I rank him up there with Howard, Leiber, and Tolkien.

I also like Heinlein, Kipling, Niven & Pournelle, Lovecraft, Blish… I love Poul Anderson. That does not mean I believe there were no messages in their fiction. That also does not mean I agree with those messages. They wrote great stories.

What annoys me is the Sad Puppy stance that liberal writers are producing “message fiction” while guys on their ticket are just writing Ripping Good Yarns untroubled by politics or opinions.

 

Brad Templeton on Brad Ideas

“Second musings on the Hugo Awards and the fix”  – April 13

To deal with the current cheating and the promised cheating in 2016, the following are recommended.

  1. Downplay the 2015 Hugo Award, perhaps with sufficient fans supporting this that all categories (including untainted ones) have no award given.
  2. Conduct a parallel award under a new system, and fête it like the Hugos, though they would not use that name.
  3. Pass new proposed rules including a special rule for 2016
  4. If 2016’s award is also compromised, do the same. However, at the 2016 business meeting, ratify a short-term amendment proposed in 2015 declaring the alternate awards to be the Hugo awards if run under the new rules, and discarding the uncounted results of the 2016 Hugos conducted under the old system. Another amendment would permit winners of the 2015 alternate award to say they are Hugo winners.
  5. If the attackers gave up, and 2016’s awards run normally, do not ratify the emergency plan, and instead ratify the new system that is robust against attack for use in 2017.

 

Noah Ward on Sad Puppies

“Enemies of the Revolution Resort to Underhanded Tactics” – April 14

Some may believe that with the nominations announced, the hardest part of our campaign has already been accomplished and all that remains is to coast to victory, but recent events prove the need for continuing vigilance. The eligibility committee at Sasquan has today disqualified two of our works from the final ballot based upon minor technicalities! They did this even though last year they permitted the entirety of the Wheel of Time, the first volume of which was published when the Soviet Union was still a going concern, to be nominated, with free copies of the entire series distributed to voters. In so doing they severely undermined Larry Correia’s Warbound by admitting an entire series that attracted votes away from the Sad Puppies base of adventure-loving readers.

 

David Gerrold on Facebook – April 14

Once again, I have to remind people that I have the name “Noah Ward” as a legally registered pseudonym with the WGAW.

People using that name are doing so without my authorization.

I’m not saying this to spoil anyone’s fun, but to protect my legal rights as well as to make sure that no one thinks I am behind the various “Noah Ward” pages and sites.

 

Heraldic Arms of the Hugo Justice Workers (c) 2015 by Moshe Feder

Heraldic Arms of the Hugo Justice Workers (c) 2015 by Moshe Feder

Heraldic Arms of the Hugo Justice Workers © 2015 Moshe Feder All Rights Reserved

Permission for reuse is granted to anyone fighting to restore and preserve the traditional fair play of the Hugo Awards and to send the Sad Puppy and Rabid Puppy vandals back to their noisome kennels.

“I will fear no puppies.”

144 thoughts on “Puppies To The Right of Them, Puppies To the Left of Them 4/14

  1. @Daveon,

    “No, then you don’t… You might be able to dig up people saying they’ll vote for a particular work, but I would LOVE to see your evidence that people got together to push a list of candidates for an entire category. Off you go, links please, we’ll be here.”

    Then you have to define what “push” is. Because it seems publicly admitted voting for something other than the literary quality isn’t enough despite claiming otherwise earlier. And no, I don’t expect you to be honest about this because you haven’t been yet.

    @Nick,

    “All my instincts say that the path should be to ensure that there are so many voices that the puppies are just a small voice in a crowd.”

    Here here! Something a puppy can agree with. Also something some, not all, anti-puppies have voraciously argued against.

  2. @Clack,
    “Orson Scott Card was (is?) a liberal Democrat. Some people assume he’s conservative because of his opposition to gay marriage. Obama was opposed to gay marriage until 2012 — does that make him a conservative?”

    I know right? Something we have been pointing out for a while. I like Card, but he and I would disagree on just about everything politically. That he’s become the anti-Christ for the SF/F left is just flat out crazy.

    “Anyway, I still find the SP position a bit incoherent. Is it message fiction that they object to, or is Social Justice fiction, or is it “literary” SFF– as opposed to “entertainment” SFF — that is the problem?”

    1.) Reading should be a pleasure
    2.) SJW being hardliners tend to write fiction that is message fiction. They do not always do so.
    3.) (1) does not preclude a message (see: Heinlein) on either the Left or the Right
    4.) Pretention can ruin (1) when you seek arbitrary “literary” values/goals over the story (iz writz werdz get awardz??? Or “I do not use gender pronouns awesome right!)
    5.) Political leanings at WC have made it hostile to the Right in recent years (I think most folks point to about ’01 being the rough break point but this isn’t a fixed date).

  3. No it’s not – Vox’s expulsion took place while the Mass. laws were still in effect, and govern the expulsion.

  4. No, Card is no liberal democrat, don’t be more of an idiot than you have to be. He is and always has been a bog standard conservative Mormon and there’s nothing wrong with that.

  5. It’s fun, for some definitions of fun, to see the usual rightwing paranoid mindset in action in realtime over the Hugos. Connie Willis, one of the least politically active sf writers imaginable, somebody liked and loved by people all across the political spectrum, is upset by Puppy vote rigging? She must be a liar and in on the conspiracy. For some reason wingnuts a) always have trouble remembering their actions have consequences and b) always imagine their opponents to be just as obsessed with partisan politics as themselves (in fact, can’t help but look at the world in terms of Us vs Them and anybody not Us being Them).

  6. The SFWA board of directors (not the membership) voted to expel VD when SFWA was operating under Massachusetts law. So the intended action was not effective.

    Whether they’ll try to do it again now that SFWA is incorporated under California law, I have no idea. If they do, I predict many fireworks.

  7. “Orson Scott Card was (is?) a liberal Democrat”

    Some reminiscing seems appropriate now – Scott Card used to be what I called a “Scoop Jackson” Democrat back in the 1970s, i.e. a conservative Democrat. Since then he’s became a Reagan Democrat, if not nominally, then definitely operationally, as evidenced by his activities opposing same-sex marriage. Essentially, he’s a moderate Republican these days.

    IMO, Card’s a good writer who has let his politics upstage his craft, which is a pity to my mind. But he’s always had a penchant for being preachy that long predates his infamous Sunstone (a Mormon publication) article about homosexuals (titled “The Hypocrites of Homosexuality” that appeared in 1989 and lit the fannish flames on Usenet. (Anyone remember his Secular Humanist Revival speech from the 1980s? I had a cassette of it that I loaned and never didn’t get back, sigh.)

    So there have long been political/cultural divides in SF&F fandom that predate the current controversy. But none to this date have so blatantly messed with the Hugos themselves, as the SP/RPs have.

  8. “Orson Scott Card was (is?) a liberal Democrat”

    Some reminiscing seems appropriate now – Scott Card used to be what I called a “Scoop Jackson” Democrat back in the 1970s, i.e. a conservative Democrat. Since then he’s became a Reagan Democrat, if not nominally, then definitely operationally, as evidenced by his activities opposing same-sex marriage. Essentially, he’s a moderate Republican these days.

    IMO, Card’s a good writer who has let his politics upstage his craft, which is a pity to my mind. But he’s always had a penchant for being preachy that long predates his infamous Sunstone (a Mormon publication) article about homosexuals (titled “The Hypocrites of Homosexuality” that appeared in 1989 and lit the fannish flames on Usenet. (Anyone remember his Secular Humanist Revival speech from the 1980s? I had a cassette of it that I loaned and never did get back, sigh.)

    So there have long been political/cultural divides in SF&F fandom that predate the current controversy. But none to this date have so blatantly messed with the Hugos themselves, as the SP/RPs have.

  9. “And for getting rcade to walk straight into it. It made me laugh. I’ll hold the punchline though and let him mull over it a bit.”

    I think you overestimate my interest in your responses. You Puppies are playing a game where no matter what happens to the Hugos, it means you won. I tire of people on the Internet who need to let us know that their arguments have won the discussion.

  10. I strongly dislike the idea of raising the price of supporting memberships as a Puppy-deterrent measure.

    First, it would make Worldcon participation more expensive for both people who want to vote as a bloc (Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies, and any future campaign of this nature) and people who just like SF and want to vote for their favorite stories. I see no evidence that the bloc-voters will end up as the net losers in this game.

    Second, it sends a message that in order to be a “true” fan, you should have enough disposable income to drop $75 or $105 on a ticket whose primary benefit is the right to vote for awards and Worldcon sites. I mean, sheesh, that’s approaching the amount that the average American household spends on all books, in a year. I don’t approve of that message.

  11. @AG
    I’m in favour of the Hugo’s being so important that everyone who reads SFF, everyone who watches SFF movie or TV, perhaps everyone who reads comics know what they are and feels that it’s a community that they should be part of.
    If I knew how to achieve that, I would be running the show.
    Right now we have a few thousand people who can be bothered.
    Reducing that to a few hundred makes the awards less important not more.

  12. Martin,

    Oh, we’re very clear on actions having consequences.

    Scalzi saying “hey, if you don’t like the current round of nominees, bring out the vote!” had consequences. As did his “MASSIVE CAPSLOCK OF GLOATING OVER 6 OF 5!!!!”

    Just like these calls to action of voting no award where loads of people are gloating over the fact that they will not read any of Vox’s or Castalia’s works (and no shit about it being due to a slate – plenty of gloating about no awarding him without reading last year, too) will also be met with consequences.

    And to think we’re the ones incapable of grasping cause and effect!

  13. Alexander is correct. If the expulsion of Theodore Beale from SFWA was illegal according to the bylaws in place in MA, when it took place, the fact that SFWA is now incorporated in CA is irrelevant. A new expulsion procedure under the current CA bylaws would have to be initiated, which I doubt SFWA would do, as this would require them to admit the MA expulsion was illegal and he is in fact still a member.

  14. ‘Huh. I really wouldn’t have pegged Connie Willis for a liar and sore loser.’

    I’m so glad the SP/RPs leave the attacking of people with different opinions to them to the evil SJWs.

  15. It’s fun to see Mr. Wisse us the word “definitions,” since this entire affair is caused by an Orwellian lack of them. I am not rightwing Mr. Wisse. As far as I can tell, by “wingnut” you mean someone in possession of a dictionary with the words “racial” and “bigot” in it.

  16. Lois: They’d have to admit it internally, of course, but to my knowledge SFWA has never publically named the person who is the subject of its “Board Communication on Member Expulsion” (which concludes, “We will continue to omit the expelled individual’s name and the details of his behavior on advice of counsel.”) The only reason we are sure it was Theodore Beale is because he announced it.

  17. Then you have to define what “push” is.

    Print a list of recommendations which just happens to contain the same number of names as their are slots for each person to nominate for.

    Then go off and present it as a ‘slate’ rather than a ‘list’ – then get some groups who are known to enjoy mucking around with things. That sort of thing.

    And again, GK, old chap, you said, didn’t you that you’d read these books? So how come you’re reading up on your Butcher? (Sorry if I muddled you up there…) But you and a few others are insisting that you read the works you nominated, which given that 3/5’s of the Best Novel ballot is Puppy nominations, and the puppies nominated a book per slot, I’m really struggling with what you have to read except the Leckie and the Addison?

    I’m also REALLY struggling with how anybody could nominate the Kloos as being worthy of a Hugo because, well, charitably speaking, it isn’t terribly good. It’s not horrible, but there’s a lot of bum science in there that I couldn’t skip over easily.

  18. So GK, let me get this straight, you’re here telling us how fine and dandy the puppy slate is, but that you didn’t nominate off it? I’m now struggling to understand why you’re not as annoyed as I am about having nominations distorted by a slate of people who’ve pushed some utter crap onto the ballot.

    If you’re going to argue points, some consistency would be nice.

  19. “Consistency” meaning saying over and over again that everyone who has talked about nominating so far has said “I didn’t vote the slate” and you people still not accepting it as true and falling back on worn-out lies about bloc-voting? I’d say that’s consistency all around. In your case it just happens to mean you’re consistently wrong.

  20. @nickpheas: Then lowering the price of a supporting membership (or of the Hugo voting rights, if you want to separate it from supporting membership) to a symbolic price would be the way to allow all fans who are interested to participate.

    I doubt that will happen, because as G.R.R. Martin has said the award belongs to the WorldCon members, and not to fandom in general, and even though much is said about increasing participation, it does not seem that making it easy for outsider fans to vote is in the cards. One never knows what fandom at large is going to vote, and if it does not correspond with what WorldCon members tend to vote it wouldn’t be their award any more.

    According to the Goodreads Choice Awards, which have a very high participation in the popular votes, the best fantasy novel of the year was The Book of Life by Deborah Harkness, and the best SF was The Martian, by Andy Weir. If they had been in the same category, Deborah Harkness’ book would have won.

  21. “Scalzi saying ‘hey, if you don’t like the current round of nominees, bring out the vote!’ had consequences.”

    So the whole Puppies movement is an effort to stick it to Scalzi, then? Noble.

  22. Whatever prestige the Hugos have was earned by generally good choices over many years. Those choices were made by fairly small electorates composed of people who took science fiction and fantasy seriously.

    When I was a kid I really, really wanted to go to a worldcon. The first worldcon I knew about when it was happening was Dave Kyle’s NewYorkCon in 1956. As far as attending the con was concerned, I could have as easily afforded a vacation trip to the moon. I didn’t get to a worldcon for another ten years. It didn’t kill me.

    Crowds don’t get smarter or better informed as they get bigger. In fact, things usually go in the opposite direction. Big body counts are good for a military campaign but don’t really help literary awards.

    My suggestion has one overwhelming virtue. It’s possible.

  23. @Daveson,
    “And again, GK, old chap, you said, didn’t you that you’d read these books? So how come you’re reading up on your Butcher? (Sorry if I muddled you up there…) But you and a few others are insisting that you read the works you nominated, which given that 3/5’s of the Best Novel ballot is Puppy nominations, and the puppies nominated a book per slot, I’m really struggling with what you have to read except the Leckie and the Addison?”

    As I have answered the first charge directly you are now wandering into straight liar territory. But I will repeat. No where did I say I nominated Butcher. No where. At all.

    @Daveon,

    “So GK, let me get this straight, you’re here telling us how fine and dandy the puppy slate is, but that you didn’t nominate off it?”

    Your the one accusing of being mindless slaves instead of liking what we voted for and agreeing on the ones we liked. Keep projecting. Like I said the more folks like you and DB post the more people that are undecided will be forced to rethink this.

  24. @rcade,

    Nope, we just grew over time. More people heard of us and agreed. It is, dare we say it, democracy in action. Then there is the other side throwing a hissy fit and threatening to bring the whole thing down. We predicted you would. Its just sad you did.

  25. I would not describe a bloc voting campaign in which a minority voted in lockstep to prevent a majority from putting nominees on a ballot as “democracy in action.”

  26. You keep saying this word, “lockstep.” I do not think that word means what you think it means.

  27. Indeed. Have you read the totals at all? How is a greater percentage variation than in previous votes “lockstep”? But lie more. Say it often. Maybe someone will believe you.

  28. “Print a list of recommendations which just happens to contain the same number of names as their are slots for each person to nominate for.

    Then go off and present it as a ‘slate’ rather than a ‘list’ – then get some groups who are known to enjoy mucking around with things. That sort of thing.”

    Sorry missed this…so it has to be _named_ a slate? Requesting voting and having the same number of recommendations as the category is not sufficient?

  29. “Crowds don’t get smarter or better informed as they get bigger. In fact, things usually go in the opposite direction. Big body counts are good for a military campaign but don’t really help literary awards.”

    Actually on the basis of several studies dating back to I believe the forties that isn’t true. We tend to make better decisions as groups. Its the whole point of crowd sourcing as a business model. But, alas, puppies are ignorant so I bowz beforz your mighty mindz!

  30. @Clack: “Orson Scott Card was (is?) a liberal Democrat. Some people assume he’s conservative because of his opposition to gay marriage. Obama was opposed to gay marriage until 2012 — does that make him a conservative?”

    Card is opposed to equal rights for homosexuals. He’s described himself as a moral conservative. “Conservative” and “liberal” are like “left” and “right”– On their own, they aren’t useful ways to describe people.

    Whatever we call ourselves, we’re best off treating one another as individual people and on our own merit. Like King said, by the content of our character.

  31. Alexander – I’m going to call bullshit on Vox Day’s statement about Massachusetts non-profit corporations. See, I’ve done some research, and the matter of who is and isn’t a member isn’t addressed in Massachusetts law. The closest thing I find is this guide which says “There are no set criteria for the content of bylaws, but they typically set forth internal rules and procedures.”

    Membership is usually determined by the bylaws, which can be changed. So unless somebody shows me a link to the contrary, it appears that SFWA could kick anybody out.

    Moreover, if you look at the then-operant bylaws Article 4 Section 10 the Board is given explicit authority to expel any member for “good and sufficient” cause. And the bylaws had been reviewed in May 2003 and revised “in order to comply with Massachusetts law.”

  32. rcade, it is not an attack to identify lies and poor sportsmanship. I was simply surprised by both coming from her, especially in such a way that seems more akin to her fictional fools than a real professional author.

    That is why I genuinely asked if it was satire, and I’d missed it. Apparently, I missed nothing.

  33. Chris: The Massachusetts law under dispute is Title XXII, Chapter 180, Section 18: “No member of such corporation shall be expelled by vote of less than a majority of all the members thereof, nor by vote of less than three quarters of the members present and voting upon such expulsion.”

  34. ‘rcade, it is not an attack to identify lies and poor sportsmanship.’

    I think that was me, and it is an attack to accuse someone of lies and, er, poor sportsmanship (well, you are gaming the Hugos, I suppose.)

  35. Chris, your “research” is in gross error – check your own links, because they contradict your interpretation explicitly. Hint: the dates of amendment are relevant, and provide a different timeline than the one you inaccurately portray.

  36. Well, your web site doesn’t work well on my state-of-the-art RF internet capable contact lenses. I walked into a wall trying to read it.

  37. Okay, Nigel, as long as you and I agree that she lied and is a poor sport, I’m don’t care about the semantics.

  38. I have to correct the English translation of our Latin motto. I was sleepy when I typed it and the tense is wrong.

    I intended it to be a Heinlein reference, and the correct translation reflects that.

    Non timebo catulos. = I will fear no puppies.

    ????

  39. @Chris,

    This is why we see your side as factually challenged. When those like Mike who are _on you side_ point out your error and you do nothing to walk it back? Problematic.

    So lies so far this thread:
    1.) There are no other slates!
    2.) There never were!
    3.) The law in Mass doesn’t say that!
    4.) You puppies vote in lock step!
    5.) But you said you read that!

    In one thread…

  40. Moshe: Someday WordPress’ comment software will catch up to the rest of the net…. I hope.

    Latin isn’t my strong suit. My first guess was that it meant, “Time wounds all heels.”

    But no. And as you asked, I have changed the wording in the post to “I will fear no puppies.”

  41. So, the contention now is that the Sad Puppies didn’t vote for the Sad Puppy slate and didn’t have anything to do with those works being nominated? Then why in the world are they claiming victory?

    If the plan is to simply act innocent it isn’t very convincing.

  42. Those state code sites are a godsend to researchers, however, I also enjoyed the advantage of a prior conversation about the subject with someone who sent me the link. 😉

  43. ‘Okay, Nigel, as long as you and I agree that she lied and is a poor sport, I’m don’t care about the semantics.’

    Semantics, semantics, you am always up to some antics.

  44. Andrew – Are you just willfully obtuse? Several people asserted that there was “lockstep” nomination of the slate. Several of us pointed out the obvious falsehood. That’s it. Of course stuff got nominated from the slate… because people read it and liked it!

Comments are closed.