Sunday Business Meeting at Sasquan

Today the Sasquan Business Meeting will consider 4/6, E Pluribus Hugo plus other unfinished business and whatever shennanigans people have left in their deck at this point.

Livebloggers welcome.

1,619 thoughts on “Sunday Business Meeting at Sasquan

  1. I was struggling really hard to keep up, and I am reliably informed that I missed a comment by a woman who said (paraphrasing):

    I’m a Sad Puppy, and I support EPH because it will keep the Rabid Puppies from hijacking our movement

  2. But isn’t that inherent in the way the awards work? An awards process in which people are invited to read and compare a number of works cannot effectively handle books which you cannot understand, or appreciate, unless you have read fourteen previous books. I suspect if there were a series fiction Hugo, it would generally go to the kind of series fiction which gets nominated now (which it does, quite often).

    My feeling was that a Series Novel Hugo would be where people who were already fans of, say, Wheel of Time, or A Song of Fire and Ice, or Cherryh’s Foreigner books, or the Dresden Files, could nominate and vote for novels from series they were already reading. Speaking for myself, there are several series that I follow concurrently as they don’t release novels every year, so keeping up with them isn’t difficult. It would specifically NOT be intended to require people who are not interested in jumping aboard a series to do so — they could just skip the vote, as most people do in non-Puppy years for categories where they don’t know anything about the nominees and don’t have the time or interest to catch up before the voting deadline.

    Essentially it would be a Hugo for series SFF fans to recognize their favorite series authors, without having to beg other fans to, for example, read all of the Dresden Files (!) or Wheel of Time (!!!!) to be able to decide whether a series work is Hugo-Novel worthy. The overall quality of a really good series work is largely on how it draws on what has already been done in the series, which is something that acts AGAINST it in the regular Hugo Novel voting.

  3. I wasn’t aware this rule even existed. Is that in case there is disagreement over whether a work is a novella or a novelette? Or is that when you can’t decide if something is a Long or Short form drama?

    New this year. Not sure if it’s passed its second time, but it was in Friday’s business meeting, if I remember correctly. And yes, for when the voters nominate the same work in several categories – which is fairly common for the shorter works.

  4. P.J. Evans: At which point the rule about nominations in two categories comes in, and it goes in the one with more nominations, if I understand the rules correctly.

    May Tree: I wasn’t aware this rule even existed.

    This is the “Nominee Diversity” proposal which was just passed this year; if a work appears in more than 1 category, it will be omitted from the category(ies) in which it has fewer nominations. It still has to be ratified next year, though.

  5. So does that mean that it’s common for something to be nominated as both a novella and a novelette? I thought those distinctions were based on word count, so even if the fans get the category wrong wouldn’t the vote counters be able to know which category the work actually belongs in and put the votes there? It would be harder for short vs. long form drama as I don’t recall hearing that there was any time limit set to mark the division there.

    And does the new proposed rule dictate what’s to be done with the votes in the losing category? Do they get tossed, or added to the votes in the winning category?

    Topic Shift:

    So now that fandom knows the outcome of the Hugos and has the numbers to look at, what do people think is likely to happen with the non-Puppy side of the 2016 Hugos? Assuming Day & Co. continue with their vandalism (which I’m positive they will), is anyone hearing any mutterings yet of how fandom will respond, or is everyone still too exhausted from just getting through the 2015 Hugos? Are folks resigning themselves to another year of Noah Ward being the top author, or what? How are you folks here feeling about it?

  6. Given the process needed to make EPH official, yes, there will be another year of puppy slates. What I both anticipate and dread is the prospect that we’ll get counter-slates against the puppies.

  7. @Steve

    I think the fact that EPH is waiting in the wings will actually help prevent anyone from feeling tempted to counter-slate.

    On the other hand, I suspect you’ll see a concerted effort by a lot more potential nominators to keep up to speed on the short fiction. That may involve hanging out on some of the sites that are springing up to collect good candidates for people to investigate further – no bet as to whether Puppies will call that exactly the same thing as slating.

  8. Nominate!
    Make your friends nominate!
    The only reason we didn’t have fewer awards and more No Awards is that the puppies made mistakes: they nominated a few people with ethics; they screwed up on actual eligibility, and that opened up the ballot to some award-worthy choices.
    But I think we can assume that the puppies will be more careful next year.
    Now that they see this tactic can work, they can spam all the categories, and nothing to stop them.
    Remember, we are dealing with some very disturbed people here who really just want to break things.
    Picture Sasquan with only the original ballot choices, and be very, very worried.

    On the bright side, there are some eleven thousand people eligible to nominate.
    I abhor slates, all slates, and refuse to consider “our side” slates in opposition to “their side” slates.
    But in the face of lock-step monster slate, a flood of independent nominations based on excellence might salvage a few categories.
    Lots of recommendations, lots of reading, and a very busy spring to us all.

    Bug your family, bug your friends.
    Read, blog, nominate.
    Or else Kansas City is going to be a very sad thing.

  9. Next year will likely be worse than this year for slates. The call to arms will likely be sjws are changing the voting process so lets take all no inations and force a full no award.

    In reality i think it makes it easier to get some conservatives on the ballot but not the whole ballot. Toni Weisskopf will likely end up nominated for the next 10 years. If they only put her down. I am ok with that. Its one slot and Baen has a big following. Doesnt bother me if john ringo gets some best novel nominations. variety is good.

    The less asshole way to get that variety would be to go to worldcon and encourage your fans to come… spreads the cost of the liquor out right? But no, most of them just want to be dicks.

    Side note we absolutely need a second novel category. Worldcon made it clear they dont want to support long series books against one offs. If you think about you are considering something different in a series then in a one off novel. There is a huge part of fandom that includes myself that likes long series. Making an extra rocket ship for our stuff wont taint you… And we get more stuff in the voter packet. Some of us are cheap.

  10. Rev Bob : I, for one, am very glad to see fandom standing fast upon this bridge, facing the Balrog with those immortal words that nobody here needs me to repeat.

    Nie mój cyrk, nie moje malpy?
    (Note: the “l” in malpy is one of those Polish “L with a slash through it” letters that WordPress can’t recognize.)

  11. Jon,

    You are right about the slimeballs. When it comes to shorts I’d recommend stories in the ‘Old Venus’ anthology; all are eligible for 2016, and they are intentionally full of Golden Age peices written today. I think you would like them…

  12. Jon,

    You are right about the slimeballs. When it comes to shorts I’d recommend stories in the ‘Old Venus’ anthology; all are eligible for 2016, and they are intentionally full of Golden Age pieces written today. I think you would like them…

  13. I’m thinking we’ll see another year of slates, and that the writers on them will mostly be core puppies, as I think most of those who aren’t true believers will ask to be removed or decline their nominations. I also think we’ll see more nominations from non-puppies, though not enough to do away with the slates. In the best case scenario, I think we’ll see two or three puppy nominations per category but also some non-puppy works represented as well.

  14. Posted this in the wrong thread:

    Next year is going to be very strange indeed. There will be an overwhelming number of non-slate nominators…who can’t coordinate to ensure that no slate wins.

    I was thinking last night this is like the Duel of the Invisible Hands.

  15. I speak to you from the past, where it’s still 1130 and EPH has just passed:

    Woohoo!

    Now, I return to catching up on the rest of the messages, and or sleep, whichever comes first. . Before that though, I just wanna repeat this as its awesome:

    EPH has passed. The arc of the universe is long, but it tends towards telling Ted Beale to shut the hell up.

  16. I’m worried that the Rabids will intentionally put at least one of their perceived “enemies” on the slate as a poison pill. Without that person’s knowledge or consent. “You’re No Awarding us? Fine, then you’ll have to No Award Scalzi! ” (or whomever their bete noir is that week).

  17. @May Tree & @P J Evans: Don’t confuse “nominee diversity” with existing rules. Administrators may shift votes between categories for the same work, if votes are split and some folks got the length wrong. Also, I believe there’s some wiggle room for if a work’s nominated mainly in category X, but its length technically puts it into category Y; as long as it’s within __%, that’s fine. I believe the new admendment’s aimed at things like JCW and Dr. Who (noms for multiple different items in the same category), IIRC.

  18. @Cassy B.: The problem with that – and yes, I believe some pups have said they’d do this – is it’s transparent. Humans are smart; we can vote against slates and ignore obvious gaming of anti-slate sentiment. Disavowing obvious tricks like this (Scalzi will surely be quick to point out that he told Beale not to list him) also helps. So I’m not super-concerned about this, although ill-informed (or overly-pedantic) fans may mishandle this and it may hurt some nominees.

    On the other paw 😉 they can only do this to up to 5 items per category. If they waste their puppyage on only doing this . . . well, I think they’ll be disappointed when Scalzi, the Neilsen Haydens, Martin, Glyer, and whoever else they hate take home Hugos next year. The sword of lunacy cuts both ways!

    ETA: The problem is that they don’t seem to get that when I (for example) say “I hate and will No-Award slates,” that doesn’t mean I have to actually do what they think I mean by this. I’m the voter – I’m not obliged to fall for someone trying to trick me with my own words, when voting time comes.

  19. “You’re No Awarding us? Fine, then you’ll have to No Award Scalzi! ” (or whomever their bete noir is that week).

    Yeah, but no one has to voluntarily swallow the Puppy Chow. It’s not like fandom are robots (no positronic brains there, that’s for sure!) People are perfectly capable of “No Awarding” every other slated nominee and voting for Scalzi. That’s definitely what happened with “Guardians of the Galaxy”, after all!

  20. @May Tree: Yes, Best Editor Short Form means for short stories (magazines, anthologies, etc.).

    A lot of series books have won, actually – but usually one of the first couple of books (sometimes both) from what at the time seemed to be a shorter series, even if it later turned out to be longer. So I grant it’s tough for later books (but not grant it’s a travesty). Half of Bujold’s noms in the Vorkosigan saga have won, and that’s a very long series. On the other paw (arguing against myself here), my impression’s that many of them can stand alone, or in smaller sets, unlike, say, Butcher’s series. I don’t believe she even writes them in chronological order.

    I don’t like the idea of setting up a category specifically aimed at people who already read for it, and leaving out the bulk of voters (not exactly what you say at 3:27 PM, but the basic result). In that case, set up a separate series award, not a Hugo. Not everything needs a Hugo (sorry to keep banging that drum).

    And you know folks would vote for what they heard was good, not just skip the category. Some would No Award it on principle.

    BTW, I totally agree re. Wheel of Time. I hate that part of the rules, and feel it’s an abuse of it anyway since WoT isn’t a novel in many parts; it’s a series of many novels. Ugh, another of my pet peeves.

    LOL at your Oscar analogy; ugh, they have sooo many categories, which reminds me of the best album versus best song versus best record in music awards.

    I feel like I’m pretty much rambling at this point, sorry, which probably means I’m not adding much at this point.

  21. Kendall & May Tree; thanks. You’re quite right; I just need to take a few deep breaths….

  22. Cassy B. : I’m worried that the Rabids will intentionally put at least one of their perceived “enemies” on the slate as a poison pill. Without that person’s knowledge or consent. “You’re No Awarding us? Fine, then you’ll have to No Award Scalzi! ” (or whomever their bete noir is that week).

    Yeah, and?

    Look, you have to be a mindless nincompoop to not realize that fans can make their own assessments. If the Puppies try to poison pill someone, fans will twig to this. After all the discussions, the nominees next year will be seen by fans as falling into three groups:
    – Non-puppy slaters, nominated on their own merits.
    – Poison pilled puppy slaters, who may or may not have merit
    – Out and out puppy slaters which will likely consist of unreadable drek from the Usual Suspects (take a bow, JCW, now known as the biggest loser in Hugo history for finishing below NO AWARD more than any other person)

    The first two will be voted on by merits based on personal preference. And the last group will finish below NO AWARD again.

    And VD will do his little rage-filled dance screaming “I WIN I WIN BECAUSE NEVER MIND I WIN”.

    Much like this guy

  23. Half of Bujold’s noms in the Vorkosigan saga have won, and that’s a very long series. On the other paw (arguing against myself here), my impression’s that many of them can stand alone, or in smaller sets, unlike, say, Butcher’s series. I don’t believe she even writes them in chronological order.

    She doesn’t always write them in order, and they mostly stand alone, although they are often enriched if you’ve read more of the series. There are some short “nested series” inside the series that you don’t really want to read separately, like the two Cordelia novels (and perhaps the new one coming out as well?) and the Brothers In Arms / Mirror Dance / Memory sequence.

    I don’t like the idea of setting up a category specifically aimed at people who already read for it, and leaving out the bulk of voters (not exactly what you say at 3:27 PM, but the basic result). In that case, set up a separate series award, not a Hugo. Not everything needs a Hugo (sorry to keep banging that drum).

    Well, I don’t watch much if any SFF television. Should I complain that the Short Form Drama award caters to people who already watch for it? That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to me. People who enjoy series works, which includes yours truly of course, are no less fans than folks who watch more and read less SFF, I would think!

    I wouldn’t argue that it necessarily needs to be a Hugo — it could potentially be a standalone award like the Campbell if necessary, though I don’t know what’s involved in creating and sponsoring one such or getting permission to present it at a WorldCon. It just seems like it would fit in nicely with the rest of the Hugo Award set of honors, so creating it as a standalone seems a little odd — a sort of ghettoization of series fic?

    And you know folks would vote for what they heard was good, not just skip the category. Some would No Award it on principle.

    …Which makes it different from a current (non-Puppy) Hugo Award ballot how, exactly? “Fen gonna Fen” can’t really be used as a reason not to do something.

  24. take a bow, JCW, now known as the biggest loser in Hugo history for finishing below NO AWARD more than any other person

    Well, that made me laugh.

    Still, we know to whom that honor should have gone. Vox Day wuz ROBBED!

  25. Thank goodness EPH passed. I know you have to pass it again at the next Worldcon…. But anyway, good.

    Any news on the other agenda items?

  26. Cassy B. on August 23, 2015 at 4:58 pm said:
    I’m worried that the Rabids will intentionally put at least one of their perceived “enemies” on the slate as a poison pill. Without that person’s knowledge or consent. “You’re No Awarding us? Fine, then you’ll have to No Award Scalzi! ” (or whomever their bete noir is that week).

    The thing is, these elections aren’t actually a game, and the people voting in them are not bound by any artificial rules or strictures, no matter what any Puppy says.

    People can, with their own free will and intelligence, choose to vote how they choose to vote according to their own best judgement.

    No one can say “Neener neener, now you *have* to vote against someone you like!” and make it stick.

    The Puppies may try to game the ballot, but they cannot dictate the consciences of the voters.

  27. May Tree on August 23, 2015 at 5:24 pm said:

    CPaca on August 23, 2015 at 5:10 pm said:

    take a bow, JCW, now known as the biggest loser in Hugo history for finishing below NO AWARD more than any other person

    Well, that made me laugh.

    Still, we know to whom that honor should have gone. Vox Day wuz ROBBED!

    Don’t despair! Given that the Pups are even now plotting to redouble their efforts next year, there’s every possibility that VD will, first, disgorge a highly VD-centric slate, and second, be No Awarded into sub-quark residues in all categories… possibly including categories he wasn’t even nominated for.

    Hm. Can you write in a candidate for the sole purpose of No Awarding them?

  28. “You’re No Awarding us? Fine, then you’ll have to No Award Scalzi! ” (or whomever their bete noir is that week).

    I think there’s a decent shot that someone like Scalzi would decline such a nomination. The man already has a Best Novel Hugo, so it’s not such a sacrifice for him to take a step back on principle. If the puppies decide to put someone in an awkward position, I think they’d be wiser to pick someone far more in need of the recognition or someone like Butcher who generally stays out of such conversations.

  29. People can, with their own free will and intelligence, choose to vote how they choose to vote according to their own best judgement.

    I’m not sure they actually believe in free will. They certainly seem to think that everyone else does things the same way they would, and that we all have some kind of hidden leaders we follow.

  30. Please stop conflating *conservative* and sad/rabid puppies. The Puppy slates were led by people who were mostly Christian radicals, not conservatives. Robert Silverberg is a conservative. He was part of the ceremony. Conservatives believe in slow change that keeps institutions largely the same, whereas Radicals believe in burning things down. Take the puppies at their word. They want to burn things down, they are radicals, not conservatives. Most of the conservatives today in the US have moved to having no political party or have become “Blue Dogs”, as the Radical Right has stolen the Republican party from them.

    Liberals have common cause with conservatives — to balance change with keeping the good from what came before. We have no common cause with people who are willing to blow the place up rather than let people they don’t like have a seat at the table that *they* don’t grant them.

  31. I’m not sure they actually believe in free will. They certainly seem to think that everyone else does things the same way they would, and that we all have some kind of hidden leaders we follow.

    Evans, you were warned not to hint at the truth any more. Dammit – do you WANT You Know Who to get upset with you again?

  32. Scalzi already made a statement he would decline any slate nom. I can probably find the link. I think that sort of statement may increase the next year.

  33. “You’re No Awarding us? Fine, then you’ll have to No Award Scalzi! ” (or whomever their bete noir is that week).

    Yeah, that would be obvious. If you read a reccomendation and can scroll down and find half a dozen posts assuring readers that the nominated authors* are feminist-marxist-thought-police-SJWCHORFSMOFBBQs, and that this is a bad thing, then you might want to take their inclusion as being tactical.

    Then they will point at people who said they were anti-slate and say “look you were lying!”. But such proof is superfluous! After all it is axiomatic that SJWs always lie.

    * Or maybe even the works themselves! The Puppies have produced a small amount of actual reviews. It might happen again!

  34. Evans, you were warned not to hint at the truth any more.

    Death will not release me. My leader is dead – but still a SMOF, because death wouldn’t release him either. (I was surprised he wasn’t there accepting his posthumous award.)

  35. @JJ re: SP in favor of EPH

    It was actually better than that – she said she was in favor of EPH because it would break all the slates. The Puppies’ own FUD about “pre-existing SJW slates” bought a vote on an anti-Puppy measure.

    Kind of shot themselves in the foot on that one.

  36. I suspect that SP4 will not even ask to the extant that even Brad “kinda asked”. If you are on their slate, enjoy the ride or not.

    As for Best Saga, let’s say yes! Sunset it in 5 years. Let’s try it. I don;t understand the hand-wringing about it, as if the best Fan Writer Hugo might be sullied by the not-perfect Best Saga Hugo.

    It’s a long overdue category. As is YA.

    I’m big on sunsets.

  37. @CPaca:

    Evans, you were warned not to hint at the truth any more. Dammit – do you WANT You Know Who to get upset with you again?

    This is a sore point. Comrade Swirsky told me if I voted the right way I could be a dinosaur. It’s almost 24 hours later and I’m still as human as ever. Starting to think I was tricked.

  38. @Camestros: Dammit, the binder I got with my radiation treatment last year specifically said, “No more drinking.” Which, honestly, was a piece of cake for me since I never drank in the first place. But the prohibition stands.

    There has to be another way. Besides, gin is classist.

  39. There has to be another way. Besides, gin is classist.

    Alcohol-free beer? Sparkling cider with a couple of juniper berries dropped in?

  40. Also a lot of parties and jokes about the absence of personal pronouns in Finnish, …

    To clarify, Finnish does have personal pronouns: it’s just that there is only one, non-gendered, third person singular: “hän”. (Also, unlike in English, but like in all other languages I’m aware of, there are both singular and plural versions of the second-person pronoun.)

  41. Link to Scalzi’s statement (not its own entry which is why it took a bit longer to google):

    * Finally, on the subject of slates, for the avoidance of doubt, here’s my own personal position:

    I won’t ask to be put on a slate of nominees for a Hugo; If asked to be on a slate of nominees for a Hugo, I will refuse; If you see my name on a slate of nominees for the Hugo, you may assume I neither asked nor consented to be on that slate. I am fine with people recommending my work to others for consideration; I am not fine with people saying “vote this slate to get our nominees on the ballot for reasons.”

    I’m also opposed to slates in general — or in the case of the Sad Puppy slate, a weasely list of “recommendations” that had in their categories the number of slots as there are on the Hugo nomination list, nod, wink, nod — because, here’s a wacky idea, I think the point of popular awards is for people to vote for the things they actually like, not a slate designed to achieve some sort of political or social point (or, in the case of the Rabid Puppy slate, exist as advertisement for the slate-builder’s hobby-horse of a publishing house). Also, to be blunt, I don’t trust anyone else’s taste. I may or may not have terrible taste in science fiction and fantasy, but it’s my taste, and I’ll vote it.

    In short: I don’t do slates — won’t voluntarily be on them, and won’t vote for them. And I’m not going to lie, from here on out, as regards the Hugos, I’ll think less of you if you participate on or vote for a slate. Because what you’re doing is showing that you don’t actually care about what the Hugos are (an award that acts as a snapshot, however imperfect, of the current state of science fiction and fantasy), but rather what the Hugos can do (draw attention to your own work, politics, social thoughts or whatever). The thing is, the latter happens because of the former. And that only happens when people vote their own nominees, not anyone else’s.

    So, knowing that, even if the slatemongers did list his name, I’d know why they were doing so. (While I’ve enjoyed some of his work, and thought Lock In was pretty cool, I doubt I’d be nominating any of his work unless there were some major changes.

  42. I, for one, am very glad to see fandom standing fast upon this bridge, facing the Balrog with those immortal words that nobody here needs me to repeat.

    “I say, dear sir, would you be awfully put out if I just asked you to wait here for two minutes? Much obliged.”

  43. That wont do it… I am drinking that right now and I have not developed any claws.

  44. I, for one, am very glad to see fandom standing fast upon this bridge, facing the Balrog with those immortal words that nobody here needs me to repeat.

    What is your name?
    What is your quest?
    What is the airspeed velocity of a laden swallow?

  45. @CPaca

    “Yngvi is a louse”?

    I am reliably[1] informed that you do not like that author enough to be familiar with his books, or quote them. Please desist immediately!

    1) For Torgersen levels of reliable.

Comments are closed.