Hugo Drama IV - The Puppy Parade

[SpaceChampion]

I can't stress this point enough. If your system is the fairest system in the world, but the average voter does not understand why it is fair, the system is broken and useless. You need to be able to explain in a sentence how this amendment improves the system. I've not seen anyone do that, as yet.

It's the Thunderdome, where the crowd must Clap If They Believe In Fairies. Aunty Entity (the algorithm) decides who fights next, and she is Anti Strategy. The Wisdom of the Crowd prevails while ensuring diversity of opinions. Two Enter, One Leaves.

[Squab]

I can't stress this point enough. If your system is the fairest system in the world, but the average voter does not understand why it is fair, the system is broken and useless. You need to be able to explain in a sentence how this amendment improves the system. I've not seen anyone do that, as yet.

No.

A system is not broken because the average voter does not understand it. A fair system does not require understanding to work. Nor does it require understanding to be accepted and adopted. That is not how the world works. Look at any complex system that has been adopted around the world, people rely on experts to put the system together, test and refine it and then implement and monitor it. The average voter/user is often unaware of the inner workings and happy to be. If we had to wait to bring the average voter up to speed before implemetation, every system would only ever be as good as the average voter and thereby average.

The ability to simplify something into a single sentence has no bearing on the quality of a suggested improvement.

[felice]

Which is why abolishing the 5% threshold is a good idea.

At least we agree on something! 8)

However, this issue is not addressed by the EPH proposal. It's a natural consequence of the diversity of the field, and I know of no constitutional amendment that could possibly tackle it.

EPH addresses it by reducing the power of each voting bloc once it's got a finalist on the ballot, effectively increasing the power of the other contenders to give them a better chance, better representing the diversity of the field. (Technically it operates in reverse, increasing the power of blocs as their candidates are whittled away, but the principle is the same. And coordinated slates aside, the "blocs" are complicated overlapping sets of preferences; eg some people might nominate A and B because they have beautiful prose, others B and C because they have interesting new ideas, and others A and C because they tell exciting stories.)

But the issue could be addressed directly by some sort of longlist. Eg publish the current top 15 in each category before nominations close (as an unordered list without numbers), and let people change their nominations in response if they so desire. That would increase the number of nominations for works that actually have a chance of winning, making it harder for slate works to get on the final ballot.

The number of people buying supporting memberships for Sasquan suggests that there are lots of people who were willing to take part, they just needed to be given a reason to do so.

There's a difference between willing and able. I vote, but I don't nominate, because I hardly read anything in the year it's published, and I hardly read any short fiction aside from what's in the Hugo voter packet.

It guarantees a diversity of works on the ballot and makes it impossible for a slate to 'sweep' the nominations, absent a (really rather tricky) degree of co-ordination amongst its voters

If four slate works and two non-slate works (if we're lucky) is your idea of diverse, and you consider "vote for any four of these six" pointed at a web page that lists the slate works in random order to be "rather tricky".

I can't stress this point enough. If your system is the fairest system in the world, but the average voter does not understand why it is fair, the system is broken and useless. You need to be able to explain in a sentence how this amendment improves the system. I've not seen anyone do that, as yet.

Not a single sentence, but maybe a simplified demo would help? Imagine a system with just two finalists, four works, and 12 nominators. The ballots are:

dragons, wyverns

dragons, wyverns

dragons, wyverns

dragons, wyverns

dragons, wyverns

dragons, wyverns

dragons, direwolves

dragons, direwolves

wyverns, direwolves

direwolves, nugs

direwolves, nugs

direwolves, nugs

In the first round, the scores are:

dragons - 8 nominations, 4 points

wyverns - 7 nominations, 3.5 points

direwolves - 6 nominations, 3 points

nugs - 3 nominations, 1.5 points

nugs go up against direwolves because they have the two lowest points, and direwolves win because they have more nominations. Next round:

direwolves - 6 nominations, 4.5 points (they now get the nugs' share of the points)

dragons - 8 nominations, 4 points

wyverns - 7 nominations, 3.5 points

dragons go up against wyverns, and dragons win. So the finalists are dragons and direwolves. Under the current system, the finalists would have been dragons and wyverns, but EPH produces a more representative outcome, by recognising that dragons and wyverns were nominated by many of the same people and only selecting the more popular flying reptile as a finalist. More people get at least one of the works they nominated on the final ballot.

They're talking obvious nonsense now. But they largely believe it anyway.

They can believe whatever they like, as long as nobody else takes them seriously.

[mormont]

At least we agree on something! 8)

I suspect we agree on many things. :)

But the fundamental issue is this: for me, the best, indeed only, way to deal with the Puppies is - outvote 'em. Don't jigger the system, don't sit around debating how many preferences can dance of the head of a pin, get out there and nominate good work. Encourage others to nominate good work. Discuss how to get even more people to nominate good work. Then sit back and watch the Puppies sink under a sea of actual voters.

EPH addresses it by reducing the power of each voting bloc once it's got a finalist on the ballot, effectively increasing the power of the other contenders to give them a better chance, better representing the diversity of the field.

I understand this is the intention. I rue the inherent assumption that there are going to be voting blocs in future so powerful they need to be buffered out of the system by abstruse mathematics, having their voting power diverted into a single nomination. I don't agree with Vox Day on much, but on this he has the analysis right: trading off the probability of a single Puppy finalist every year to block a hypothetical repeat of this year's nominee list is a devil's bargain. Not wise, not worth it, for this reason and the others I've pointed out.

But getting back to the issue of diversity of the field, no, I don't think EPH really does address the problem that there's simply a lot more SF being published than there was when the system was invented. It just inflates the vote of the common denominators.

I quite like the longlist idea, but it faces a practical issue - how do you get people to nominate twice, when it's hard enough to get them to do it once? Still... a longlist might actually encourage people who don't participate because they feel they 'don't read enough short fiction'.

Squab, I was going to reply but basically I'd just be repeating my previous post. It doesn't matter how objectively fair your system is, if people don't understand why it's fair, it will lack legitimacy.

[Jerpp]

GRRM picked the wrong side in this fight. Very unfortunate.

He picked the easier side, the side supported by the mindless sheep and public opinion, as opposed to the side of truth.

The day someone supports Anita Sarkeesian is the day they lose a lot of my respect.

Colbert did it, John Oliver did it, and GRRM did it.

[Andrew Gilfellon]

It's cute you think people would be bothered by that.

And what truth? The gays are icky truth by John C Wright? Or the whole we're not boycotting Tor but here's how to do it truth.

So what did Anita Sarkeesian do that would make you lose respect? Was it because she is a woman? Because she didn't accept being harassed?

Or is it a case of the easy route is the route chosen by people who don't hate mindlessly?

[SpaceChampion]

Mindlessly? It takes a lot of effort for the Puppies and Gamergaters to use that much Orwellian doublethink!

[Guy Kilmore]

GRRM picked the wrong side in this fight. Very unfortunate.

He picked the easier side, the side supported by the mindless sheep and public opinion, as opposed to the side of truth.

The day someone supports Anita Sarkeesian is the day they lose a lot of my respect.

Colbert did it, John Oliver did it, and GRRM did it.

I love Colbert, John and GRRM, that's some nice company to be in!

[Lyanna Stark]

GRRM picked the wrong side in this fight. Very unfortunate.

He picked the easier side, the side supported by the mindless sheep and public opinion, as opposed to the side of truth.

The day someone supports Anita Sarkeesian is the day they lose a lot of my respect.

Colbert did it, John Oliver did it, and GRRM did it.

Oh noes, that mean Anita Sarkeesian RUINING MY INTERNETZ and agreeing with people like GRRM.

PS. This is not some lame subreddit for basement dwelling mouthbreathers, just FYI in case you mistook it for one and thought people would agree with your poins

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Jerpp,

GRRM picked the wrong side in this fight. Very unfortunate.

He picked the easier side, the side supported by the mindless sheep and public opinion, as opposed to the side of truth.

The day someone supports Anita Sarkeesian is the day they lose a lot of my respect.

Colbert did it, John Oliver did it, and GRRM did it.

Why?

[Jerpp]

No I think Colbert, Oliver, and GRRM are/were great too.

This is why it is so difficult to see them selling out to the feminist narrative.

Jon Stewart was once great too. He sold out a few years ago.

I bet people here that support Sarkeesian also think Emma Sulkowicz isn't lying.

[mormont]

[mod[ Let's stick to the topic at hand: the Hugo Awards and the Puppies campaigns. Not Anita Sarkeesian, Emma Sulkowicz, Jon Stewart, or whether people who hold opinions on this topic have certain opinions on other topics. Just the Hugos.

[felice]

I understand this is the intention. I rue the inherent assumption that there are going to be voting blocs in future so powerful they need to be buffered out of the system by abstruse mathematics, having their voting power diverted into a single nomination. I don't agree with Vox Day on much, but on this he has the analysis right: trading off the probability of a single Puppy finalist every year to block a hypothetical repeat of this year's nominee list is a devil's bargain. Not wise, not worth it, for this reason and the others I've pointed out.

There is no such assumption. If there are coordinated blocs in future, then EPH will help reduce their impact. If there are uncoordinated common-preference clusters amongst the nomination ballots, EPH will be more likely to return just the most popular work from each cluster rather than all the works from the biggest cluster(s), producing a more diverse set of finalists. In the absence of any kind of bloc, EPH does absolutely no harm whatsoever and will return exactly the same results as the current system. How is this a devil's bargain?

The mathematics really aren't that abstruse; did the dragon/wyvern example make sense to you? If not, is there any specific step you didn't understand?

And EPH isn't that effective; it could easily still result in two or three puppy finalists in some categories.

But getting back to the issue of diversity of the field, no, I don't think EPH really does address the problem that there's simply a lot more SF being published than there was when the system was invented. It just inflates the vote of the common denominators.

It potentially allows for five different views on what's best to be represented on the final ballot, while the current system returns whatever the biggest single faction thinks is best, second best, third best, etc. To the extent that such factions exist, anyway; the puppies are a nice clear case, but I'd expect fuzzier clusters to arise naturally. EPH returns the same results as the current system when run on the 1984 ballots, but without access to anything more recent, it's impossible to be sure exactly how much difference it would make with modern nomination distributions.

I quite like the longlist idea, but it faces a practical issue - how do you get people to nominate twice, when it's hard enough to get them to do it once? Still... a longlist might actually encourage people who don't participate because they feel they 'don't read enough short fiction'.

Don't make them nominate twice; just let them change their nominations if they want to (just as you can update your rankings for the final vote at any time during the voting period). If they don't change them, their original nominations stand. The longlist is published say half way through the nominating period, and the final ballot is calculated at the end of the nominating period. A 2.5 stage voting system, rather than a three stage system.

Yes, this would be particularly good for short fiction, because there'd be time for people to read a lot of what's on the longlist, if they have access to it. Maybe an unfamiliar novel or two that looks particularly interesting. But it would also remind people of works they'd already read but hadn't thought to nominate, and if people's original choices are out of the running, they can nominate whatever they like best out of the works that do stand a chance of being finalists.

[Larry of the Lawn]

come now. SP/RP aesthetics are awful, and their politics are childish. they admit they don't like the 'literary,' the tragic, the complex, the self-critical, the progressive. the award is not strengthened therefore by including them, but is rather diminished--look at what they've nominated, FFS. solution is to organize counterslates to drive them away. let them set up Doggy Awards for their own philistine preferences.

i don't know why they bother trying to monkeywrench the hugo, as they contend it rewards stuff they dislike. uh, okay? go set up your own, then.

This is what makes the whole Puppy pack so laughable: if you don't like an award, go start your own. Corriea whining about how he was devastated to find that it was World Con award and not the sum of the collective will of everyone who ever read any SF was pathetic and hilarious at the same time.

[mormont]

There is no such assumption.

You, me, Vox Day, Brad Torgersen, Patrick Nielsen Hayden and everyone else knows that this assumption is the entire raison d'etre of the EPH proposal.

How is this a devil's bargain?

Because it is tacitly accepting that slates are here to stay and can't be tackled by simple democracy - outvoting the buggers.

The mathematics really aren't that abstruse

'Abstruse' may be the wrong word. However, it's accepted that they're sufficiently laborious as to require computer counting to make it practical. They're also not transparent to the voter. If I want to understand how my nominations (and everyone else's) resulted in the nominees at present, I have no problem comprehending that. Top five nominations = on the ballot. It's completely transparent. EPH requires me to nominate and then just accept the word of the Hugo organisers that the calculation is right. Opaque.

But, now I'm repeating myself. I'm not saying I won't change my mind, but at present, I'm firmly of the view that EPH is the wrong solution. But I won't get to WorldCon this year, so I won't get to vote. I just hope those that do, vote it down.

[Jerpp]

Oh noes, that mean Anita Sarkeesian RUINING MY INTERNETZ and agreeing with people like GRRM.

PS. This is not some lame subreddit for basement dwelling mouthbreathers, just FYI in case you mistook it for one and thought people would agree with your poins

Why the personal attack without warrant? Seems to be the go-to trend for a certain side.

Honestly people like Sarkeesian are a cancer of society that I would rather not think about except that they keep putting themselves in my face through their hordes of mindless followers in the media.

FYI, reddit is something I stay away from since it itself is a feminist haven in opposition to free speech run by all round bad person Ellen Pao.

On the topic of the "Puppies" and Hugos, however, the main problem is the sense of entitlement the so called "SJW" and generally cultural marxist hivemind have had for a long time from having been given such a free reign to bully people with their beliefs.

I don't believe in personal attacks and the people doing that are wrong. There are a large number of "trolls" who get some sick pleasure from trying to ruin people's lives on both sides.

I do believe that the point of the "Puppies" is a correct one and can be better articulated and argued using logic. In this way the truth can be revealed and the "liberal" hypocrisy laid bare for all to see.

[AncalagonTheBlack]

Reddit is a feminist haven ?! :lmao:

oh dear!,where are Peterbound and Darth Richard when you need them :P

[beniowa]

Reddit is a feminist haven ?! :lmao:

oh dear!,where are Peterbound and Darth Richard when you need them :P

Yeah, for a second there I thought I had wandered into some alternate universe.

[mormont]

On the topic of the "Puppies" and Hugos, however, the main problem is the sense of entitlement the so called "SJW" and generally cultural marxist hivemind have had for a long time from having been given such a free reign to bully people with their beliefs.

If you honestly feel 'bullied' by beliefs like 'it's bad that women, non-heterosexuals and non-white people are underrepresented, we should do something about that', you must be a pretty fragile soul.

I do believe that the point of the "Puppies" is a correct one and can be better articulated and argued using logic.

It's certainly been tried, but alas without much success. Every time I see a Puppy articulate their point, it changes. It's hard to know what their point actually is: in fact, it appears to be a random selection of mouldering ill-founded old grievances all chucked into a bag with a cute logo slapped on it, rather than a coherent actual point.

[Darth Richard II]

Reddit is a feminist haven ?! :lmao:

oh dear!,where are Peterbound and Darth Richard when you need them :P

Oh I'm write here, but I lack both a real keyboard to type on and honestly...words fail me at this point. I pray this is just Poe's Law in effect.