Hugos V: E Paucibus Drama

[mormont]

But it's not complex.

Yes, it is.

The EPH proposal introduces a significant additional step to the nominations process. Each nominee now has two scores - nominations plus 'points' - rather than just having a certain number of nominations. That is, by definition, making the system more complex. If this step is not necessary, then it follows that there is unnecessary complexity. That's a Bad Thing in any voting system.

If I'm a novice voter to the whole Hugo process, I'm left wondering: why do the nominees get two scores? How does the system actually work? Why is it 'more representative'? How and why does who else I nominated matter to the rest of my nominees? Why do points get redistributed in the way they do? What do I do if I really, really want one nomination to succeed? Is there a tactical aspect to this? Should I list a lot of nominees, including ones I don't feel strongly about, or only my favourites?

If I'm a novice voter, I am left asking those questions, looking at this system and feeling that I'm not in the know, and so not in the club, and so not welcome. That is a Bad Thing. In fact it's one of the legitimate complaints about the process already.

You can walk someone through an example and they are still going to be wondering what the hell this is all about and why the Hugos don't just count the nominations. Sure, you can print off a FAQ or something, but the very act of having to read that is a barrier to the novice voter - a sign that there are hurdles to be crossed to take part.

EPH is very much an insider's proposal, in character. The only argument I've seen addressing the proposal from the point of view of voters is (basically) that they don't have to worry their little heads about the process, just name their nominees and leave the rest to the clever people who run the award. This is not an argument that really promotes the perspective that the award should be more open, more owned, by fandom at large.

Legitimacy requires transparency, and transparency requires simplicity, not complexity.

Even a ranked nominations system would be preferable, from the point of view of the voter. That's a simple idea that everyone can instinctively understand, even if the actual process of counting were slightly more complex.

Four and Six is simple, minimal, easy to explain, and hopelessly ineffectual.

I wasn't aware it had already been tried.

Still, even if you're right, that puts it ahead of complex, hard to explain, and counterproductive, which is my assessment of EPH.

It also increases the work voters need to put in to evaluate all the finalists by 20%.

This is probably the weakest argument I've seen against any proposed change, so not too worried about that.

[felice]

Yes, it is. The EPH proposal introduces a significant additional step to the nominations process. Each nominee now has two scores - nominations plus 'points' - rather than just having a certain number of nominations. That is, by definition, making the system more complex.

A book that costs $2 is more expensive than one that costs $1, but a book that costs $2 is not expensive. EPH is more complex than the current nomination system, but it's not complex. And it's less complex than the Instant Runoff system used for the final voting. How would you explain the way the Hugo votes (not nominations) are currently counted?

If I'm a novice voter to the whole Hugo process, I'm left wondering: why do the nominees get two scores? How does the system actually work? Why is it 'more representative'? How and why does who else I nominated matter to the rest of my nominees? Why do points get redistributed in the way they do? What do I do if I really, really want one nomination to succeed? Is there a tactical aspect to this? Should I list a lot of nominees, including ones I don't feel strongly about, or only my favourites?

If you're a novice voter who's interested in the details of how the system works, there's plenty of explanation easily accessible. If you're not interested in those details and just follow the instructions on the nomination form, it's all very simple.

Many of those questions apply equally to the current system (and the answers are largely the same, too). For the others, if they want to know how the system actually works, they can read the explanation, and the only way they're know that nominees get two scores is if they've read an explanation. It's more representative because it represents a greater percentage of voters' nominations, rather than just those of one bloc.

You can walk someone through an example and they are still going to be wondering what the hell this is all about and why the Hugos don't just count the nominations.

You seriously think there are likely to be many new voters who don't know about the why?

EPH is based on the idea that the set of finalists should ideally possess two qualities; they should all be nominated by as many people as possible, and they should represent the nominations of as many people as possible (ie be more representative). We've seen this year the problem of only caring about the first quality. Only caring about the second could have problems of its own (if 95% of people nominate one outstanding work, the other four finalists would be chosen by less than 5% of the voters). EPH strikes a balance between the two, and only produces different results than the current system when there's an unusual distribution of nominations.

The only argument I've seen addressing the proposal from the point of view of voters is (basically) that they don't have to worry their little heads about the process, just name their nominees and leave the rest to the clever people who run the award.

There's a huge difference between "you don't have to worry about the details, but if you're interested, read this link" and "you shouldn't worry about the details, leave all that to the clever people".

Even a ranked nominations system would be preferable, from the point of view of the voter. That's a simple idea that everyone can instinctively understand, even if the actual process of counting were slightly more complex.

And what would the process of counting be, to select five nominees from a set of ranked ballots? Can you describe a process that's simpler than EPH?

For the voter, naming up to five Hugo-worthy works (as with both EPH and the current system) is less complex than ranking those works (though there are potential benefits that might outweigh the increased complexity).

I wasn't aware it had already been tried.

4&6's goal is hopelessly ineffectual; it's not a question of whether or not it succeeds in achieving that goal. At best, it gives us four slate nominations and two non-slate nominations in each category; at worst, four nominations from the biggest slate and two from the second biggest. Personally I wouldn't see the point in continuing to care about the Hugo Awards if that was the new status quo.

Do you have any thoughts on the longlist proposal?

[mormont]

We're clearly not going to agree on this. That's fine. But at this point, it's just you and me going back and forth, and that's the time I usually bow out.

I remain utterly unpersuaded by the EPH proposal in principle, or in practice. I said earlier it represents the worst of nerd culture: it's more concerned with modelling a presumed definition of 'fairness' by clever maths than it is with considering the actual human beings who vote for things. That remains my assessment. I hope the business meeting kicks it out. But since I won't be there, I have no say. Maybe next year.

[mormont]

Moving to another angle: Mike Resnick's editorial for 'Galaxy's Edge' (reproduced at File 770) offers an interesting history lesson by way of a welcome perspective. I really recommend people read it.

http://www.galaxysedge.com/ked.htm

[Lily Valley]

I am actually having a TERRIBLE DAY AND IT'S ONLY 11AM.

So please do not read this bit of madness unless you want to sit in the rabbit hole with me:

DO NOT READ:

SRSLY

The Christ-haters hate Christ because they are Social Justice Warriors, which is a religion that is jealous, and excludes the practice of Christian and Jewish faith alike.

It was the God of Abraham, the God worshiped by all practicing Jews, who destroyed the city of Sodom and outlawed the practices which made that name a curse. I am being reviled precisely because I love and fear the God of Moses.

I am against the SJWs precisely for the same reason I am for the Jews. I hate bullies and cowards, and I hate liars, and I hate antisemitism with an unquenchable burning hatred, and I love the people that God love

I know. I am so sorry.

[jagilki]

Who?

[mormont]

That would be Wright, complaining because someone suggested he was anti-Semitic. It's an unedifying spat, I don't recommend reading up on it.

[Kojiro]

I kind of guessed it was Wright, as the batshit, Bible-thumping rant-style looked familiar.

[Lily Valley]

Hugo finished!   John Wright's too.  And lest we could ever think that this rumpus was ever about anything but hurt feelings, here's what JCW says about using No Award on his own ballot,

 

 

The one and only story I tucked beneath a NO AWARD was ‘Day the Earth Turned Upside Down’ which was poorly written on every level, jejune, mildly grotesque, and involved a conceit that seems directly opposite the whole point of speculative fiction, which is to think through the realistic ramifications of unreal conceits.

Of course, since my own beloved story, ‘Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus’ which I had to open a vein to write in the blood of the innermost heart, the most difficult work I ever wrote, was knocked from the list (in an overly strict interpretation of a rule that he been bent for John Scalzi in earlier years) in order to make room for this lacktalent tripe, I cannot pretend to have in this case achieved my normal superhuman perfection of emotionless Vulcan objectivity.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I voted yesterday.

[Kojiro]

Hugo finished!   John Wright's too.  And lest we could ever think that this rumpus was ever about anything but hurt feelings, here's what JCW says about using No Award on his own ballot,

 

 

Hahaha... Right, nooooo hurt feelings here at all folks.

 

That guy's a real piece of work.

[sologdin]

I voted yesterday.

clean sweep for the JCW?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,

He is the spokesman for our generation after all.

;)

[williamjm]

Hugo finished!   John Wright's too.  And lest we could ever think that this rumpus was ever about anything but hurt feelings, here's what JCW says about using No Award on his own ballot,

 

The one and only story I tucked beneath a NO AWARD was ‘Day the Earth Turned Upside Down’ which was poorly written on every level, jejune, mildly grotesque, and involved a conceit that seems directly opposite the whole point of speculative fiction, which is to think through the realistic ramifications of unreal conceits.

Of course, since my own beloved story, ‘Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus’ which I had to open a vein to write in the blood of the innermost heart, the most difficult work I ever wrote, was knocked from the list (in an overly strict interpretation of a rule that he been bent for John Scalzi in earlier years) in order to make room for this lacktalent tripe, I cannot pretend to have in this case achieved my normal superhuman perfection of emotionless Vulcan objectivity.

To be fair, having read [i]The Day The Earth Turned Upside Down[/i] I find it hard to disagree with most of Wright's criticisms of it. That said, I imagine he might have been equally scathing even if it had been a good story.

[David Selig]

To be fair, having read The Day The Earth Turned Upside Down I find it hard to disagree with most of Wright's criticisms of it. That said, I imagine he might have been equally scathing even if it had been a good story.

Yeah, The Day The Earth Turned Upside Down I was a terrible story, frankly. Kind of a shame it's the only non-Puppy story on the short fiction ballot.

[Lily Valley]

I didn't fancy it either, but let's compare it to the entire ballot, shall we?

[Ormond]

OK --really dumb question from someone who has never voted for the Hugos before. I have filled out my ballot but can't find a "submit" button at the end as I am used to on other such things on the Internet. So can I just close the webpage and be sure my votes will be counted? Or am I missing a "submit" button somewhere? 

 

P.S. Oh well, I just reread the instructions and I guess they mean that since I've hit one of the "save all changes" buttons that everything is OK? I guess I'm just being a little unreasonably paranoid about this. :)

[williamjm]

OK --really dumb question from someone who has never voted for the Hugos before. I have filled out my ballot but can't find a "submit" button at the end as I am used to on other such things on the Internet. So can I just close the webpage and be sure my votes will be counted? Or am I missing a "submit" button somewhere? 

 

P.S. Oh well, I just reread the instructions and I guess they mean that since I've hit one of the "save all changes" buttons that everything is OK? I guess I'm just being a little unreasonably paranoid about this. :)

Yes, I think you just need to hit one of the 'save all changes' after you've made the last edit.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Today is the last day to vote!

 

(and yes, Ormond, once you press "save all changes" you have submitted your ballot. You can continue to update right until the deadline, and the voting system will take whatever is the last saved version on the server. :)

[beniowa]

Got my votes in.

 

Yeah, The Day The Earth Turned Upside Down I was a terrible story, frankly. Kind of a shame it's the only non-Puppy story on the short fiction ballot.

Yeah, that was my thought too.  At least the novel category was a bit better.