sologdin Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 that's how dune won, no? serialized in 1964, lost to simak; republished as novel entire in 1966, wins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 that's how dune won, no? serialized in 1964, lost to simak; republished as novel entire in 1966, wins? Not really the same, no? When did ASOIAF reach the point of being an "entire novel"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Fantasy fans went through proper channels and bitched about and mocked the Hugos on the internet. Been doing that for years. On this forum and everything. That's the way this stuff is supposed to work! Some fantasy fans also went and founded the Gemmell awards, to celebrate the type of fantasy that (they thought) was ill represented in Hugo, World Fantasy Award, and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 that's how dune won, no? serialized in 1964, lost to simak; republished as novel entire in 1966, wins? Not really the same, no? When did ASOIAF reach the point of being an "entire novel"? Technically (unless the rules have changed a lot in the mean time) that counts as a completely re-worked tale. The sub-publications (books) of A Song of Ice and Fire don't seem to add up to a complete re-working under the same rules, and since individual books have appeared on the ballot the whole cycle even when reaching a sufficient ending point is not eligible anymore as a novel. New categories might appear in the future though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I disagree with the slate voting but I believe their purpose was to "illustrate" what they believed was going on behind the scenes. If that was the case, they clearly failed, as no discernible, similar case of slate-rigging can be seen in previous years apart from 1987, when Scientologists stuffed the ballot to get an L. Ron Hubbard novel nominated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Some fantasy fans also went and founded the Gemmell awards, to celebrate the type of fantasy that (they thought) was ill represented in Hugo, World Fantasy Award, and the like. And then they gave the award to Sanderson twice, thereby missing the entire point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 If that was the case, they clearly failed, as no discernible, similar case of slate-rigging can be seen in previous years apart from 1987, when Scientologists stuffed the ballot to get an L. Ron Hubbard novel nominated. Common sense says that the vast majority of behind-the-scenes vote-coordination efforts will not be provable or traceable. So I don't find the "it's not happening unless its open and obvious" argument very convincing. What I'm starting to wonder is whether it is even meaningful to even demand purity at the early nomination stage. Is the fan even in a position to make this decision? Has he really read everything published in a year so he can make an informed choice as which is the best to nominate? Probably not. In practice, he will probably be at least somewhat guided or influenced by what the major publishing houses choose to hype or push. Yes, many voters will be very independent in their reading habits and choices, but they will be very divided, and hence totally conquered by even the most subtle, casual and half-hearted of insider coordinated voting efforts. This might not be such a terrible tragedy either; if major publishers and insiders guide and influence the nomination process, as long as the goal is to ultimately win a Hugo. After all, if the major publishing houses have a motive to push works that they think have a chance of winning in the (more meaningful) final ballot, then they have a motive to push works that are popular and successful with fans anyway; and they are in a better position than the average fan to know what they have put out that is popular and successful with fans. If the solution to the problem is to try to tie the hands of the electorate and prevent block voting that might otherwise overwhelm the subtle influence of major publishing houses (i.e. play divide and conquer with the electorate), maybe the solution is that we do not really wish the electorate to decide, because of the danger that nominees or a slate of nominees recommended by a minority is totally unacceptable to the majority (as apparently turned out to be the case this time and perhaps in the case of L. Ron Hubbard). (In stating the above - I am setting aside the question as to whether the electorate is in fact representative of "the Fans". I'm not even sure what that question means, let alone how I would go about answering it. But I'm not sure how a ballot-selling scheme can insure the influence of anything but money). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Common sense says that the vast majority of behind-the-scenes vote-coordination efforts will not be provable or traceable. So I don't find the "it's not happening unless its open and obvious" argument very convincing. What I'm starting to wonder is whether it is even meaningful to even demand purity at the early nomination stage. Is the fan even in a position to make this decision? Has he really read everything published in a year so he can make an informed choice as which is the best to nominate? Probably not. In practice, he will probably be at least somewhat guided or influenced by what the major publishing houses choose to hype or push. Yes, many voters will be very independent in their reading habits and choices, but they will be very divided, and hence totally conquered by even the most subtle, casual and half-hearted of insider coordinated voting efforts. This might not be such a terrible tragedy either; if major publishers and insiders guide and influence the nomination process, as long as the goal is to ultimately win a Hugo. After all, if the major publishing houses have a motive to push works that they think have a chance of winning in the (more meaningful) final ballot, then they have a motive to push works that are popular and successful with fans anyway; and they are in a better position than the average fan to know what they have put out that is popular and successful with fans. If the solution to the problem is to try to tie the hands of the electorate and prevent block voting that might otherwise overwhelm the subtle influence of major publishing houses (i.e. play divide and conquer with the electorate), maybe the solution is that we do not really wish the electorate to decide, because of the danger that nominees or a slate of nominees recommended by a minority is totally unacceptable to the majority (as apparently turned out to be the case this time and perhaps in the case of L. Ron Hubbard). (In stating the above - I am setting aside the question as to whether the electorate is in fact representative of "the Fans". I'm not even sure what that question means, let alone how I would go about answering it. But I'm not sure how a ballot-selling scheme can insure the influence of anything but money). No, common sense says one does not assume a conspiracy absent evidence. Common sense also leads one to wonder "Why would someone try and push the idea of the existence of a voting conspiracy despite the complete lack of evidence of it's existence?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 No, common sense says one does not assume a conspiracy absent evidence. If I organize a highly competitive marathon, common sense tells me that the participants who exercise in order to enhance their cardiovascular fitness are going to have an advantage over those who don't, and are going to win the marathon, because the competition by its nature tends to reward those who do that. This is true even if I have the idea that exercising is somehow unsporting and unfair to those who do not exercise. That's true even if some goofy person calls me a conspiracy theorist for applying this common sense. Same here. At the nomination stage, the competition by its nature rewards coordinated efforts. And nothing prevents such coordinated efforts except silly denialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 No, the "conspiracy theorist" part comes where you posit a multitude of people all secretly arranging to cast nominations and votes for the same authors. You know, the actual "conspiracy" part. Imagine the amount of hush-money that must have been paid over the years to stop even one of these conspirators from leaking it! Nerds mysteriously vanishing in the night if they were recruited to vote for Asimov but decided at the last minute to switch to Niven and blow the lid off the whole thing. How deep does the rot go?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 you mean heinlein's wins were rigged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felice Posted August 25, 2015 Author Share Posted August 25, 2015 At the nomination stage, the competition by its nature rewards coordinated efforts. And the success of the puppies proved that nobody was taking advantage of this before (at least on any significant scale). Though they could have figured that out just by looking at the nomination statistics for previous Hugo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 If I organize a highly competitive marathon, common sense tells me that the participants who exercise in order to enhance their cardiovascular fitness are going to have an advantage over those who don't, and are going to win the marathon, because the competition by its nature tends to reward those who do that. This is true even if I have the idea that exercising is somehow unsporting and unfair to those who do not exercise. That's true even if some goofy person calls me a conspiracy theorist for applying this common sense. Same here. At the nomination stage, the competition by its nature rewards coordinated efforts. And nothing prevents such coordinated efforts except silly denialism. And, you know, a complete lack of evidence of any sort that it occurred. You are literally positing the existence of something for which their is no evidence at all. Why? PS - also, your analogy is gobbledegook, just so you know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 And the success of the puppies proved that nobody was taking advantage of this before (at least on any significant scale). Though they could have figured that out just by looking at the nomination statistics for previous Hugo. Indeed, the fact that the puppies easily dominated the nominations and the numbers behind how they did that basically prove that their complaints are not based in reality. Kinda funny really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 And the success of the puppies proved that nobody was taking advantage of this before (at least on any significant scale). Though they could have figured that out just by looking at the nomination statistics for previous Hugo. No. This merely shows that it was being done on a lesser scale before ... that a large public effort can trounce small, casual, private effort. It also shows that a public effort to dominate an entire slate is more traceable than a public effort to influence a single specific work (which is done regularly and openly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Common sense says that the vast majority of behind-the-scenes vote-coordination efforts will not be provable or traceable. So I don't find the "it's not happening unless its open and obvious" argument very convincing. You can't coordinate anything in secret, not between a whole bunch of voters and authors whose primary means of communication is the internet. The puppy debacle happened because they screamed about it from the rooftops and therefore got enough people to pay attention and join in (including recruiting people from GG who had zero interest in books at all) and they still failed to achieve their goals. The Scientology thing was only possible because of the secretive internal communications of the group, the fact it was pre-Internet and everyone still knew it was going on, and they also failed to achieve their goals (thanks to everyone voting for Orson Scott Card instead, which I guess is irony). The notion that loads of people have gotten together year after year and voted for the books of their choice to get in without anyone noticing at all is quite a stretch. I mean, it would explain how tripe like Redshirts won, but there isn't any evidence for conspiracy versus poor taste and, at best, a sort of ad hoc conversation between regular, annual Hugo-goers going, "Hey, this book is good". I also think the argument that people don't have time to read 100+ books a year does weigh into this: there are Hugo recommendation boards where a lot of hardcore, annual Worldcon-goers do get to see recommendations and it doesn't take a huge amount for certain books to start getting traction. There are also "usual suspects" by this point (Stross, Scalzi, Gaiman) who will get their latest books nominated or at least read almost by rote regardless of quality. Stross broke out of that by witholding books from being nominated, and I think Gaiman even turned out a nomination or two. None of this is new, and it's stuff that I have moaned about (at length) in the past, but it's more down to an inherent flaw of the community rather than an outright conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lies And Perfidy Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 You're not gonna convince the birdy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 You're not gonna convince the birdy. One begins to suspect he is an ostrich rather then a parrot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Sea lions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clueless Northman Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I also think the argument that people don't have time to read 100+ books a year does weigh into this: there are Hugo recommendation boards where a lot of hardcore, annual Worldcon-goers do get to see recommendations and it doesn't take a huge amount for certain books to start getting traction.It's quite ludicrous, imho, to expect two hundreds people coordinating their votes for nominations - before Puppy slates -, indeed. Even that would've been spotted fast.On the other hand, if a few people coordinate to promote and make recommendations for a few works of their choosing, wouldn't they be able to influence - not to "order their followers" obviously - the choices of a few more people. And at a time when Hugo nominations were probably due to just 6-700 people, wouldn't that be enough to tilt the scales in some cases? That wouldn't be a conspiracy to fully rig the nominations of course, just a serious PR blitz.(not having any inside knowledge, and very limited overall knowledge, I ask because that would seems a likelier possibility, at least in a few cases) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.