felice Posted August 30, 2015 Author Share Posted August 30, 2015 Yes, there were, in the end, many more votes that were likely to be Rabid supporters. But the notion that all of those people are going to nominate next year - that, in fact, the number of Rabid nominations will nearly treble - seems to me one that needs some justification beyond 'well, they're eligible'. They can nominate - but will they? It seems to me a safe assumption that most of the extra votes for VD came from rabid supporters who joined up after the nominations were announced, due to the ensuing publicity. It's certainly not likely that many of them were WorldCon regulars. They cared enough to join up just to vote for the slate; expecting them to refrain from nominating next year strikes me as wildly over-optimistic. Why would anyone who paid to support this year's rabid slate not nominate next year? If even a third of them stick around to nominate, BDP Long Form is the only category with much chance of any non-puppy finalists. I suspect that the tactic the Rabids will adopt instead is the more underhand one of slating people against their will. That would appeal to Beale's shit-stirring instincts. Either that or getting behind a single standard-bearer in each category, specially selected to piss the voters off. That wouldn't be a big problem. Most unwilling slate-ees would probably decline nomination, leaving spots open for non-slate works; a win for us. Or we could just ignore the slating of obvious non-puppy favourites, as we did with Guardians of the Galaxy this year. And single-work slates really aren't a big deal; that still leaves four slots for worthy nominations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 It seems to me a safe assumption that most of the extra votes for VD came from rabid supporters who joined up after the nominations were announced, due to the ensuing publicity. Likely, although I think quite a few were Sads who went Rabid during the process. But the assumption that all, or even most, of these people will go on to nominate next year is what I'm questioning. You've said it's 'wildly over-optimistic' to expect that they won't, but you haven't offered any real reason to think this. I'm assuming that some will, enough to increase Beale's backing at the nomination stage by maybe 50%, but there's plenty reason to assume that many others won't (I've offered reasons for this assumption upthread a bit). That would be easily counteracted by the disproportionately larger group of equally engaged non-Puppy voters: they're not going to vote in lockstep, but the increase in nominations needed to at least partially block a Radid slate is in the order of dozens, not hundreds, of those extra couple of thousand voters picking the same works. This strikes me as quite credible. OTOH, we can't rule out a split in the Sad faction such that one group gives up and the other effectively goes Rabid. The rhetoric is tending that way. If that happens, who knows? That wouldn't be a big problem. Most unwilling slate-ees would probably decline nomination, leaving spots open for non-slate works; a win for us. Or we could just ignore the slating of obvious non-puppy favourites, as we did with Guardians of the Galaxy this year. And single-work slates really aren't a big deal; that still leaves four slots for worthy nominations. The point of slating people against their will would be to force them to either withdraw (which Beale will declare a win) or to continue with the taint of Puppydom upon them, which Beale will declare rank hypocrisy. That's the appeal for him: he can declare a win either way, without needing to actually muster enough votes to [i]actually[/i] win. Single nominees, on the other hand, allow him to keep up the chorus of how awful the SJWs are when (inevitably) his picks continually finish last. But, there's no way to prevent this sort of mischief-making, so all we can do is ignore the troll, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Felice,That wouldn't be a big problem. Most unwilling slate-ees would probably decline nomination, leaving spots open for non-slate works; a win for us. Or we could just ignore the slating of obvious non-puppy favourites, as we did with Guardians of the Galaxy this year. And single-work slates really aren't a big deal; that still leaves four slots for worthy nominations. Not to mention how shitty that is for the person declining the nomination. Not everyone has multiple great novels. That work can only be nominated for the Hugo once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingJT Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Longtime lurker/reader, first time (in this thread) post-er! I think a lot of people are misunderstanding Vox's motivations (I am guessing at his motivations, I've never met or interacted with him, only read a few posts): he WANTED the Hugos to get lots of No Awards. He's publicizing this as "SJWs would rather have no awards than give them to good conservatives" -- it doesn't matter if all the nominees are/were crap, that just serves his purposes. The No Awards given to the Editors and Short Story only served to be propaganda for him. Why Short Story? Kary English's (again, don't know her or ANYTHING about her, aside from "Totaled") story had enough non-puppy noms to make the slate (look at the diff bt her homs and the next puppy vote -- she'd still have enough to be 5th), and it was, IMHO, FAR superior to the Novelette that won while being similar in tone. Had even one of these three categories been awarded, this MIGHT have been seen by Sad Puppies as "Puppy-Kickers" (their term, not mine) being willing to fairly evaluate on merit, not on source. But these three going 0-for-3 (to say nothing of the other two) is just going to fuel the fires. And, seriously, the Editor votes were as clear an example of bloc voting as the puppy slates -- any justification of "I saw No Award as a vote against slates" is bullshit. Does anyone really think that the Puppies would say, "Gee, there were a few deserving Editors that lost to No Award, so I guess this means I shouldn't vote a slate in the future"? Of course not. Voting No Award above someone you think is deserving is only fueling your sense of outrage, not making a difference. The only way to TRULY "defeat" Vox is to increase the number of people nominating so that it's not just his nominees. This will be harder next year -- he had more votes than noms, so it stands to reason that his noms will increase. and if there are? read the noms, and then vote according to your tastes, not according to a "non-puppy" site (and at least 1000 voters voted non-Puppy over quality -- look at the Winter Soldier-Guardians numbers). If people really want the Hugos to continue and even thrive, we all need to step back from rhetoric and discuss the stories. Please don't say "They started it!" or "They escalated it!" - these are playground rationales unsuited for discussion. Other people acting like assholes shouldn't ever be used as justification for acting like an asshole. We can all be Happy or Right -- the key is deciding when each is called for. I'd rather be happy with Hugos I might disagree with, but can accept, than having No Awards that fuel my sense of moral superiority! Rant over! JT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I think a lot of people are misunderstanding Vox's motivations (I am guessing at his motivations, I've never met or interacted with him, only read a few posts): he WANTED the Hugos to get lots of No Awards. He's publicizing this as "SJWs would rather have no awards than give them to good conservatives" -- it doesn't matter if all the nominees are/were crap, that just serves his purposes. The No Awards given to the Editors and Short Story only served to be propaganda for him. That's what he's saying now, but it's not what he was saying when he started the slate. He keeps changing his tune so that whatever happens, he can claim that's what he wanted all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I inadvertently engaged with puppies on another forum. It was...interesting before I hastily withdrew, leaving behind links in my wake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Wert, What forum and what were they arguing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howdyphillip Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I inadvertently engaged with puppies on another forum. It was...interesting before I hastily withdrew, leaving behind links in my wake. I had a rational mindset about this all the way until Awards night. While watching it online, the chat section, which is usually a wonderful place to discuss books was filled with racist, sexist, and Anti-Semitic comments that were appalling. They didn't stop throughout the entire show, and no one else could comment. There is a common misconception that this Puppy thing is about books and Science Fiction. This isn't true. The heart of the movement is internet trolls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I think a lot of people are misunderstanding Vox's motivations Vox has precisely three motivations: 1. Sell books. 2. Annoy people he thinks have done him wrong in the past, or otherwise dislikes (John Scalzi, the Nielsen Haydens, etc.) 3. Get attention. and to be honest, 1 and 2 are really subsets of 3. He can indeed declare this year a success in terms of all these objectives. The rest - including the question of whether he 'really' wanted No Awards, or 'really' wanted his nominees to win, or whatever - is just rhetorical window dressing. His story changes because he really didn't think that far ahead, because he really didn't care. He's making it up as he goes. And, seriously, the Editor votes were as clear an example of bloc voting as the puppy slates -- any justification of "I saw No Award as a vote against slates" is bullshit. No, it's an accurate reflection of how thousands of people voted. Yes, it's a bloc vote. It's an anti-slate bloc vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Nice analysis Mormont. Always a bit weird when people argue the Neo-Nazi contingent isn't, you know, that bad.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I inadvertently engaged with puppies on another forum. It was...interesting before I hastily withdrew, leaving behind links in my wake. Obligatory don't stare into the abyss post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkynJay Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I just realized that Day worked his Hugo nominations into his anti-SJW book blurb. This made me laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Longtime lurker/reader, first time (in this thread) post-er! .... Rant over! JT Welcome. Keep in mind many people were very irritated by the idea of a slate and will have voted no award to punish the violation of the spirit of the award. And that irritation has nothing to do at all with the politics of nominee, slate organizers, or voter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Did Voxy actually go to the con like he said he was going to or was that more hot air? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Did Voxy actually go to the con like he said he was going to or was that more hot air? With his father in jail for tax fraud I suspect Beale is wary of entering the US at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beniowa Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 And he's not on the Sasquan member list at all, even as a supporting member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 And he's not on the Sasquan member list at all, even as a supporting member. They do offer the option to not have your name published on the website, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingJT Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Welcome. Keep in mind many people were very irritated by the idea of a slate and will have voted no award to punish the violation of the spirit of the award. And that irritation has nothing to do at all with the politics of nominee, slate organizers, or voter. I know, I've read quite a few of those on George's blog and file770. Personally, I have 0 problem with people saying, "i like these, give 'em a shot", my problem with the puppies (esp the rabids) is that they made <= 5 recs in each category, which seems more like attempted ballot stuffing than a rec (and the rabids were almost all subpar, while i liked some of the sad noms). i do think that the No Awards is going to effectively raise the cutoff for noms rather significantly. I would not be surprised if the cutoff for novels is 500, and Star Wars may jack up the long form quite a bit. I'm HOPING that the Expanse and Childhood's End will also be good enough to cause a surge :) At the very least, this has all gotten me reading Hugo eligible works in the year of publication, I tend to be behind the times! jt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Does anyone else find it ironic that the Puppies have raised the profile of the Hugos and gotten more people talking and participating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lily Valley Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Does anyone else find it ironic that the Puppies have raised the profile of the Hugos and gotten more people talking and participating? Silver lining on a pile of doo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.