Hugos V: E Paucibus Drama

[mormont]

Does anyone else find it ironic that the Puppies have raised the profile of the Hugos and gotten more people talking and participating?

 

To be fair, this was one of their stated aims (at least, the Sads). And in that they've been successful.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

4/6 is unlikely to help either; if the sad and rabid slates consistently listed three different works each, or even if the rabids alone each picked four randomly from a list of six, the results are going to be unpleasant.

 

It certainly will help, the only question is, will it help enough. If they got only four votes each and try to jam a list of six, then the same clique will suddenly have only two-thirds of its former power. Effectively, it's like getting rid of every third puppy (or any gang with similar ambitions). And that's assuming they do coordinate perfectly (which, granted, is extremely easy to do... but maybe a little trickier, if they wanna keep chanting "we're all individuals!"). If they don't, not only their jamming power will diminish even further, but, at the end of the day, the whole enterprise might devolve into something that isn't really a voting bloc any more.

[TravelingJT]

4/6 will help but won't eliminate the problem. Rabids nominate their slate fairly strictly (based on the released nom #s - http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2015HugoStatistics.pdf) while the Sads did not -- their noms had lots of variance in numbers, indicating that they used it more as a reading list than a slate (albeit a list with <= the number of allowed noms). So Sads will still have an impact, but it will be further reduced.

 

The only way to completely solve the problem is to have far more people nominating - enough so that slate voters are part of a higher tider, rather than a distinct wave. Which shouldn't be hard -- 45ish votes would've gotten a Short Story nom last year if there were no puppies, and that's a laughably low number. Even "Slow Regard of Silent Things", by far the highest profile of the short fiction noms, only had 124 noms.

 

Estimates of "strict" (vote those works ahead of all non-slate & NA) Rabids and Sads from final votes look to be about 500 for each. I would guess that will results in 200-400 of each (drumming up the base is MUCH easier in full elections than primaries!). Which means that anyone wanting to beat the slates will need to a) read a lot of 2015 SFF b) nominate the best ones and c) talk it up with people, on- or offline. If even half of the No Award bloc nominates, this will probably not be a problem. If they don't? Then they shouldn't complain about the results.

[Ran]

Someone or other suggested earlier that having a longlist of finalists -- ten in each category -- would certainly be a big help. 4/6 doesn't go far enough, when considering the arguments about what well-organized slates can do. Having 10 finalists would both give more works some attention, and would chop down the slates quite a bit since they couldn't nominate more than 5 (well, they could, if they divided up their bloc to vote two different slates, but that would effectively dilute their vote).

 

We'll see what happens next year. If we're swarmed with puppy nominees after another slate, I hope someone works up a proposal to do just that.

[felice]

Someone or other suggested earlier that having a longlist of finalists -- ten in each category -- would certainly be a big help.

 

My preference is for a longlist as a separate stage, with the top 15 or so works per category, from which a shortlist of five is chosen. Having ten finalists is just too many; not a problem if half of them are slate works and can be ignored, but in the absence of slates, reading ten novels, ten novellas, another ten novels for the Campbell, ten related works, etc within a couple of months just isn't practical for most voters. Even if none of the nominees are The Wheel of Time 8)

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

I would also prefer separate longlist od at least 15 titles and three rounds of voting, but judging by comments in variuos places, many people would then feel obliged to read everything on the list and abstain from voting giving lack of time as an excuse.

[Clueless Northman]

Banning slates is tricky. It's hard to prove, often. There isn't any serious basis to actually do it - in the end, it's just a question of interpretation about how far people can organize, formally or not, to push their favourites. After all, any system allowing people to nominate as many candidates as there'll be nominees is open to such a situation - it's how it works in political elections after all. That said, I'm aware of how frustrating a "single nomination for each category" can be - it's frustrating enough to pick "the best" instead of a handful of worthy ones.
The thing I dislike about EPH is that it's complicated and technical, and I like voting to be easy, simple to grasp, and transparent - you know exactly the result of your vote when you cast it. Though it might be more effective, if applied - in which case the practical side of me shouldn't have much problems with it, as long as it works and isn't gamed.


Since there will clearly be a temptation from the trufans / No-Awards of this year to make their own slate, capitalizing on them outnumbering the Puppies, it might be worth it to renounce such a temptation and to offer a longlist / recommended list of, say, 10 names instead, and let people pick their favourites. That would reduce the awful politics of pitting slates of 5 against each other - which would ensure no one else would ever get nominated and would turn the Hugos into US presidential elections :/

On the other hand, as JT and many others have said, the Puppies' strategy of going for full slates was hubris, a strategic mistake (at least for the Sad ones), and was doomed to backfire big time. GRRM said that next year's Sad leader is thinking of going for similar recommended list, either longer one or a shorter one with 2-3 names. Would be good, and would indeed reduce the tensions.
Still, we should keep in mind that some Sads will be Rabids next year, after these No Awards. I expect the relative weight of Rabid ones to be bigger, and Sad Puppies to be comparatively weakened.
Though that wouldn't be a bad thing; hopefully, it means their prominent figures can be engaged by the part of trufans / Hugo old guard that isn't mad at them and just want to tear them up (GRRM seems to want to try this approach, if his latest post is sign of his stance for the next 11 months).


That said, speaking of strategic mistakes, I'd rank the "Let's No Award every single slate, however good the nominee" among these as well, specially with the Editor one. I think GRRM was really spot on when deciding how to judge all these works (I hope Rabid slates won't sweep whole categories next year, otherwise poor George will have no other choice than no-award once again, considering the mediocre quality of their stuff).

For next year, I'm also of the opinion that those who are nominated due to puppies stay in the competition. For people who aren't Puppies-aligned, it would just mean bigger exposure and possible win, all due to conservative wasting money on them, at the end of the day :P They don't have to be punished because of this, not even to be shamed; real SF/F fans will then be able to actually vote on their merits, and see if they're better than the average Puppies' picks, or if they're better than non-Puppies nominations.
This is how you end the war - you rank and nominate people on their own literary merits, without giving a damn about who else might like them, or what any ideology or political side thinks of them. That's allegedly what Sad Puppies were fighting for, so let's take them at their words and deprive them of a real enemy. After all, it would be funny if their leaders' buddies' books end up systematically beaten by their "diversity" non-puppy nominees.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

What about an amendment explicitly banning slates and a panel of past Hugo winners as arbiters of when someone is attempting to sneak a slate in?

[SpaceChampion]

What about an amendment explicitly banning slates and a panel of past Hugo winners as arbiters of when someone is attempting to sneak a slate in?

 

Take their money first though.

[Crowjack]

This is from a few days ago, but I just have to share it since it's so hilarious.

 

https://twitter.com/A_M_Swallow/status/635360263072518144

 

A supporter of the Puppies asked on Twitter for FBI to investigate the Hugos for "Honest Services Fraud". I am sure FBI made this investigation their top priority.

Props to the guy trying for an up dog response.

[voodooqueen126]

 

No, there's no way to game it, but it only reduces the power of slate voting, it doesn't eliminate it. This year, even with EPH they would have taken three slots in short story (the third most popular non-puppy nomination got 48 nominations; just 150 puppies with their points divided by three would still outrank it). And if all the rabids who voted had nominated (which they may well do in future), they'd have taken all five slots even with EPH (only 381 rabids would be enough to beat Jackalope Wives with 76 nominations). Even if we managed to increase the number of non-puppies nominating by 50%, and had EPH, it wouldn't be enough to save even one short story slot from the puppies.

 

4/6 is unlikely to help either; if the sad and rabid slates consistently listed three different works each, or even if the rabids alone each picked four randomly from a list of six, the results are going to be unpleasant.

 

Next year is likely to be No Award in every category. There were at least 586 rabid voters, and they're all eligible to nominate next year without paying anything further. The chances of any single non-slate work getting that many nominations - even a novel, and even with a big increase in non-puppy participation - are remote. And the two years after that, even if EPH and 4/6 pass, are likely to be pretty bad (2 or 3 non-puppy options in a category if we're lucky). Basically, we're probably going to have at least four years of puppy-dominated Hugos, unless VD gets bored (which doesn't seem that likely) or his followers do (more likely, but I wouldn't count on it), more if the Business Meeting isn't open to more radical change in 2017.

Wait what? I thought if I just paid 40$ I would be eligible to nominate something published this year for a Hugo for 2016?

I have even begun looking at some speculative fic that I like.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

I think it works like this

 

People who had a supporting or attending membership for this year 2015, can nominated for next years 2016 Hugo awards in Kansas.

 

People who buy a supporting or attending membership for Kansas can nominate and vote for the Hugo's next year 2016 in Kansas and nominate for Helsinki 2017.

 

People who paid the site selection fee at last years world on in London 2014 are automatically supporting members of Kansas 2016 so will be able to nominate and vote.    If you paid the site selection voting fee this year then you are a supporting member of Helsinki and will be able to nominate and vote in 2017.

 

 

If your eligible to vote/nominate for more than one reason  (ie  you where a supporting member this year and purchase a supporting member this year)  you still only get to submit one nominating / voting form.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Pebble,

Kansas City is mostly in Missouri as is the Con, FYI.

:)

[HexMachina]

I think it works like this
 
People who had a supporting or attending membership for this year 2015, can nominated for next years 2016 Hugo awards in Kansas.
 
People who buy a supporting or attending membership for Kansas can nominate and vote for the Hugo's next year 2016 in Kansas and nominate for Helsinki 2017.
 
People who paid the site selection fee at last years world on in London 2014 are automatically supporting members of Kansas 2016 so will be able to nominate and vote.    If you paid the site selection voting fee this year then you are a supporting member of Helsinki and will be able to nominate and vote in 2017.
 
 
If your eligible to vote/nominate for more than one reason  (ie  you where a supporting member this year and purchase a supporting member this year)  you still only get to submit one nominating / voting form.

So all of those memberships can nominate works, it's just voting on the short lists that changes depending on membership?

[Pebble thats Stubby]

Scot,   the exact location of US cities is not something I've studied.   However its still too bloody far away for me to attend next year.

 

 

Helena,

 

if you have membership (of some kind for one year)  you can nominate and vote that year,   and nominate the following year.   But you can vote the following year unless you obtain some kind of membership for that following year.

[Hayyoth]

Someone or other suggested earlier that having a longlist of finalists -- ten in each category -- would certainly be a big help. 4/6 doesn't go far enough, when considering the arguments about what well-organized slates can do. Having 10 finalists would both give more works some attention, and would chop down the slates quite a bit since they couldn't nominate more than 5 (well, they could, if they divided up their bloc to vote two different slates, but that would effectively dilute their vote).

 

We'll see what happens next year. If we're swarmed with puppy nominees after another slate, I hope someone works up a proposal to do just that.

Yeah have an unlimited round of votes, insist that people pray in between discussions and eventually after days of deliberation let off some white smoke so the faithful will know a decision has been reached.

 

 

What about an amendment explicitly banning slates and a panel of past Hugo winners as arbiters of when someone is attempting to sneak a slate in?

Yep, you could have a group of alumnus, wise heads, I don't know let's call them a committee, who could decide on the nominations. It's a radical proposal I know but let's face it pretty much identical to yours. Here's the thing, before the internet and the culture wars having a relative handful of like minded nerds voting on nominations for an award could be free from rigging and was even fun. Now it's neither. The world has moved on and it's about time Worldcon did the same. There's no way to stop a system of public voting being gamed without in some way controling what can be voted on, so appoint a nomination committee and have done with it already.

[maarsen]

One could always use the system Canada uses to choose who sits in the Senate, that well known fount of sober second thought.

[voodooqueen126]

I think it works like this

 

People who had a supporting or attending membership for this year 2015, can nominated for next years 2016 Hugo awards in Kansas.

 

People who buy a supporting or attending membership for Kansas can nominate and vote for the Hugo's next year 2016 in Kansas and nominate for Helsinki 2017.

 

People who paid the site selection fee at last years world on in London 2014 are automatically supporting members of Kansas 2016 so will be able to nominate and vote.    If you paid the site selection voting fee this year then you are a supporting member of Helsinki and will be able to nominate and vote in 2017.

 

 

If your eligible to vote/nominate for more than one reason  (ie  you where a supporting member this year and purchase a supporting member this year)  you still only get to submit one nominating / voting form.

so we should still buy a membership this year, even if we won't get to nominate, so that we can nominate next year?

[HexMachina]

so we should still buy a membership this year, even if we won't get to nominate, so that we can nominate next year?

(As I understand it) If you get a supporting/attending membership now (for Missouri), or if you paid a site selection fee in 2014, you can both nominate and vote for the 2016 Hugos. Getting a membership for Missouri would also enable you to nominate but not vote for the 2017 Hugos.
Those who had a supporting/attending membership for this year and do not renew can nominate but not vote in the 2016 Hugos.

So, my understanding is that if you buy a membership this year then yes, you can nominate and vote for 2016. Someone more knowledgeable will correct me if I'm wrong I imagine. (Since this is the first year I'm considering getting involved, I seem to be in the same position as you)

[voodooqueen126]

(As I understand it) If you get a supporting/attending membership now (for Missouri), or if you paid a site selection fee in 2014, you can both nominate and vote for the 2016 Hugos. Getting a membership for Missouri would also enable you to nominate but not vote for the 2017 Hugos.
Those who had a supporting/attending membership for this year and do not renew can nominate but not vote in the 2016 Hugos.

So, my understanding is that if you buy a membership this year then yes, you can nominate and vote for 2016. Someone more knowledgeable will correct me if I'm wrong I imagine. (Since this is the first year I'm considering getting involved, I seem to be in the same position as you)

Yeah. I only started caring about the issue because I read about it on GRRM's blog. He made it seem so fascinating. I also thought I should get involved in the writers world.