Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Feiya

Caineach's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 5,329 posts (5,334 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,329 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Simply put, air can only hold so much water vapor. Add more and it just condenses out. Carbon has no such limitation (or at least we're nowhere near it, I'm not sure).

It does have a limit, but you, I, and the rest of the planet, would give up the luxury of breathing long before it was reached.

I'm not sure I'm understanding. I've lived in Washington, D.C., and I've experienced lots of times when the relative humidity was 100%. While I found it unpleasant, I didn't find it difficult to breathe.

He was talking of CO2 saturation point, not H2O :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I'm just waiting for the starmetal to take effect.

notice that the wound is purple (though that could just be the undead)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:

So if various parts of the environmental lobby have advocated all these things, and I don't see any particular squabble among them about any of it, I can't claim any of it is true?

Get over yourself.

Fact remains, the environmentalist lobby is quite willing to take very big risks, and make us all pay huge sums, to save the world from climate change.

Or, I suppose they aren't, either, ZN?

It is very interesting that ANY sort of argument about what the environmentalist lobby is trying to do gets shot down by "that's not at all what they want, and if they do, it's just a small group".

Primitive reasoning.

Personally, I have never heard any of these things advocated by any environmental lobby, other than opposition to nuclear.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zombieneighbours wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Because "the environmental lobby" isn't a single unified thing.
The extent to which this last bit is true, is very hard to over state.

A friend of mine worked for the Green party doing canvasing. He said that at least half the people there supported nuclear power, but because they wanted to actually accomplish something and needed to present a unified front to get anything at all, as a whole they advertised as anti-nuclear. The division was very strongly linked to whether people had a background in a technical field or not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, didn't he fulfill "bring death and destruction" by representing Hell? She is the goddess of both.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Honestly, the biggest problem with nuclear power is the fact that it has a multi-year lead time on training facilities personnel, and we have enough trained people to fit maybe 1 new plant. My numbers come from my roommate, who can't get promoted because he his replacement will take 2 years to train.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Assuming you're talking about the infamous Dinosaur Hugo story, I didn't get that one either. Didn't seem particularly good or particularly SF to me. And to most of the voters, since it didn't actually win.

Short version: It's because they've become more literary, not more SJW.

No No no..."T-rex Troubles" is part of a series of dinosaur "erotica" available on Amazon (which were lampooned a couple of years back). The author also wrote "Ravished by the Triceratops" and "Taken by the Pterodactyl". I would link but I suspect its NSFW :)

Basically, based on comments about Sad Puppies having to actually "reign in" Vox, and Vox's stated goals, I am guessing that the strategy this year might just be to rig the nominations with, at least in part, absolutely loathsome, poorly written dreck which no one regardless of political affiliation thinks deserve an award.

As for the actual story the Sad Puppies love to complain about, I've never read it. However I don't really see the big deal as the story didn't even actually win, it was just nominated. So clearly the Hugos are not so biased as they claim.

I was assuming that in Caineach's "was way better than the one it was parodying", the one it was parodying was the nominee.

Yeah, someone linked both in the last thread on this topic, but I'm too lazy to go back and look.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Why can't it be both? The literary crowd is also way more liberal than average. Those who don't fit in to the social circle feel like they are being ostracized, so they don't get involved in the award.

Occam's Razor suggests you need to stop grasping at straws to make this about politics or culture instead of it being about how the field has grown and changed and the nature of literary awards.

Listen to what Flint and Martin have been saying, basically.

Where is the stretch? All I'm doing is taking one of the arguments Flint acknowledges and disagrees with and saying that it isn't as preposterous as he is claiming.

Because Flint and especially Martin know what they're talking about, they explain why your argument is wrong, and explain what's really going on.

Your reply consists of, essentially, "Nuh-uh!"

And other people involved in the community say they have experienced the problems, otherwise you wouldn't have half a dozen authors vocally complaining enough to organize their fans. In my experience, when you are closely involved in communities you get become blinded by these things.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Why can't it be both? The literary crowd is also way more liberal than average. Those who don't fit in to the social circle feel like they are being ostracized, so they don't get involved in the award.

Occam's Razor suggests you need to stop grasping at straws to make this about politics or culture instead of it being about how the field has grown and changed and the nature of literary awards.

Listen to what Flint and Martin have been saying, basically.

Where is the stretch? All I'm doing is taking one of the arguments Flint acknowledges and disagrees with and saying that it isn't as preposterous as he is claiming.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:

If these are one's consideration, it is strictly better to nominate books you know you want to read in order to increase chances of them being included in the PDF bundle.

If there is a book I really want to read, I usually do so. Although I might go ahead an enter a ballot this year and just vote without nominating any books, and read the final contestants (assuming Vox doesn't load the ballot with books like "T-rex Troubles" that is).
If T-rex Troubles is the one I'm thinking of, it was way better than the one it was parodying :)

Assuming you're talking about the infamous Dinosaur Hugo story, I didn't get that one either. Didn't seem particularly good or particularly SF to me. And to most of the voters, since it didn't actually win.

My thought on that, and this is purely speculation, isn't so much that it got nominated because it checked the right SJW boxes as is often said, but that it's more a matter of chasing one's literary tail. Much like awards in many fields tend to chase more obscure and different works because the people doing the awarding see so many of them, they stop appreciating the good stuff if it's similar to what they've seen before. Or at least want to pretend they do, so they seem more sophisticated.

Short version: It's because they've become more literary, not more SJW.

Why can't it be both? The literary crowd is also way more liberal than average. Those who don't fit in to the social circle feel like they are being ostracized, so they don't get involved in the award.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:

If these are one's consideration, it is strictly better to nominate books you know you want to read in order to increase chances of them being included in the PDF bundle.

If there is a book I really want to read, I usually do so. Although I might go ahead an enter a ballot this year and just vote without nominating any books, and read the final contestants (assuming Vox doesn't load the ballot with books like "T-rex Troubles" that is).

If T-rex Troubles is the one I'm thinking of, it was way better than the one it was parodying :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
Caineach wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
sunbeam wrote:
thejeff wrote:


After the nomination, when the controversy hit the media, I think a lot of casual fans got more serious about it. I suspect, but can't prove, that vote went mostly anti-Puppy. I know it prompted me to become a supporting member and vote. It will be interesting to see if that carries over to nominations next year. There's more awareness of how important they are.

Joking aside, I guess this isn't my fight anymore. I go to the bookstore a lot, and always check out the fantasy and sf sections when I do. Just picking up books and reading the blurb they usually seem like a bunch of dreck. So the idea of reading through this stuff to find things I want to nominate isn't very appealing.

So I guess you win this minor battle in the overall culture war. Because I don't think this is me anymore, and I'm not going to pick a fight just to pick one (that is a metaphor).

Besides the culture war is kind of binary in nature, and I can tell you I do not like a lot of things about both sides.

Well...and this is absolutely not meant to be mean or snarky at all, but if you are not reading brand new science fiction or fantasy (or only picking up a book or something a year), than you shouldn't be voting or nominating Hugo works. I don't vote or nominate because while I read a lot, its often older books or collected anthologies. I can't provide any sort of meaningful sense on what should win.

Well, you could always sign up, skip nominating, then read the free stuff they send you that other people nominated. I get the feeling that a lot of people did this in the past, which is why they have such low numbers in their nominating pool.

If these are one's consideration, it is strictly better to nominate books you know you want to read in order to increase chances of them being included in the PDF bundle.

I think more people would rather get nominations of new things to read and check out.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
sunbeam wrote:
thejeff wrote:


After the nomination, when the controversy hit the media, I think a lot of casual fans got more serious about it. I suspect, but can't prove, that vote went mostly anti-Puppy. I know it prompted me to become a supporting member and vote. It will be interesting to see if that carries over to nominations next year. There's more awareness of how important they are.

Joking aside, I guess this isn't my fight anymore. I go to the bookstore a lot, and always check out the fantasy and sf sections when I do. Just picking up books and reading the blurb they usually seem like a bunch of dreck. So the idea of reading through this stuff to find things I want to nominate isn't very appealing.

So I guess you win this minor battle in the overall culture war. Because I don't think this is me anymore, and I'm not going to pick a fight just to pick one (that is a metaphor).

Besides the culture war is kind of binary in nature, and I can tell you I do not like a lot of things about both sides.

Well...and this is absolutely not meant to be mean or snarky at all, but if you are not reading brand new science fiction or fantasy (or only picking up a book or something a year), than you shouldn't be voting or nominating Hugo works. I don't vote or nominate because while I read a lot, its often older books or collected anthologies. I can't provide any sort of meaningful sense on what should win.

Well, you could always sign up, skip nominating, then read the free stuff they send you that other people nominated. I get the feeling that a lot of people did this in the past, which is why they have such low numbers in their nominating pool.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
Quote:
Sad Puppies took that gentler route 2 years in a row. They got lambasted, insulted, and had the exact same insults thrown at them when they got a handful things total nominated as they did this year when the slates dominated. The only difference was that it didn't hit mainstream as much because there was still other stuff to vote for. You don't actually get any change by being nice and playing in their box. Pretty much any protest movement ever can tell you that.

Couple things.

First, the puppies always had an insulting rhetoric, and the fact that some people didn't have the maturity not to insult them back doesn't exempt them from that. They've never said anything like "we care about worldcon and think we should be better represented there so let's figure out how we can integrate despite our differences," they just called Hugo voters names, said they nominate and award bad novels, and tried their "book bombing" techniques from the Amazon Bestseller list in the Hugos. That's not the gentle approach, that's just a slightly less effective aggressive approach from what they did this year.

Second, if the puppies only managed to get a couple of works nominated but not won any awards... have you considered that the numbers of people among the puppy crowd who care enough to nominate and vote are in all likelihood a minority compared to the bulk of worldcon goers? It makes *sense* they'll have a hard time getting anything to win. Unless they either increase their number in a civil way or game the system, of course. They chose to game the system (not saying the other approach had a high probability of working, but this one is not legitimate in my opinion).

Plus, as Krensky already expressed, the puppies are not some social movement that needs to get down and dirty with the cops, they are book fans who feel under-appreciated. Some ends justify some means, but you can only take the sentiment that far, and what the puppies did was invasive and aggressive. Misguided, I would say.

You and I have totally different ideas of what qualifies aggressive. Aggressive would require them to go out and actively advertise their position and slate. Sad Puppies hasn't been aggressive any year. Usually they have been pretty passive, with them putting together a list of things they liked on their own message board and rarely leaving it. Basically all they have been doing is inviting Sci Fi fans to participate in an award for fans of sci fi. It wasn't until the blowback after the nominations that they became aggressive, but that was mostly defensive or counterattacking. Rabid Puppies has been aggressive, but they just appeared this year.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:

1.I am inclined to believe there have been "slate voting" occurrences in the past, simply because there are group with vested interest in the award and some of them probably did something like this some of the time. However, there is a question of style and tone. Politely suggesting a reading list while knowing you have a following that is likely to be affected by your recommendations is one thing. Trumpeting your frontal assault on the convention and the people who usually attend it, insulting them and blaming them for conspiring the rule fandom with their liberal cabals, and summoning a horde of angry friends to game the system - that's another. Consider a gentler route that the puppies could have taken - if they truly care and truly believe the numbers are at their side, they could have just encouraged more people to join the convention (It's an awesome place where you can meet authors, talk with other friends and have a good time!) and support the voting process. They could even publish a "alternate reading list" for works they think are being unfairly neglected. Funnel all that energy to somewhere constructive, as in "hey guys, we are not part of this process even though we care about it, so let's change that". If the numbers are truly at their side, they might have nominated the works they wanted anyway, or at least some of them, and could have tried to integrate into the convention. Instead, the seething rage and open hostility just made their entire movement an attack on the convention. It created a turf war against a territory that used to have open borders.

2. As I said, given the way in which the puppies went about their business, it is easy to understand why worldcon goers perceived them as a direct threat. When your home is under attack, you rise to defend it. It is no surprise, to me, that worldconrs were even more eager to rally and push back than the puppies have been to rally and push forward.

Sad Puppies took that gentler route 2 years in a row. They got lambasted, insulted, and had the exact same insults thrown at them when they got a handful things total nominated as they did this year when the slates dominated. The only difference was that it didn't hit mainstream as much because there was still other stuff to vote for. You don't actually get any change by being nice and playing in their box. Pretty much any protest movement ever can tell you that.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
So I take it, since there's nothing wrong with what they did and everyone's been doing it anyway, the best solution is for some other group on the SJW side to put together their own slate of nominees from now on and just ignore the Puppies, since they won't have the numbers to compete? Just have two parties picking winners and whichever side has the most followers wins?
That's the only way these types of vote systems work when people actually care, which is one of the reasons why they are changing the vote system to one that isn't trivial to dominate, but that will not take effect until 2017. Next year I foresee a handful of cliques actually organizing publicly and pretty much doing what Sad Puppies did. I doubt they will work together much, because the primary thing they can coalesce around is not liking another group. I'm also guessing that someone will do a get out the vote for nominations, since they traditionally have about 10% of their voters actually participate in the nomination process, and if they raise that to just 20% they could have beat the puppies, especially with the increase in membership that they got.

I predict they don't organize slates publicly (or at all, beyond casual chatter) next year. I do expect a get out the vote effort of sorts.

I also expect the Rabid Puppies to dominate the nominations, possibly massively, and everything to get No Awarded again.

Also, people have cared about the Hugos since the 50s and still do. There just wasn't anyone willing to burn them down.

Please, a significant portion of the people who joined did so just to say FU to Vox Day. Next year they will try to do something to prevent him from "ruining" the awards. They will probably try to get people to rally behind an established author who normally publishes a reading list. Next year is going to be a bloody culture war.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
sunbeam wrote:

You know thinking about this whole thing, the smart thing to do is just to forget about Worldcon and the Hugo. Come to think of it, leave the World Science Fiction Society too.

No matter what you do, you are essentially forking over money to the organizers of the event, no matter the point you are trying to make.

Just totally abandon the thing. Keep your money and do whatever with it. Form an alternate convention, an alternate award. Just leave it behind.

I guess that's all I have to say about this.

But in closing something is very odd about this whole Beale thing. He's an obscure figure, yet somehow manages to corral more votes than the founders of the thing he co-opted? And while neither was famous, they were surely a lot better known than him.

Something doesn't add up about this.

Eh, you get your moneys worth out of a membership. They send you copies of the works nominated, which bundles them together for cheaper than retail.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
So I take it, since there's nothing wrong with what they did and everyone's been doing it anyway, the best solution is for some other group on the SJW side to put together their own slate of nominees from now on and just ignore the Puppies, since they won't have the numbers to compete? Just have two parties picking winners and whichever side has the most followers wins?

That's the only way these types of vote systems work when people actually care, which is one of the reasons why they are changing the vote system to one that isn't trivial to dominate, but that will not take effect until 2017. Next year I foresee a handful of cliques actually organizing publicly and pretty much doing what Sad Puppies did. I doubt they will work together much, because the primary thing they can coalesce around is not liking another group. I'm also guessing that someone will do a get out the vote for nominations, since they traditionally have about 10% of their voters actually participate in the nomination process, and if they raise that to just 20% they could have beat the puppies, especially with the increase in membership that they got.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Krensky wrote:

So the Puppies don't have to give recommendations to stuff they don't like, but Hugo voters have to give Hugo to stuff they don't like?

And that's not a double standard?

The mind boggles.

Hugo voters can't be both welcoming to everyone and protective of their clique. Either they welcome new voters and what they vote for, which includes the puppies, or they stop pretending that their awards are representative of the greater population. They don't get to complain when a divergent clique within the greater population enters the fray when they say anyone can vote and nominate.

The Sad Puppies would be welcome, as voters and members - as noted, both Correia & Torgersen have been nominated for awards by this very clique. Vox Day is another story, but I hope we all agree on that.

It's the slate nominating that's caused the fuss. Particularly Vox's, since he was much clearer in intent. It's that intent and that success that's raised this to the level where the national media has noticed and we're talking about it.
And for all the accusations, it really isn't at all clear that others have tried anything like this before. Other than a few smaller cases that were as vehemently rejected by the community (The Scientologists, for example).

1. Slate voting has been happening for decades with reading lists. This is NOTHING NEW.

2. Statistical analysis on the nomination results shows that they didn't strictly vote for a slate. There is too much spread, so it can be shown that more than half of the puppies did not vote strictly for what was on the slate. Amusingly, No Award in the finals can be shown to have slate voting.

The fact of the matter is, Correia's group is a group of active readers with similar interests that nominated things that had been passed around their entire clique. Most of the things on Sad Puppies list were from authors they had "book bombed", where the forum manipulates Amazon's best seller list to put an author they like on top. If they were instead a college club (my college had a larger sci-fi club than combined Sad and Rabid Puppies had nominators) that had decided to start participating, you would have seen exactly the same type of result, not because they wanted to rig it, but because small communities of readers base their reading lists off of recommendations of other people in the community.
They were only able to be as wildly successful as they were because the greater sci-fi community had no idea how low the participation rate actually was for the award.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:

So the Puppies don't have to give recommendations to stuff they don't like, but Hugo voters have to give Hugo to stuff they don't like?

And that's not a double standard?

The mind boggles.

Hugo voters can't be both welcoming to everyone and protective of their clique. Either they welcome new voters and what they vote for, which includes the puppies, or they stop pretending that their awards are representative of the greater population. They don't get to complain when a divergent clique within the greater population enters the fray when they say anyone can vote and nominate.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Yeah, where's Laurell K Hamilton's Hugo?!

Military Science Fiction is no where near the largest fanbase in science fiction.

The people who care about voting in the Hugos don't typically care about the sort of stories Torgerson writes, and the people who like Torgerson's work don't usually care about voting in the Hugos.

End of story.

Except they have never said that military science fiction was the most popular, and often aren't even saying that they are the primary ones being left out. Hell, I've seen them talk about lack of Urban Fantasy on the list more than the lack of military sci fi. Kinda why they put Skin Game as their top pick for novel.

Of course.

As someone who likes Corriea's work (in addition to lots of others) and generally doesn't like what has been winning awards, I have to say:

So?

Also, they put one work of Urban Fantasy on their list. Big whoop. Where's the young adult or paranormal romance?

They don't like it so why should they put it on their fan awards? Everyone else is still welcome to vote for things they like.

* Facepalm.

Reread what you wrote. Multiple times if needed. Come back when you realise where you tripped over a double standard.

There is none. Everyone else is welcome to vote for what they want to vote for. The puppies did nothing new other than be successful at what many others tried.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Yeah, where's Laurell K Hamilton's Hugo?!

Military Science Fiction is no where near the largest fanbase in science fiction.

The people who care about voting in the Hugos don't typically care about the sort of stories Torgerson writes, and the people who like Torgerson's work don't usually care about voting in the Hugos.

End of story.

Except they have never said that military science fiction was the most popular, and often aren't even saying that they are the primary ones being left out. Hell, I've seen them talk about lack of Urban Fantasy on the list more than the lack of military sci fi. Kinda why they put Skin Game as their top pick for novel.

Of course.

As someone who likes Corriea's work (in addition to lots of others) and generally doesn't like what has been winning awards, I have to say:

So?

Also, they put one work of Urban Fantasy on their list. Big whoop. Where's the young adult or paranormal romance?

They don't like it so why should they put it on their fan awards? Everyone else is still welcome to vote for things they like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Yes, but the award doesn't advertise itself as favorite of a niche group. It advertises itself as favorite of all of fandom. Until they resolve that disconnect, they are going to have problems.

"Fandom" is a specific term. It's not "anyone who likes SF/F"

Fandom has no fixed definition, which is a huge part of the problem. Everyone has a different idea of what constitutes fandom.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Both Correia and Torgersen were nominated for the Campbell (which is done by the same clique as the Hugos). Torgersen had been nominated for a Hugo as well. All before the Puppies started.

WorldCon is a small clique in the larger SF/F world, but not so much in an exclusive sense.

And as Correia routinely points out, Torgersen was nominated after already being a multiple time NYT best sellers, while many of the nominees are virtually unheard of by the public. As this has routinely been advertised as a fan favorite award, why are top grossing works with the largest fanbases not making the cut?

Depends on which public. The people who pull the weight to lift a book into a bestseller list are not those who spend their days in the SFF blogosphere, for the most part. On the other hand, those who nominate and vote for books on the Hugos definitely do. Why is it a surprise that those two very different demographic - the general audience VS. the enfranchised, I'm-willing-to-travel-the-world-for-a-book-convention crowd, have very different tastes and know about different works?

Eric Flint's article expresses this expertly - you wouldn't expect a half Labrador mutt to win an award in a dog breeding convention, even though it is probably in the category of dogs that are most popular in the general public. On the other hand, the dog that does win an award in that convention likely does so by meeting some criteria that most people don't care about or even would have thought existed, and the breed of the dog might be virtually unheard of by most people.

Yes, but the award doesn't advertise itself as favorite of a niche group. It advertises itself as favorite of all of fandom. Until they resolve that disconnect, they are going to have problems.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:
Also, you have a citation for Torgerson being on the best seller's list? I don't see it anywhere and he's only published one novel and two short fiction collections.

I'm probably mixing up authors and will try to get back to you


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:

Yeah, where's Laurell K Hamilton's Hugo?!

Military Science Fiction is no where near the largest fanbase in science fiction.

The people who care about voting in the Hugos don't typically care about the sort of stories Torgerson writes, and the people who like Torgerson's work don't usually care about voting in the Hugos.

End of story.

Except they have never said that military science fiction was the most popular, and often aren't even saying that they are the primary ones being left out. Hell, I've seen them talk about lack of Urban Fantasy on the list more than the lack of military sci fi. Kinda why they put Skin Game as their top pick for novel.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Both Correia and Torgersen were nominated for the Campbell (which is done by the same clique as the Hugos). Torgersen had been nominated for a Hugo as well. All before the Puppies started.

WorldCon is a small clique in the larger SF/F world, but not so much in an exclusive sense.

And as Correia routinely points out, Torgersen was nominated after already being a multiple time NYT best sellers, while many of the nominees are virtually unheard of by the public. As this has routinely been advertised as a fan favorite award, why are top grossing works with the largest fanbases not making the cut?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

Except that based on the Eric Flint article posted upthread, that's pretty much always been the case.

The Hugo is an award representing what the members of the World Science Fiction Convention like.

I don't see it as a problem if their tastes deviate from the mainstream?

I mean, an argument for "they don't give the award to things that are actually popular!" pretty much amounts to arguing that the Hugo should be based on who makes the most money.

I'm not sure that's really the best metric to be basing on an award ceremony on.

Except they still advertise it as the fan award for the greater community. You can't have it both ways, telling people it is the fan award and still expect it to stay within your little clique. Martin had a good blog post on it.

Which one?

I assume it wasn't this one, where he talks about the various Puppies being nominated by that little clique.

No. Before that one you had this one


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:

Except that based on the Eric Flint article posted upthread, that's pretty much always been the case.

The Hugo is an award representing what the members of the World Science Fiction Convention like.

I don't see it as a problem if their tastes deviate from the mainstream?

I mean, an argument for "they don't give the award to things that are actually popular!" pretty much amounts to arguing that the Hugo should be based on who makes the most money.

I'm not sure that's really the best metric to be basing on an award ceremony on.

Except they still advertise it as the fan award for the greater community. You can't have it both ways, telling people it is the fan award and still expect it to stay within your little clique. Martin had a good blog post on it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:


Part of the Sad Puppies' problem is that they bitterly hate the World Science Fiction Convention, and for some damn reason want to control the award it gives out instead of just washing their hands of it.

Perhaps because for the past 50 years it has been the most prestigious award in the field, but for the past 20 (if the various authors are to be believed) it has drifted further and further away from what is actually popular based off sales?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:

@ Cainech - And they expected that to work?

I started this day assuming Corriea and Torgerson were at least competent, and now I question that assessment.

The Sad Puppies should really be looking into new leadership next year.

I believe any changes made this year don't take effect until 2017, so we should be having another round of this next year.

And yeah, I'm curious as to how the nomination process will go next year (and how many authors will respond to an offer to be on Vox's slate with "hell no!").

Except that Vox can put them on his slate anyway since he has no obligation to tell them, and arguing that he does is wrong. Historically, authors that put together nomination lists prior to sad puppies were not requested to have permission. Why should Vox have to follow different rules just because he is a jerk?
Quote:

I'm curious as to how the Puppies will do if they avoid overlapping with Vox next year.

You can't not overlap with someone who takes your work and then adds to it.

Quote:


@ Sunbeam - starting another convention would actually be pretty smart. The Hugo isn't the only award around, but more never hurts.

It would be an absolutely terrible idea that would never gain any traction. It would probably just end up with people insisting that it gets boycotted for being racist/sexist/homophobic and the people who accept awards being derided.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

Heh.

Well, when you jump into a pile of s*#@, whose responsibility is it to get you back out?

It would be amusing if next year they decide not to protect the awards from Vox

"Protect the awards from Vox"?

I think that's up to the rest of us, not the Sad Puppies.

Though it does bring to mind the cartoon in Zhangar's link.

Corriea and Torgersen have both talked about how they were personally calling Vox to try to convince him to tame his s+!! down.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:

Heh.

Well, when you jump into a pile of s*#@, whose responsibility is it to get you back out?

It would be amusing if next year they decide not to protect the awards from Vox


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:

True, there'd certainly been a lot of furious backpedaling. But I don't feel sorry for Correia in the slightest. I feel bad for the authors the dope managed to taint.

Vox Day is a stain that doesn't come off, which I'm sure is to Vox Day's delight =P

I love the fact that this article ignores that Vox started by copying them, but now insists that they are the ones who need to be responsible for distancing themselves.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:

Actually, what Scalzi advocated was voting voting your conscience.

Scalzi himself voted for a number of the Puppy nominees - as he noted elsewhere, just because someone's a complete jerk doesn't exclude them from having good taste in books.

That being said, the voting represents Correia provoking a massive backlash, and it's not shocking at all that it did.

I do wonder if the Sad Puppies would've done much better if they'd been smart enough to distance themselves from Vox Day. But they weren't.

They did try to distance themselves. Many, many times. In fact, they brought it up in practically everything I saw from them. You can't distance yourself when your opposition is actively tying you together so that they can attack you as one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:

Correia declares over 3,000 voters to be "allied useful idiots" and "snide exclusive a$#~#@*s."

Correia is attacking everyone that voted against the Puppies.

Scalzi's pointing out that Correia and the rest of the Puppy leadership are jerks, and they got voted down for pissing people off.

Correia's slate got rejected because of Correia's own conduct, and he's doing his damnedest to shift the blame on to others.

Edit: for rephrasing my last line.

Correia actually provides evidence and reasoning for all of his comments. Correia is pissed because the voting public didn't insult him, they insulted the people he thought were good, many of whom had nothing to do with Sad Puppies.

Scalzi provides none, and instead just relies on him calling them jerks with no supporting evidence. Scalzi advocates for spurning and insulting deserving people because a jerk likes them.

In my mind, Scalzi is lightyears worse than Correia.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhangar wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Correia's response to the Hugo awards.

Heh. The sheer venom in Correia's post (and in his comments section) is impressive. Scalzi predicted his response pretty well.

About 2,000 more ballots were cast this year than last year.

Apparently, the Puppies succeeded in inspiring a significant number of people to join in the Hugos just to vote them down.

Wonder if they'll inspire even more people to do that next year.

Great work, guys.

I find it really interesting that you say his post has a lot of venom, when I think it has very little. He is mostly just sad. I find Scalzi to not only be much more of an asshat in his post, but also factually incorrect on many counts.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Correia's response to the Hugo awards.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zeugma wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Zeugma wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Wrote about Annie Bellet
If you read the linked article in the first post in the thread, she talks about why she declined her nomination. It was because she didn't want to be associated with the slate and have politics dragged into it, not because she was pressured. She explicitly states that she wasn't pressured. She felt the nomination was tainted.
And if you read her comments in various posts the weeks before she declined, you see her talking about the massive amount of hate mail she was receiving for being put on the Sad Puppies slate.
I haven't been following the controversy that long. Links?

Annie Bellet's blog about accepting the award. The comments slowly degenerate, and she eventually locks the thread because she doesn't want to deal with moderating it. Honestly, its not as bad as I remember it being, so I'm not sure how much she deleted or how bad my memory may be, but she locked the thread before she eventually declined the nomination.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zeugma wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Wrote about Annie Bellet
If you read the linked article in the first post in the thread, she talks about why she declined her nomination. It was because she didn't want to be associated with the slate and have politics dragged into it, not because she was pressured. She explicitly states that she wasn't pressured. She felt the nomination was tainted.

And if you read her comments in various posts the weeks before she declined, you see her talking about the massive amount of hate mail she was receiving for being put on the Sad Puppies slate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Because they're not the first to bring up the issues.

They're not even the first to game the system on a large scale (that would be Locus).
They are the first to cast it as a political and culture war issue and then throw a hissy fit over it.
LIke I said, out loud. They caught the publics attention. Before them, there was barely even acknowledgement of the problem by the groups voting, and yet a bunch of authors are now saying "yeah, this has been the case for years". Sometimes you need an a&&*#!% with a blowhorn to call attention to a problem.
What do you think the problem is? What do you think the authors outside the Puppies are agreeing with?

That there has been a divergence between what the Hugo awards say they are (A popularity fan award) and what they actually are (an award by a niche club for people in their club). Its pretty much exactly what Breitbart and G.R.R. Martin have said.

What both of them fail to acknowledge is that that club is strongly liberal to a point where conservatives feel actively unwelcome. Now, I can't speak to whether or not it is true, I'm not a member of that community, but conservatives are saying it is. Dismissing it because you don't feel it, like Breitbart does, is wrong. Hell, this year's Sad Puppies was made without acknowledgement of author's political beliefs (the first Sad Puppies the political beliefs were a major factor because they were trying to prove a political point), but some of the authors on the list were harassed for being associated with the group. Annie Bellet dropped out because of the harassment, which is a shame because her story was awesome, and she is anything but closely related to the politics of Sad Puppies.

As a center-left liberal in with ties to the New England con circuit, I can say that I find those communities to often be too close mindedly liberal for my tastes, so I can't see active conservatives feeling particularly welcome in sharing their views. The one libertarian I know active in the community gets by by making a self-deprecating joke when politics comes up and then diverting the conversation, but he has also been a staple in the community for a long time and not someone just trying to join. Someone with his political views just joining would probably leave for a group he felt more welcomed in instead of trying to stick with the group. Unfortunately, there is no equivalent group in the case of Worldcon, since there is only one Hugo award. So instead you just have a bunch of people who have felt ostracized by the clique saying they are tired of it and organizing supporters.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:

Because they're not the first to bring up the issues.

They're not even the first to game the system on a large scale (that would be Locus).
They are the first to cast it as a political and culture war issue and then throw a hissy fit over it.

LIke I said, out loud. They caught the publics attention. Before them, there was barely even acknowledgement of the problem by the groups voting, and yet a bunch of authors are now saying "yeah, this has been the case for years". Sometimes you need an a~~#$@& with a blowhorn to call attention to a problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
TimD wrote:

... or you could read about it from the guy that started Sad Puppies, here.

EDIT:

Lord Snow wrote:
Incredible articles. I think there is no need to read any further than them about the subject. Thanks for the links.

I find it useful to see how one side speaks about itself rather than relying on their opposition to speak for them.

-TimD

I have done both, and I have to say these articles are probably the best ones I've seen from opposition actually acknowledging what the problems are, even if they don't properly attribute Sad Puppies to actually saying these problems out loud first, which they have, a lot.

Except that, according to Flint, the Puppies completely mistake the problem. They blame it all on SJWs and conspiracies, when it's just the field outgrowing the awards. There are plenty of damn good authors of all political bents who aren't winning awards. Nor are all the awards won by SJWs.

They see a real problem, but they misunderstand it's nature completely.

Or you could actually read Sad Puppies stuff and realize that they acknowledge that there are multiple problems that are interconnected.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TimD wrote:

... or you could read about it from the guy that started Sad Puppies, here.

EDIT:

Lord Snow wrote:
Incredible articles. I think there is no need to read any further than them about the subject. Thanks for the links.

I find it useful to see how one side speaks about itself rather than relying on their opposition to speak for them.

-TimD

I have done both, and I have to say these articles are probably the best ones I've seen from opposition actually acknowledging what the problems are, even if they don't properly attribute Sad Puppies to actually saying these problems out loud first, which they have, a lot.

I think the fact that he dismisses that the "in crowd" of these awards is drifting highly liberal is a problem.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Talonhawke wrote:
I read the thread and I think I missed something somewhere. What is the controversy going on... if someone has the time to sum it up quickly.

A group, Sad Puppies and a spinnoff Rabid Puppies, that doesn't like 3rd wave feminism protested the awards by putting together a slate for nominations. Their big complaint is that a single culture has taken over the fan awards. Because it takes ridiculously few people working in concert to take over the nomination process (300 people could own almost any category entirely), their nominations dominated some of the categories. This led to left wing blogs totally flipping out, and the final votes "No Award" was nominated over anything on the Sad Puppies slate, regardless of how good it is.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm really curious what insults will be thrown at the organizers of sad puppies next year, when it is run by 3 women.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Beale/Vox, OTOH, is poison. If you're saying you haven't seen any supporting evidence for that, you haven't been looking.

On this I will agree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Personally, I think this destroys all integrity of the Hugo awards. It pretty much says that because good works were nominated by people not in the in crowd that the in crowd gets to throw a tantrum and say those people's opinions don't matter. I can't think of a worse result.

Well, I read them. I voted. And I didn't think they were good works. Or at least not award worthy.

I can definitely think of a worse result. Vox Day deciding, from now on, which works are nominated for Hugos.

Have you read through the nominees? Now that the awards are out, we can make a good stab at what would have been nominated without the puppies. Take a read through that, particularly the short fiction, and tell me the nominees really were better.

I read only a few from both. What I read on the puppies list I really enjoyed. Most of what I read that failed to make it I thought was terrible and I couldn't make it through.

Personally, I think we are seeing a clash in styles of writing where one side is asking for their style to be considered and the other side is responding by calling them names.

And Vox isn't calling people names? Please.

It's not a clash of writing styles. It's a determined attack on what he considers SJWs.
Except it has been going on for 2 years before he even got into the ring, so you can't blame it on him.
But he's taken over. Whatever Correia and Torgersen say, all the evidence suggests the Rabid Puppies were the key to taking over the nominations this year. Unlike last year, where they only managed to get a couple of nominations and got ignored with little fanfare.

Except they didn't get ignored with little fanfare. There were dozens of articles about how they were sexist/misogynists/racist/homophobes last year as well. Of course I have yet to see any actual supporting evidence for calling either man that.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Have you read through the nominees? Now that the awards are out, we can make a good stab at what would have been nominated without the puppies. Take a read through that, particularly the short fiction, and tell me the nominees really were better.

I can only speak to the Novelette category. I read Championship B'Tok and The Day the World Turned Upside-Down. B'Tok was pretty good, but didn't blow me away. TDtWTUD was boring; a guy hyper-focuses on his inane relationship neuroses while world-changing events are happening around him.

I looked up the other stories that would have made it on otherwise, and found I had already seen "Each to Each" by Seanan McGuire when it came up on the Lightspeed Magazine podcast. I skimmed it, and I'm pretty sure I quit listening before I finished it, so it clearly didn't strike me as award-worthy (although that would have been while I was driving, so there may have been outside influences that kept me from getting into it).

I have to admit to not being at all impressed with The Day the World Turned Upside-Down. OTOH, I had to go look up Championship B'Tok to remember what it was about.

When The Day the World Turned Upside-down got nominated because something dropped off the list, I realized that the people who were complaining about good works being excluded because of the puppies slates were talking b~%&@&$!. That that piece of dretch got any votes astounds me.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Personally, I think this destroys all integrity of the Hugo awards. It pretty much says that because good works were nominated by people not in the in crowd that the in crowd gets to throw a tantrum and say those people's opinions don't matter. I can't think of a worse result.

Well, I read them. I voted. And I didn't think they were good works. Or at least not award worthy.

I can definitely think of a worse result. Vox Day deciding, from now on, which works are nominated for Hugos.

Have you read through the nominees? Now that the awards are out, we can make a good stab at what would have been nominated without the puppies. Take a read through that, particularly the short fiction, and tell me the nominees really were better.

I read only a few from both. What I read on the puppies list I really enjoyed. Most of what I read that failed to make it I thought was terrible and I couldn't make it through.

Personally, I think we are seeing a clash in styles of writing where one side is asking for their style to be considered and the other side is responding by calling them names.

And Vox isn't calling people names? Please.

It's not a clash of writing styles. It's a determined attack on what he considers SJWs.

Except it has been going on for 2 years before he even got into the ring, so you can't blame it on him.

1 to 50 of 5,329 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.