|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My god. I haven't actually read much stuff on the Hugo list, but 'If you were a dinosaur my love?' is terrible. How the hell did that dretch get an award?
I guess many people liked it?
To be honest, I almost never agree with any awards. I assume this will be true for most people' it is weird to expect awards to reflect your own taste. Methods of choosing awards vary, but they are almost always independent of the opinion of any single fan.
It's perfectly legitimate to disagree with the main body of voters for the Hugos. It is also legitimate to question any part in the nomination and voting process. But deciding to use a loophole in design of the process to hijack the award is a rather offensive way of voicing discontent. SP attempt to sound ignorant of the consequences of their action, but I find it hard to believe that they are.
They wanted to deliver the massage that they don't buy into the integrity of the Hugo awards as they are now. What they did was change the game such that now everybody will have to doubt the integrity of the awards, because clearly something happened that was not the scenario envisioned by those who came up with the nomination system.
I would reiterate that their political stances are not the issue - the way things appear to be is that they are in the minority anyway, and many of them are not harmful with those opinions (Corriea, for example, may be aggressive in his internet debating but from all that I was able to see he is a smart, compassionate guy that is not [in any meaningful interpretation of the word] a bigot of any kind). I do think that they are in the wrong in this controversy and that there were better, gentler ways for them to raise their concerns.
My god. I haven't actually read much stuff on the Hugo list, but 'If you were a dinosaur my love?' is terrible. How the hell did that dretch get an award?I guess many people liked it?
To be honest, I almost never agree with any awards. I assume this will be true for most people' it is weird to expect awards to reflect your own taste. Methods of choosing awards vary, but they are almost always independent of the opinion of any single fan.
It's perfectly legitimate to disagree with the main body of voters for the Hugos. It is also legitimate to question any part in the nomination and voting process. But deciding to use a loophole in design of the process to hijack the award is a rather offensive way of voicing discontent. SP attempt to sound ignorant of the consequences of their action, but I find it hard to believe that they are.
They wanted to deliver the massage that they don't buy into the integrity of the Hugo awards as they are now. What they did was change the game such that now everybody will have to doubt the integrity of the awards, because clearly something happened that was not the scenario envisioned by those who came up with the nomination system.
I would reiterate that their political stances are not the issue - the way things appear to be is that they are in the minority anyway, and many of them are not harmful with those opinions (Corriea, for example, may be aggressive in his internet debating but from all that I was able to see he is a smart, compassionate guy that is not [in any meaningful interpretation of the word] a bigot of any kind). I do think that they are in the wrong in this controversy and that there were better, gentler ways for them to raise their concerns.
Sorry, but when you voice your concerns for years and get ignored, the people who ignore you can't complain when you up the anti.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My god. I haven't actually read much stuff on the Hugo list, but 'If you were a dinosaur my love?' is terrible. How the hell did that dretch get an award?
Well I remember it getting a fairly positive reception on escape pod (a free sci fi short fiction pod cast). I didnt particularly like it, but it was well read, you would be surprised how much a good read can improve a story. And given escape pod listeners are probably composed of a higher then average portion of readers/fans that are willing to pay to support what they like (the podcast pays for its weekly stories and survives exclusively on listener donations). I am going to bet getting a good reception there is going to be meaningful in the voting considering the overall numbers.
Mind you escape pod runs (if they can) all hugo nominees right before the convention. I wonder if the fact that it was the last one to run is meaningful...
|
My god. I haven't actually read much stuff on the Hugo list, but 'If you were a dinosaur my love?' is terrible. How the hell did that dretch get an award?Well I remember it getting a fairly positive reception on escape pod (a free sci fi short fiction pod cast). I didnt particularly like it, but it was well read, you would be surprised how much a good read can improve a story. And given escape pod listeners are probably composed of a higher then average portion of readers/fans that are willing to pay to support what they like (the podcast pays for its weekly stories and survives exclusively on listener donations). I am going to bet getting a good reception there is going to be meaningful in the voting considering the overall numbers.
Mind you escape pod runs (if they can) all hugo nominees right before the convention. I wonder if the fact that it was the last one to run is meaningful...
Like what you like, dislike what you like.
An assumption possessed by Left and Right is when a work that they find lacking is held up and lauded, that the reasons for those lauds might be for reasons other than the quality of the work.
SPs was founded on the belief that certain works got their awards just because of the message of the work or an attempt to tokenistically include the right check marks in terms of the author. That's their core ethos and they operate from those assumptions.
It's perfectly legitimate to disagree with the main body of voters for the Hugos. It is also legitimate to question any part in the nomination and voting process. But deciding to use a loophole in design of the process to hijack the award is a rather offensive way of voicing discontent. SP attempt to sound ignorant of the consequences of their action, but I find it hard to believe that they are.
A reminder, and this should be kept in mind whenever someone complains about a criminal 'let off on a technicality' those technicalities are the law. Rule of law is one of those spokes on which the wheel of civilization turns.
I do wonder, how does a slate differ from just telling a bunch of friends and associates who you think should get the award? Which if memory serves, is what the SP contingent, alleges is what the old guard was up to, just not openly.
Political correctness was originally a conservative push and has changed meaning since the 90s. That it has now taken over the left and is strangling it is slowly becoming more evident, from the redacted story Entertainment Weekly published on this to the death threats being sent to the pizzeria in Indiana.It's much more than political correctness taking over the left, right, or any other faction. It's the decline in the ability to disagree with grace. It's a poisonous trend that has been accelerated by the growth of instant response social media.
Fun fact:
"Politically correct" was a term used by non- or anti-Stalinist lefties to make fun of the ever-changing line of the Communist Party USA and those who adhered to it.
It was later revived in the seventies by some on the New Left before it blossomed into the Culture Wars catch-phrase of the nineties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Political correctness was originally a conservative push and has changed meaning since the 90s. That it has now taken over the left and is strangling it is slowly becoming more evident, from the redacted story Entertainment Weekly published on this to the death threats being sent to the pizzeria in Indiana.It's much more than political correctness taking over the left, right, or any other faction. It's the decline in the ability to disagree with grace. It's a poisonous trend that has been accelerated by the growth of instant response social media.
It is more then social media, though social media highlights it. The inability to disagree with grace started way before social media. It got its biggest boost in the 80s.
There are 2 phrases that should automatically require a punch in the nose in response.
1. 'I dont discuss religion or politics in polite company'. - this implies that we should only discuss complicated and important ideas among those who agree with us. Thats stupid. It prevents the transfer of ideas, and create a polarizing effect. If no one ever calls you on your bs, your bs becomes worse and worse over time as everyone agrees with you.
2. 'Its just business'. The implication here, societal norms around human descency, morality, or anything else dont apply in the 'business' world. Aside from the obvious negative effects of cut throat business practices, it does something far worse. It glorifies the sociopath. The person who doesn't feel, and just does what it takes to make the most, be the most, or 'win' becomes the most 'successful'. Much like voting blocks, once you let that particular plague out of pandoras box, its not easy to put it back in.
There are now people (on both sides of the isle) in politics and other areas of the public world (media for instnace) that are successful because they categorically dont allow challenges to their position, and they protect that position with a kind of visciousness that has nothing to do with the common good and everything to do with retaining power. And everyone else trying to get involved has to follow suit or get trampled by those 'doing it better'.
|
|
I do wonder, how does a slate differ from just telling a bunch of friends and associates who you think should get the award? Which if memory serves, is what the SP contingent, alleges is what the old guard was up to, just not openly.
The difference is much the same as the difference between a country building short term missiles and a country building an atomic bombs. Both are clearly weapons and are meant to further the strength and position of a country, but they are of very different magnitudes. Once country A develops an atomic weapon, country B has to react in kind.
The "telling a bunch of people, personally or through a blog or however, that you think such and such are worthy of a prize" is something that already happened, and once it started everybody had to escalate to that level to keep up with those who were doing it. This new slate is the latest leap in the arms race, and since it succeeded so well this year it feels like a significant one. It brings the awards much closer to being less about the books and more about competing factions. I believe nobody wants that.
On an aside, I find George Martin's writing on the subject to be interesting and to the point. He takes a very level headed stance and considers the history and nature of the Hugo awards. Worth the read.
A reminder, and this should be kept in mind whenever someone complains about a criminal 'let off on a technicality' those technicalities are the law. Rule of law is one of those spokes on which the wheel of civilization turns.
True, but laws change when they are shown to be obsolete or easily circumvented. Thats why there is (supposedly) a legislature, and not just a judiciary. Laws need to be updated from time to time. For instance in the presense of a new force in the equation (block voting).
I do wonder, how does a slate differ from just telling a bunch of friends and associates who you think should get the award? Which if memory serves, is what the SP contingent, alleges is what the old guard was up to, just not openly.
The differnece is a matter of organization, scale, and psychological effect.
We can go back to political parties as the easy example:
As a liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc, you could, encourage your friends and family to consider the issues of the day, highlighting specific candidates you like, talking about their individual beliefs.
Or you can attatch your strongest beliefs to a brand. A political party. By 'branding' those beliefs you have now simplified the person's choice. At the same time, to counter you, someone else has done the same with a different set of beliefs. And their branding has made the contrast with your brand more extreme then probably any normal member of either group would present themselves individually.
Picking a brand is a lot easier then evaluatiing a bunch of individuals you may or may not know. You just let the 'experts' evaluatate them, and pick the brand closest to what you believe. So where maybe you might have voted for the moderate conservative senator, the liberal but fiscally responsible congressman and the passionate independent for mayor, you are instead encouraged both by others, and by viewing the results of deviating from the brand, to stay on brand exclusively.
Block voting drowns out the disperate voices and forces people to converge around just a few points in the spectrum. Think of trying to vote in the states for an independent. Why is that generally a joke? Because its hard to get around the big 'brands' but also because even if they reach you, you like them, but, in the end, if you dont pick one of the 'big' brands, will your vote matter?
That is the difference between just supporting a handful of authors or stories you like (fandom) and creating an organized and distinct brand (block voting). Block voting is easy, individual evaluation of all the candidates requires a lot more time and energy and is less likely to yeild the result when someone else is presenting a brand.
|
|
A reminder, and this should be kept in mind whenever someone complains about a criminal 'let off on a technicality' those technicalities are the law. Rule of law is one of those spokes on which the wheel of civilization turns.
True, but laws change when they are shown to be obsolete or easily circumvented. Thats why there is (supposedly) a legislature, and not just a judiciary. Laws need to be updated from time to time. For instance in the presense of a new force in the equation (block voting).
I do wonder, how does a slate differ from just telling a bunch of friends and associates who you think should get the award? Which if memory serves, is what the SP contingent, alleges is what the old guard was up to, just not openly.
The differnece is a matter of organization, scale, and psychological effect.
We can go back to political parties as the easy example:
As a liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc, you could, encourage your friends and family to consider the issues of the day, highlighting specific candidates you like, talking about their individual beliefs.
Or you can attatch your strongest beliefs to a brand. A political party. By 'branding' those beliefs you have now simplified the person's choice. At the same time, to counter you, someone else has done the same with a different set of beliefs. And their branding has made the contrast with your brand more extreme then probably any normal member of either group would present themselves individually.
Picking a brand is a lot easier then evaluatiing a bunch of individuals you may or may not know. You just let the 'experts' evaluatate them, and pick the brand closest to what you believe. So where maybe you might have voted for the moderate conservative senator, the liberal but fiscally responsible congressman and the passionate independent for mayor, you are instead encouraged both by others, and by viewing the results of deviating from the brand, to stay on brand exclusively....
A party, or block as you put it, also exists to make your individual vote more powerful as a component of a group. The modern party system stands because groups of individuals say, "Well I agree with 78 percent of what the Party Against Fireants, says, so I'll support them, but when possible I'll disagree on the other 22%."
The slates provided weren't followed slavishly. I'll note that nobody's slate came through with 100% accuracy.
Similarly, if I'm a bull moose party member, I have no obligation to vote bull moose, and they no means of compelling me. Will I be outvoted if I deviate? Yes, but not if enough people choose to deviate with me. If I were to say, publicize and campaign amongst my fellow bull moosers for a certain outcome for example.
The idea that people forming into groups with other like minded individuals 'disenfranchising' someone is laughable. I'm not going to get into an argument over pure democracy or republicanism or the like, but if the group forms because they share an objective and beliefs, and they communicate this amongst themselves, and then vote together, I'd argue this supports rather then disenfranchises anybody.
If the fear is that this will balkanize the situation, that ship sailed a long time ago, its simply that one side of the equation is now showing up to the feud in uniform.
Regarding the 'loophole,' again, how can this guidance be changed such that people can still freely communicate with one another about their tastes? I can't talk to people grouped over 20? I can't make a post on the internet? I can't step into the public square and proclaim my appreciation of Count to the Eschaton?
Are we going to have campaign finance laws for a science fiction club's awards?
I'm being a bit ridiculous here, but I hope my point still comes through.
Perhaps Asians would be more interested if the novel and other categories included something by ASIANS (as in, from Asia...you know, that place which has Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior, a whole slew of Sci Fi shows and cartoons that Americans have never...
Worldcon 2007 took place in Japan. It was by all accounts a lot of fun, lots of Japanese fans came along and there was some good stuff going on, but almost no Japanese writers or artists made it onto the ballot that year or afterwards and the con lost a ton of money. The lack of impact of Worldcon on Japan or vice versa is one reason why the proposed Beijing Worldcon has only ever gotten a lukewarm response.
There are some more non-American/European writers doing things and getting noticed, like Zen Cho (Malaysian), Benjanun Sriduangkaew (Thai, and very controversial herself), Ramez Naam (Egyptian, raised in the USA) and Ashok Banker (Indian), but the pool should be pushed a lot more in the US and other western markets, and there should be more translations available.
"Politically correct" was a term used by non- or anti-Stalinist lefties to make fun of the ever-changing line of the Communist Party USA and those who adhered to it.
It was later revived in the seventies by some on the New Left before it blossomed into the Culture Wars catch-phrase of the nineties.
In the UK, "politically correct" was coined in the 1980s and used to refer to the policies and ideology of Thatcher's government: anti-union, anti-worker, pro-bankers, pro-big business. It was later conflated with the rampant corruption and collusion with business that blighted the end of the Conservative Party's two-decade rule of the country. Those on the right started using it to mock Blair and his right-on attitude and there's been an attempt (as in America) to use it to excuse various 'ist' behaviour.
That's the nature of the modern world though. Unless you consciously seek out other viewpoints a self-reinforcing echo chamber out there just waiting for you to pay attention to it.
1. 'I dont discuss religion or politics in polite company'. - this implies that we should only discuss complicated and important ideas among those who agree with us. Thats stupid. It prevents the transfer of ideas, and create a polarizing effect. If no one ever calls you on your bs, your bs becomes worse and worse over time as everyone agrees with you.On the other hand, sometimes it's worth just shutting down the discussion rather than letting it blow up into a big argument, when you've gathered for something else. Whether it's work or game night or a family gathering or something.
I actually find "I don't discuss religion or politics in polite company" often is a polite way of saying "I'm not going to discuss it with you, because I know we won't be able to stay polite."
So you are saying they should concede defeat and never try to fix something they see as broken rather than piss off people who don't like them already? A lot of progress will be made that way.
On the other hand, sometimes it's worth just shutting down the discussion rather than letting it blow up into a big argument, when you've gathered for something else. Whether it's work or game night or a family gathering or something.
But it is worth it. Because there is a very real consequence of not doing it. You let everyone drift further and further apart. Family gatherings, and social encounters is where you SHOULD be discussing this stuff. Otherwise you dont get the disperate view points. The more you dont talk about it, the harder it is to eventually talk about it. And literally nothing matters more in the long term. Not having this conversation is part of why eventually someone wont be able to afford gas to come to game night.
I actually find "I don't discuss religion or politics in polite company" often is a polite way of saying "I'm not going to discuss it with you, because I know we won't be able to stay polite."
You know what helps something you arent good at? Practice. You know what doesnt help? Not doing it. It takes work and effort to stay civil while arguing something that matters to you. But if you dont, then when the time does come, you dont have the skills, understanding or point of view to deal with the actual problem. And you get crap like we have in washington where literally nothing is getting done, because any compromise is seen as a vile betrayal of sacrosanct views set by a bunch of people who only talk to those who agree with them.
The meaning of "Don't discuss religion or politics in polite company." is a caution to not discuss inflamitory topics in a purely social situation because it can lead to heated tempers, shouting, harsh language, fisticuffs, and dueling. So make small talk and enjoy the ball and leave politics to the smoking room or cloakroom.
Except again, without those shouting matches, you just get more and more angry at that impossible idiot who cant possibly be that stupid that he doesn't see how right you are. In highschool I had a certain group of friends. We grew up together, we loved eachother. But we were all hot headed egotists. That can breed tension after a while. One day, on a spur of the moment, we grabed some boxing gloves, and we duked it out with whoever in the group was driving us up the wall at the moment. Afterwards, we were all love and comradery again. At least for a while.
That argument is important. Not arguing doesnt work. Ask any relationship councilor. You have to argue. And like it or not, we are all in a kind of relationship with our fellow citizens. That relationship matters. If we never argue, that presure valvue never lets off. And that builds up and gets worse over time. To the point where 'left' and 'right' cant agree long enough to pass a budget to keep the g&% d$#ned lights on in capital building, let alone actually accomplish something.
Talking like a rational civil human being and finding common ground with someone who disagrees with you has become a sign of weakness, instead of a sane thing human beings do so we can live together in a society.
The same reason you don't walk into a restaurant and slap you junk on the table.
Yea...one thing, regular discourse on complicated and difficult political topics, is a vital activity to a democracy continuing to function. The other is puting your junk on the table. They have no common factors, reasons or motivations.
A party, or block as you put it, also exists to make your individual vote more powerful as a component of a group. The modern party system stands because groups of individuals say, "Well I agree with 78 percent of what the Party Against Fireants, says, so I'll support them, but when possible I'll disagree on the other 22%."
The slates provided weren't followed slavishly. I'll note that nobody's slate came through with 100% accuracy.
Similarly, if I'm a bull moose party member, I have no obligation to vote bull moose, and they no means of compelling me. Will I be outvoted if I deviate? Yes, but not if enough people choose to deviate with me. If I were to say, publicize and campaign amongst my fellow bull moosers for a certain outcome for example.
Ofcourse no one is 'obligated' to vote on slate. That doesn't actally matter. The pressure and psychological influence is real. The same way you dont HAVE to vote your party exclusively in an election, but what percentage of people actually deviate? (Hint: Its small)
The idea that people forming into groups with other like minded individuals 'disenfranchising' someone is laughable. I'm not going to get into an argument over pure democracy or republicanism or the like, but if the group forms because they share an objective and beliefs, and they communicate this amongst themselves, and then vote together, I'd argue this supports rather then disenfranchises anybody.
Actually, by definition, forming groups disenfranchises people. That is what groups do. They isolate you from those that differ from you in some fashion. No such group is 100% uniform. But by forming a group, they become more so. Their organization limits individual choice. For instance, that group, will come together and decide who or what represents them. Both within and without of that group, some people will disagree with that choice. But, the groups choice has either removed the other choices, (like say the primary races in american presidential elections) or drastically reduces the viability of those other choices (such as having a environmentalist party candidate running seperately from a democratic, but green friendly candidate).
Organizing into voting groups literally cannot avoid disenfranchising people, because it limits choices.
If the fear is that this will balkanize the situation, that ship sailed a long time ago, its simply that one side of the equation is now showing up to the feud in uniform.
Since this literally just happened 3 years ago, the ship hasnt sailed a long time ago. It just pulled out of dock.
Regarding the 'loophole,' again, how can this guidance be changed such that people can still freely communicate with one another about their tastes? I can't talk to people grouped over 20? I can't make a post on the internet? I can't step into the public square and proclaim my appreciation of Count to the Eschaton?
Are we going to have campaign finance laws for a science fiction club's awards?
I'm being a bit ridiculous here, but I hope my point still comes through.
Its not an easy question. Heck its almost as complicated as the full scale political issues it mimics. But that doesn't mean we ignore the problem at its core. I am not sure what can solve the problem. That doesnt mean nothing can be done about it.
Sometimes it's not me having trouble staying polite. I'm usually pretty mellow. Perhaps I should rephrase that as - a polite way of saying "I'm not going to discuss it with you, because I know you can't stay civil."
Sometimes it is worth it. I've certainly done it. Sometimes you've tried before and know it isn't. Or know it isn't worth taking past a certain point.
Its frustrating, its difficult. Sometimes it seems impossible or pointless. But that mentality is a big part of the reason why thousands of people lost jobs, had pay cut, or were forced to go on unpaid leave, and millions were indirectly affected by the same events because left and right couldnt talk out a budget in the US Capital building.
The two are connected. We all have to be willing to keep hammering those arguments, keep having them, letting the valvue go just a little so reason can prevail. If you want to live in a functioning democracy, part of your payment is having that argument with the jerk who never even tries to listen, because if you dont, he'll be more of a jerk next time. And so will you.
We talk about or civil rights. But we often forget the flip side of that. Civic responsibility. You cant have one without the other. Unless every member of a democracy takes their responsibilities seriously, the system fails in the long term.
|
|
A party, or block as you put it, also exists to make your individual vote more powerful as a component of a group. The modern party system stands because groups of individuals say, "Well I agree with 78 percent of what the Party Against Fireants, says, so I'll support them, but when possible I'll disagree on the other 22%."
The slates provided weren't followed slavishly. I'll note that nobody's slate came through with 100% accuracy.
Similarly, if I'm a bull moose party member, I have no obligation to vote bull moose, and they no means of compelling me. Will I be outvoted if I deviate? Yes, but not if enough people choose to deviate with me. If I were to say, publicize and campaign amongst my fellow bull moosers for a certain outcome for example.
Ofcourse no one is 'obligated' to vote on slate. That doesn't actally matter. The pressure and psychological influence is real. The same way you dont HAVE to vote your party exclusively in an election, but what percentage of people actually deviate? (Hint: Its small)
Actually, by definition, forming groups disenfranchises people. That is what groups do. They isolate you from those that differ from you in some fashion. No such group is 100% uniform. But by forming a group, they become more so. Their organization limits individual choice. For instance, that group, will come together and decide who or what represents them. Both within and without of that group, some people will disagree with that choice. But, the groups choice has either removed the other choices, (like say the primary races in...The idea that people forming into groups with other like minded individuals 'disenfranchising' someone is laughable. I'm not going to get into an argument over pure democracy or republicanism or the like, but if the group forms because they share an objective and beliefs, and they communicate this amongst themselves, and then vote together, I'd argue this supports rather then disenfranchises anybody.
Yeah, see. I don't see it as a problem. Even if 'the other side' were doing it, I'd still be alright with it.
"If this is gonna be that kind of party, I'm gonna stick my dick in the mashed potatoes!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then you firmly believe in a kind of behavior that is not common among humans. The old adage "if it ain't broke don't fix it" more usually manifests in reality as "if it doesn't look broken don't fix it."
You're right. Another common behavior amongst humans is complaining loudly, pointing fingers, and accusing someone else of dishonorable conduct when things don't go one's way. That's plain to see here.
Consider democratic nations - clearly almost everyone in them cares about the integrity of the election process, and according to your logic the specific mechanics and details of the way voting elections work should constantly be revised and tweaked so that it could improve, yet they remain largely the same for much longer than the Hugo awards have been around.
Yes, according to my logic, it works. I'm in the USA. Did you know at one time that only people of certain races and genders could vote? And yet, over time, that process has been revised? It's almost like this logic gets applied in the real world.
Also note the context of what you're saying. Altering the rules on how a nation is run has vastly more impact than altering the rules of how a mutual back-slapping award is handed out to writers.Look, maybe this slate is the kick in the nuts that the community needed that shows that times and circumstances have changed and the awards need to adapt to stay relevant, or maybe not. As usual with such issues, time will tell and until it does we will bicker. However way you look at it, though, from the viewpoint of those who thought the system was working so far, the voting process this year is seriously unsettling.
It's almost like the fear change or something.
---
For about the 10th time, Scalzi didn't "post his own slate". He makes a blog post where he lists those of his works that are eligible.
Well then, for the 11th time, if you've listed your own stuff in multiple categories, you have posted a slate. Doesn't try to drive votes? Of course he's trying to drive votes. He wants them, he's encouraging people to vote for him. He gets the least amount of respect for that, as it's pure selfishness. If he listed others he liked, but they all had his beliefs and politics behind it, he'd get more respect, but not nearly as much as listing a bunch of different authors and works all with varied views. This is why I place him lower than Rabid Puppies, which is itself lower than Sad Puppies.
It wasn't clear to me until I dug deeper into it that Vox was publishing most of the stuff on his list and no one else on this thread mentioned it
He openly admits it on the posts where he brings it up. Not sure how it's missed. Do people on this thread need to repeat that when it's on the original source?
Without a mention that he profits off most of them.
Almost like Scalzi or other writers don't profit from the list of their own works the push?
Again, a book you thought should have won not winning is not evidence of it being "wrong".
Then you should have no problem with either Puppies list being 'wrong' either.
But so what? There's no objective measure of "wrong" here.
Good. Now that this has been settled, I'm sure there will be no problem with the opposition's actions.
For future years, as I suggested above, the best approach is to get more people to nominate. Drown out the puppies if they try this again.
In other words, adopt the opposition's winning strategy. Sounds good.
---
And it's been pure and pristine the whole time it's been in existence until now... and ... and evil people are fixing the process.
I know, right? Like, it's been perfectly innocent and working as intended for over half a century but now, this Puppy thing is too much and they are doing wrong. ;) (I'm agreeing with you, in case the sarcasm in that statement didn't come through over text.)
---
By pushing bloc voting, even if they were correct, or had proof for it, which I doubt, it will result in a backlash that all voting will be bloc voting for the next nomination.
And if they are correct and do have proof, Sad Puppies IS the backlash.
---
Great. Punish good authors for being liked by the wrong kind of people. That will certainly heal the rift that is growing in fandom.
I don't think the people who are angry about this really care about the authors anymore. It's all about stopping the inevitable change.
Sorry, but when you voice your concerns for years and get ignored, the people who ignore you can't complain when you up the anti.
Pretty much.
hmmm any idea of how to tell who started the bloc voting?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But deciding to use a loophole in design of the process to hijack the award is a rather offensive way of voicing discontent.
Such harsh words for doing things that were perfectly legitimate.
What they did was change the game such that now everybody will have to doubt the integrity of the awards, because clearly something happened that was not the scenario envisioned by those who came up with the nomination system.
The game was already changed. They just changed it again.
I do think that they are in the wrong in this controversy and that there were better, gentler ways for them to raise their concerns.
They tried 'better and gentler' for several years. No change. While there might be some hypothetical 'perfect middle ground', since no one is able to present it, it's obvious they used a tactic that would work, instead.
The difference is much the same as the difference between a country building short term missiles and a country building an atomic bombs. Both are clearly weapons and are meant to further the strength and position of a country, but they are of very different magnitudes. Once country A develops an atomic weapon, country B has to react in kind.
And yet, two countries building massive numbers of atomic bombs prevented any possibility of World War III.
I think you might want to re-tweak that analogy.On an aside, I find George Martin's writing on the subject to be interesting and to the point. He takes a very level headed stance and considers the history and nature of the Hugo awards. Worth the read.
As do I. He accepts the existence of previous manipulations and the current change of tactics stoicly and with an eye toward adapting to the future.
---
"Politically correct" was a term used by non- or anti-Stalinist lefties to make fun of the ever-changing line of the Communist Party USA and those who adhered to it.
It was later revived in the seventies by some on the New Left before it blossomed into the Culture Wars catch-phrase of the nineties.
NEAT! Learn something new every day.
---
1. 'I dont discuss religion or politics in polite company'. - this implies that we should only discuss complicated and important ideas among those who agree with us. Thats stupid. It prevents the transfer of ideas, and create a polarizing effect. If no one ever calls you on your bs, your bs becomes worse and worse over time as everyone agrees with you.
You immediately escalated the situation from "I don't want to talk about things that will start a fight that can never end well" to "You are full of BS because you won't do what I want".
It looks to me like the generic 'other guy' is right in this situation.Actually, I think TheJeff said it better:
I actually find "I don't discuss religion or politics in polite company" often is a polite way of saying "I'm not going to discuss it with you, because I know we won't be able to stay polite."
It glorifies the sociopath. The person who doesn't feel, and just does what it takes to make the most, be the most, or 'win' becomes the most 'successful'.
There is a great difference between one who doesn't feel and one who has enough inner discipline to restrain their emotions.
If ones feelings are hurt too much by cut-throat business or survival, that is something they should probably try to avoid.Picking a brand is a lot easier then evaluatiing a bunch of individuals you may or may not know. You just let the 'experts' evaluatate them, and pick the brand closest to what you believe. So where maybe you might have voted for the moderate conservative senator, the liberal but fiscally responsible congressman and the passionate independent for mayor, you are instead encouraged both by others, and by viewing the results of deviating from the brand, to stay on brand exclusively.
So... Everyone did it the hard way, until now, where someone made an easier way, and since everyone is either too foolish, impressionable, or lazy, the 'new' easy way will be the only way.
And it's the fault of the first people to openly do it?Family gatherings, and social encounters is where you SHOULD be discussing this stuff. Otherwise you dont get the disperate view points.
Real world interrupts this. Do you really want battles with your family, or is it easier and simpler to find opposing viewpoints on, say, the Internet, where you can argue with strangers all day and never have to worry about being disowned by half your family?
(And I say 'real world' simply because that's what's happening right here...)because if you dont, he'll be more of a jerk next time. And so will you.
You're making the argument based on the assumption that your philosophy is the best one. I disagree.
Personally, I think some people will be jerks anyway, and those who can keep themselves from being jerks will do so out of personal maturity, not because they didn't get into enough shouting matches.---
You're the one picking the fight, you're the one who said that people who don't want to be civil and not get into heated discussion or arguments whenever you do should be punched in the face. Heck, you're the one who admitted you and your friends punched each other in the face because you couldn't use your words.
This. "You want people to not be jerks about something (politics, in this case) by instead being jerks about everything else."
Krensky is right for calling this one out, as it lacks any sort of logical sense.
George R. R Martin gives his perspective.
He has actually made several posts on this topic thus far.
Interstingly enough, he states this...
As I get further into my reading, I will let you know my thoughts on what I've read. But that may be a long process, so be patient.
And THIS folks, is where the ideas of slates start.
IF he posts this before voting, you cannot deny how influential this is.
Well, some would, but that's like ignoring how much an impact these types have.
Just a thought. I would think the rankings and thoughts of Martin would actually have a BIGGER impact on votes than the entire Correia thing (of course, that's because I can't believe a person like Correia actually pulled off anything to influence anyone...but I have different political views than he does). Apparantly Correia did...but it's a VERY small group of people and the ONLY reason they did it is because the number nominating was so small to begin with (something I'll address breifly below).
ON the otherhand, Martin isn't espousing the No AWARD or other crazy ideas...but his blog could point out to a very significant thing which, while not exactly a precise slate, could be seen as a very influential move towards influencing a vote.
AS I said before, the award is just like any other award given at a Con...with the politics and groups like they are there.
The entire slate thing is new (and I don't necessarily think it is a good thing for the Hugo or any award given at a Con), but I think the politicking and groups of people fanning together to vote as a block is nothing new. It's happened with many other Con awards (Ennies for us RPG people), and to think that the Hugo is pristine and immune to that type of thing...is probably being an ostrich about it.
The biggest surprise for me is that so FEW votes actually win the nominations.
To me, that reveal is the most damaging to the process. Is there ANY other Convention award that can get nominees on the ballot with that FEW votes? That's really small numbers.
Heck, I could get the High school band of the local area, pay their memberships and have them win a nomination...it would really be that easy!
I think it shows far more the lack of interst in nominating and voting for the Hugos than anything else. If they had a way to spruce up the numbers (get a few thousand voting perhaps) maybe this type of manipulation of that award would not be possible?
|
|
They tried 'better and gentler' for several years. No change. While there might be some hypothetical 'perfect middle ground', since no one is able to present it, it's obvious they used a tactic that would work, instead.
One of Martin's ideas that I liked is the suggestion that instead of rousing sad/rabid puppies to take over the Hugos, those people could have instead made a new award that is meant to bring recognition to the works they think deserve. A significant part of their rhetoric is that they believe they have the numbers on their side - they say that the works that win the Hugo are not the most popular ones.
So, if they have the numbers, they could translate it into influence. Make a NotHugo award, figure a nomination and voting process, and run with it. If, indeed, the works they like are the ones that a wider audience would find more deserving, then over time the award will come to be recognized and appreciated.
That seems to me like a considerably more peaceful solution than taunting the Hugo voter crowed and then organizing a hijack of the nominations. It's a peaceful coexistence rather than open conflict.
Do you find this idea flawed or problematic in any way?
|
|
Like, for example, the Puppies complaints that since the kind of works they like haven't been winning it's all dishonorable conduct on the part of Scalzi, Tor and/or SJWs?Then you firmly believe in a kind of behavior that is not common among humans. The old adage "if it ain't broke don't fix it" more usually manifests in reality as "if it doesn't look broken don't fix it."You're right. Another common behavior amongst humans is complaining loudly, pointing fingers, and accusing someone else of dishonorable conduct when things don't go one's way. That's plain to see here.
That and, I think more importantly, Fischer's response is a diversion here. Sure, finger pointing and loud complaining are human behavior. I also believe many people on the anti-SP side of this controversy are guilty of it - seriously, go through my previous post, I made several comments that I think this is a negative thing.
But, it's not related at all to my setence that you quoted. You said that had anyone really cared about the integrity of the Hugo awards they would change the voting method preemptively. I said that's not actually true because that's not how humans behave. And then you said the thing about finger pointing, which doesn't really count as an answer.
More to the point, you countered my analogy about democratic countries with the historical facts the voting rights were expended over time. True, but not without the kind of compassionate campaigning and debate that you are more likely to see in grand scale historical events spread over hundreds of years than in a niche award giving ceremony. If a system looks like it is working, it is likely to be left as it is rather than tweaked. I stand by this statement, and I think it counters yours - that the people claiming all of a sudden to be concerned about the integrity of the awards are being dishonest because had they really cared they would shore up the loophole preemptively even though it has never been abused before in such a way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They tried 'better and gentler' for several years. No change. While there might be some hypothetical 'perfect middle ground', since no one is able to present it, it's obvious they used a tactic that would work, instead.One of Martin's ideas that I liked is the suggestion that instead of rousing sad/rabid puppies to take over the Hugos, those people could have instead made a new award that is meant to bring recognition to the works they think deserve. A significant part of their rhetoric is that they believe they have the numbers on their side - they say that the works that win the Hugo are not the most popular ones.
So, if they have the numbers, they could translate it into influence. Make a NotHugo award, figure a nomination and voting process, and run with it. If, indeed, the works they like are the ones that a wider audience would find more deserving, then over time the award will come to be recognized and appreciated.
That seems to me like a considerably more peaceful solution than taunting the Hugo voter crowed and then organizing a hijack of the nominations. It's a peaceful coexistence rather than open conflict.
Do you find this idea flawed or problematic in any way?
So the response is to go and make an entirely new organization, and this is intended to prevent the kind of balkanization that the slates and the SP voting might do? That line of thought also implies that SP supporters 'don't belong there' which is kind of going along with the ethos of the guys who the SP believe have been marginalizing them.
I might be misreading you, but it sounds like 'surrender and run away, this revolution business is causing too much trouble.'
On the arguments of the 'majority' the SP seem to be suggesting there is a quiet, generally indifferent silent majority of sci-fi fans who don't realize how this award is being ground into the dust by crappy nominations (like say 'If you were a dinosaur my love?')
This is a little different from saying 'we out number you,' its more of an argument of 'we need to make sure everyone knows what's going on.' And on that ground, I think they've succeeded exceptionally.
|
|
They tried 'better and gentler' for several years. No change. While there might be some hypothetical 'perfect middle ground', since no one is able to present it, it's obvious they used a tactic that would work, instead.One of Martin's ideas that I liked is the suggestion that instead of rousing sad/rabid puppies to take over the Hugos, those people could have instead made a new award that is meant to bring recognition to the works they think deserve. A significant part of their rhetoric is that they believe they have the numbers on their side - they say that the works that win the Hugo are not the most popular ones.
So, if they have the numbers, they could translate it into influence. Make a NotHugo award, figure a nomination and voting process, and run with it. If, indeed, the works they like are the ones that a wider audience would find more deserving, then over time the award will come to be recognized and appreciated.
That seems to me like a considerably more peaceful solution than taunting the Hugo voter crowed and then organizing a hijack of the nominations. It's a peaceful coexistence rather than open conflict.
Do you find this idea flawed or problematic in any way?
So the response is to go and make an entirely new organization, and this is intended to prevent the kind of balkanization that the slates and the SP voting might do? That line of thought also implies that SP supporters 'don't belong there' which is kind of going along with the ethos of the guys who the SP believe have been marginalizing them.
I might be misreading you, but it sounds like 'surrender and run away, this revolution business is causing too much trouble.'
On the arguments of the 'majority' the SP seem to be suggesting there is a quiet, generally indifferent silent majority of sci-fi fans who don't realize how this award is being ground into the dust by crappy nominations (like say 'If you were a dinosaur my love?')
This is a little different from saying 'we...
But there is a group that thinks that "If You Were A Dinosaur My Love" is a great book, and they should be able to just vote for it without concern from others gaming the system. Again, if you think that this group is an annoying minority, then your new awards will swiftly become more prominent.
So, not running away, just choosing the less aggressive of the two ways to acheive the same thing. The Hugos are not the only or even the ultimate awards, and if they are loosing relevancy it is better simply to replace them rather than organize to break them.
Or, if you don't think they are losing relevance, then that means that those who vote for them year after year are not a minority, in which case all you achieve with the confrontational attitude of Sad Puppies is an escalations of the politics surrounding the nomination process, and that next year everyone will be running slates, and the books themselves will become less important than the authors' opinion on gun laws and free speech... and isn't that what you are trying to avoid in the first place?
'I dont discuss religion or politics in polite company'.
I tend to agree, because company that is trying to be polite usually isn't willing to engage I'm spirited debate/discussion. So, it's not nearly as fun.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But there is a group that thinks that "If You Were A Dinosaur My Love" is a great book, and they should be able to just vote for it without concern from others gaming the system. Again, if you think that this group is an annoying minority, then your new awards will swiftly become more prominent.
I again don't believe the SP's are 'gaming' the system at all. They formed a group to vote for a certain shared outcome, without coercion. As a result, I don't see a reason why they should have to abandon the Hugos to the ones who've taken control of it.
I still fail to see how during the normal operation of a voting system, is somehow now more terrible because people are organizing into a bloc. Political parties, the Tea Party, a group of friends who gets together, me telling my friends about how much I like Taco Bell, this is all a part of that.
A voting system is only damaged when it is made coercive, when votes are thrown away illicitly or falsified.
Every voting system in the US I go into my booth and pull a lever. There's probably some guy somewhere else pulling the opposite lever. We aren't irrelevant even if we cancelled out each other's votes. My vote is not rendered useless because there are large parties out there. It simply means that a large group of people have similar thought processes and choose to operate as a group for some stuff.
Let me make a little scenario to try to elucidate.
Imagine that the Paizo forums occasionally get together as a whole and arrange a lunch. The lunch is voted on by Paizo guys, but most of the forum don't pay it too much mind.
Noticing that people in general are relatively easy going, a group gets together behind the scenes and quietly talks amongst themselves.
"We should go to Tofu Extravaganza!"
"Yeah!"
"I love tofu, its the way of the future!"
So for a while, paizoites go to the Tofu Extravaganaza. A few people kind of poke at the tofu. Some try to make the best of it. A few guys are even like, "You know, I wish we had more burgers here.. Tofu's kind of bland."
The guys who say its bland though? The Tofu guys start saying that 'real paizoites like tofu!' and refuse to favorite any of the posts of guys who say they like burgers, or the posts of any guys who say they like the guys who post burgers.
People start to grit their teeth and say they love tofu even if they don't, because they want to be part of the community and see cool stuff like '5 guys Favorited your post.'
So a guy finally gets fed up and makes a thread saying, "To hell with this tofu crap. I say we should go to Heart-Stopper Burger or Chili Catastrophe!"
And a bunch of forumites, previously just going-along-to-get-along look at the tofu menus and and then look at the offerings of Heart-Stopper Burger or Chili Catastrophe (where they go when no other forumites are looking) and say, "Hell yeah! Lets all get together and make sure we end up going to those places instead of Tofu Extravaganza! I thought I was the only one who was tired of soy based food!"
The guys who liked the tofu, and who've been getting the tofu for years, and came to count on their yearly forum sponsored trip to Tofu Extravaganza aren't happy about it and try to sway people by saying that the Burger guys are motivated by 'hate' or 'racism,' since obviously if you dislike tofu you dislike Japanese people (who eat tofu).
The Burger guys point out they don't have a problem with tofu (well that one guy does, he thinks its 'the food of the unclean ones' but they don't talk to that weird a$$ much), they just like burgers better and want to eat tasty food, and on the racist thing, they've got Akira from Akihabara over there with a Godzilla avatar and Kenchiro from Machida (who argues about how monks are awesome) on the forums who don't like tofu either. And ignoring the complaints they receive the Burger guys go on telling people about the places they want to go, and vote on it.
And the tofu guys vote too. But now that the Burger guys realize there are bunches of people who'll favorite their posts and they aren't alone against a monolithic Tofu focused forum, they now feel free to expound on their love of burgers, hot dogs, and even steak tip sandwiches.
Do the Tofu guys feel screwed and disenfranchised by this exchange? Probably. Does it matter? Nope.
Getting together a group of like minded people and trying to vote to change something is how this sort of thing works. The Tofu guys did it. The Burger guys do it. The TOR-backed folks in Nebula did it. And the SPs are doing it.
Its how this sort of thing works.
The major difference is that some people, for reasons I can't fathom, think doing it openly as opposed to through a whisper campaign is somehow gauche.
...
Also I had too much fun writing that, now I want a chili burger. :/
So do I. Also, ^ that pretty much describes how certain internet groups seem to behave... much more accurately than I thought it could. Hm.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I again don't believe the SP's are 'gaming' the system at all. They formed a group to vote for a certain shared outcome, without coercion. As a result, I don't see a reason why they should have to abandon the Hugos to the ones who've taken control of it.
I still fail to see how during the normal operation of a voting system, is somehow now more terrible because people are organizing into a bloc. Political parties, the Tea Party, a group of friends who gets together, me telling my friends about how much I like Taco Bell, this is all a part of that.
A voting system is only damaged when it is made coercive, when votes are thrown away illicitly or falsified.
The group that SP formed to vote for a certain shared outcome has much more power than the sum of its individual components. That means, as have been shown this year, that they could easily prevent works NOT on their slate from being nominated (in some categories more so than others, for example short stories) unless others start rallying behind competing slates.
So if the only option for *everyone* is to use slates, everyone will. And when that happens, the competition will shift from competing books to competing slates. And I don't think anyone seriously thinks that slates aren't correlated with social cliques and political views. So, the entire focus of the awards is less about the books and more about competing factions in the SFF community.
Do you agree that this is a way in which slate voting can cause harm without using coercion or any other explicit illicit behavior?
So if the only option for *everyone* is to use slates, everyone will. And when that happens, the competition will shift from competing books to competing slates. And I don't think anyone seriously thinks that slates aren't correlated with social cliques and political views. So, the entire focus of the awards is less about the books and more about competing factions in the SFF community.
Do you agree that this is a way in which slate voting can cause harm without using coercion or any other explicit illicit behavior?
I don't think it will be as bad as all that. I'm sure that some of the worst racial agitators (such as K. Tempest Bradford, who helped institute literal racial segregation at a SF con) will try to counter Vox Day's "anti-SJW" slate with a slate aiming to exclude white men, but hopefully more independently-minded voters will outnumber them enough that at least some apolitical/moderate works find traction on both sides and make it on the ballot on the strength of the actual writing.
|
|
I don't think it will be as bad as all that. I'm sure that some of the worst racial agitators (such as K. Tempest Bradford, who helped institute literal racial segregation at a SF con) will try to counter Vox Day's "anti-SJW" slate with a slate aiming to exclude white men, but hopefully more independently-minded voters will outnumber them enough that at least some apolitical/moderate works find traction on both sides and make it on the ballot on the strength of the actual writing.So if the only option for *everyone* is to use slates, everyone will. And when that happens, the competition will shift from competing books to competing slates. And I don't think anyone seriously thinks that slates aren't correlated with social cliques and political views. So, the entire focus of the awards is less about the books and more about competing factions in the SFF community.
Do you agree that this is a way in which slate voting can cause harm without using coercion or any other explicit illicit behavior?
Wait, what?!
Did she seriously do this, or are you in some way presenting facts out of context?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it will be as bad as all that. I'm sure that some of the worst racial agitators (such as K. Tempest Bradford, who helped institute literal racial segregation at a SF con) will try to counter Vox Day's "anti-SJW" slate with a slate aiming to exclude white men, but hopefully more independently-minded voters will outnumber them enough that at least some apolitical/moderate works find traction on both sides and make it on the ballot on the strength of the actual writing.So if the only option for *everyone* is to use slates, everyone will. And when that happens, the competition will shift from competing books to competing slates. And I don't think anyone seriously thinks that slates aren't correlated with social cliques and political views. So, the entire focus of the awards is less about the books and more about competing factions in the SFF community.
Do you agree that this is a way in which slate voting can cause harm without using coercion or any other explicit illicit behavior?
Wait, what?!
Did she seriously do this, or are you in some way presenting facts out of context?
At WisCon (I think it's a yearly thing) they have a lounge where white people are not allowed. Admission is explicitly based on skin color. I'm told it skirts anti-discrimination laws because you have to pay to for admission to the con, therefore it doesn't count as "public accomodation."
|
|
Snow, can you go through the ENTIRE list of the SAD Puppies author noms and tell us what cause they represent? If you do, I think you'll find that there are several political points of views, even some people that don't share political views. The WHOLE POINT of the Sad Puppies list was NOT to base nominations on political views, but of DESERVING authors whose works they felt were being ignored by the Hugo...I again don't believe the SP's are 'gaming' the system at all. They formed a group to vote for a certain shared outcome, without coercion. As a result, I don't see a reason why they should have to abandon the Hugos to the ones who've taken control of it.
I still fail to see how during the normal operation of a voting system, is somehow now more terrible because people are organizing into a bloc. Political parties, the Tea Party, a group of friends who gets together, me telling my friends about how much I like Taco Bell, this is all a part of that.
A voting system is only damaged when it is made coercive, when votes are thrown away illicitly or falsified.
The group that SP formed to vote for a certain shared outcome has much more power than the sum of its individual components. That means, as have been shown this year, that they could easily prevent works NOT on their slate from being nominated (in some categories more so than others, for example short stories) unless others start rallying behind competing slates.
So if the only option for *everyone* is to use slates, everyone will. And when that happens, the competition will shift from competing books to competing slates. And I don't think anyone seriously thinks that slates aren't correlated with social cliques and political views. So, the entire focus of the awards is less about the books and more about competing factions in the SFF community.
Do you agree that this is a way in which slate voting can cause harm without using coercion or any other explicit illicit behavior?
It's less about the authors nominated and more about the people nominating. The glue that held the puppies lists together was not that they all thought that Skin Games is an awesome novel (you don't need a slate for that), it's a common set of beliefs. Other people, with other sets of beliefs, are now incentivised to response in kind, and the only way that will work is by rallying an entire social clique to vote together.
So for example, now Jim Butcher is nominated, but there is no way for him to know if that is because his novel was awesome or because a group of people decided that Kameron Hurley is too left wing for them and voted for his novel in their slate, thus blocking her?
And, say that fans of Hurley want to see her nominated next here for her next novel - they might suspect that the only way to get that done would be to find some left-leaning people and incite them to vote for Hurley in droves, because if they don't get organized the Puppies win. Now Hurley gets to doubt if getting nominated was an actual professional accomplishment or a backlash against the Puppies.
|
|
At WisCon (I think it's a yearly thing) they have a lounge where white people are not allowed. Admission is explicitly based on skin color. I'm told it skirts anti-discrimination laws because you have to pay to for admission to the con, therefore it doesn't count as "public accomodation."I don't think it will be as bad as all that. I'm sure that some of the worst racial agitators (such as K. Tempest Bradford, who helped institute literal racial segregation at a SF con) will try to counter Vox Day's "anti-SJW" slate with a slate aiming to exclude white men, but hopefully more independently-minded voters will outnumber them enough that at least some apolitical/moderate works find traction on both sides and make it on the ballot on the strength of the actual writing.So if the only option for *everyone* is to use slates, everyone will. And when that happens, the competition will shift from competing books to competing slates. And I don't think anyone seriously thinks that slates aren't correlated with social cliques and political views. So, the entire focus of the awards is less about the books and more about competing factions in the SFF community.
Do you agree that this is a way in which slate voting can cause harm without using coercion or any other explicit illicit behavior?
Wait, what?!
Did she seriously do this, or are you in some way presenting facts out of context?
Good gods. There is absolutely no excuse for this.