Now, the Hugo award is still, despite the graying of Worldcon and various other things, more or less the most prestigious award in our genre, so it’s not all that surprising that people who are nominated for one will squee a bit on their blogs.
There is, however, a right way and a wrong way to do this. One of the nominees has provided a magnificent example of the wrong way.
It starts well enough with the nominee stating how gratified and stunned they are, and offering links to the nominated work (which, I might add, is well worthy of the nomination despite certain flaws in the assumptions behind the work. I recommend reading it).
So far, so good, right?
The next paragraph brings out the warning signs. First comes what looks on the surface like expressing the desire that the sequence of events – which lead to the piece that generated the nomination – had never occurred. The next paragraph is unremarkable, but then the real fail begins.
Yes, our oh-so-enlightened nominee explicitly links Sad Puppies to Requires Hate, and calls the Sad Puppies campaign “bigotry-driven”. I don’t know about you, but the last time I heard the definition of “bigotry” did not include “wants to see good stories regardless of who wrote them”. Just saying.
Her enlightened self also manages a snide linkage to GamerGate via “it’s all about ethics in Hugo voting”, and – of course – suffers from the delusion that everyone with any kind of connection to Sad Puppies is “extreme right”. I don’t know about you, but I’m certainly not unless you’re looking from a perspective that regards Lenin and Mao as uncomfortably right-wing.
I won’t even dignify the idea that Sad Puppies represents an “attack” on the SF and F community. Let’s see now…
- 2015 (Sad Puppies 3) – 2, 125 nomination ballots cast.
- 2014 (Sad Puppies 2) – 1, 923 nomination ballots cast
- 2013 (Sad Puppies 1) – 1, 343 nomination ballots cast
- 2012 – 1, 101 nomination ballots cast
- 2011 – 1, 006 nomination ballots cast
- 2010 – 864 nomination ballots cast
- 2009 – 639 nomination ballots cast
- 2008 – 483 nomination ballots cast
Prior to 2008 the number of nomination ballots cast hasn’t been kept, and I’ve seen numbers tossed around that use the number of votes cast instead of the number of ballots. Functionally speaking the number of ballots represents the number of people who cast any kind of vote. Most voted multiple times because they voted for more than one item in a category and for multiple categories.
That said, look at the numbers. The initial Sad Puppies was largely a joke. Sad Puppies 2 was the first actual campaign, and the number of people casting ballots jumps by more than five hundred people. That’s 500+ memberships, either supporting or attending, that went to the WSFS. Sad Puppies 3 added another 200-some, which is about in line with the increases year over year in the past – not spectacular, but good, solid membership increases.
Precisely how does “more money for WSFS” translate to “hurting the Hugos”? Oh, yeah. It’s because the wrong people are shelling out their $$ and voting. I might add that the number of people who’ve said, “Wait, I can vote in this? It’s not just for industry insiders?” is bloody amazing.
About the only honest phrase (although the author missed a capitalization) in the second, longer part of the original piece is the comment that with Vox Day and his Ilk you know exactly where they stand. You do. They stand for actual justice, honest communication, and against the name-and-shame-and-peddle-lies bullying of the rabid social justice warriors.
I’m not going to touch the incredibly long set of acknowledgments. The postscripts, however, are worth a giggle. I so love the assumption that Sad Puppy people (which, incidentally, had nothing to do with Vox Day – he ran Rabid Puppies independently of Sad Puppies) will be responsible for the kind of vile behavior Requires Hate engaged/engages in (we won’t even mention that TOR, that bastion of honor – (brief intermission while I cough and spit. Apparently even my sarcasm levels fail sometimes – is dancing around buying Requires Hate again, or so I’ve heard. I’m not sure on that one, so don’t take it as gospel) and will be the architects of the bad behavior she’s giving tips on how to protect oneself against.
Do read them and amuse yourselves however you please. The author’s work on exposing and tracking down RH really is good, despite the flaw in her thinking that sees no issue with RH’s behavior until she started targeting the SJW side of the fence.
And remember, read the nominated works, then vote. Make sure you rank your preferences to make the most of the voting system.
Also, for anyone who would like a truly balanced analysis of the whole matter, Edward Willett has just the thing. Thank you, sir, for the courtesy of actually paying attention to what is being said and giving it an objective review.
I actually knew Requires Hate back in the day. I did some research and found that her alias Winterfox is the same Winterfox that used to pretend to know storytelling techniques while commenting on the D&D-related forum Candlekeep. I abandoned the forum about ten years ago, but if I recall correctly she disappeared first.
It seems likely that they’ll try and rehab her. Tor.com ran one of her stories a few months ago, after her exposure.
She has too many victim points to ignore. I have no idea if her fiction is worth bothering with, but I’m inclined to suspect the answer is “no” based on what I’ve seen of it so far.
I’m mostly tickled that she says this:
Now, this is the same Teresa Nielsen Hayden who banned Brad Torgersen for 24 hours because he didn’t respond to questions quickly enough for her satisfaction, has disemvoweled others who disagreed with her, and has a reputation out there as being an online bully herself.
Yeah, there’s going to be some real productive communication there. /eye roll
But, but…. lecturing to the choir is productive, donchano!
Yeah, they do so like feeling all superior.
It’s a bit like peeing yourself. You get a nice warm feeling for a while but at best nobody else cares and at worst you start smelling kind of bad.
I was about to post that T.L. it’s making a safe area. Of course it’s only safe from everybody except TNH.
And honestly, the only way to create a “safe space” on the internet is with heavy handed moderation. You don’t get meaningful discussion and a safe space at the same time. It just doesn’t happen.
If you have less than 200 participants, it’s pretty easy to have both meaningful discussion (because individual people are more likely to comment) and a safe space (because very few spammers and trolls are interested in low-traffic sites, boards, etc.)
In that case, it’s also pretty easy to wield the ban hammer, delete posts, etc., because you don’t get the swarm stuff. You can get catfights and flamewars, but that’s not super hard.
The hard stuff is when people are dancing the line between PITA and decent information, because you want to give people rope and find out if they will settle down… but not too much rope.
It seems to me that high traffic sites, or low traffic sites that turn into high traffic sites on certain days, are the real moderator challenges.
If you have less than 200 participants,
Isn’t there a term for this? Monkeyspace or something…the upper end when a small community fractures and becomes separate groups?
It has something to do with the number of simultaneous connections a human can handle, I believe. Somewhere between 150 and 200 people stop being able to process the linkage and start subdividing.
Dunbar’s number, believed to be about 150. (Totally messaged a friend who’d know.)
Best way to find information quickly.
Ah, thank you!
Or your very own personal echo chamber nobody else can get into. That’s kind of boring though.
But TNH seems to be into that sort of thing.
This reminds me of my favorite Judith Voirst poem. “Thank you Note”:
“I wanted small pierced earrings – gold.
“You sent me slipper – grey.
“My mother said that she would scold unless I wrote to say how much I liked them.
From the book _If I Were in Charge of the World and Other Worries_
I like it!
Edward Willett did an excellent job, and the haters continued to hate in spite of his well-reasoned approach.
I’m going to vote, which I’ve never done before, just because I had one too many haters whine.
BUT BEFORE I DO!!!!
(A public announcement follows:)
I’m going to READ and REVIEW every one of the nominated items I can get my hands on. I don’t know how long it takes to get the materials after I send my registration in, so I’m going to see if any of them are in KU, or are otherwise available.
I can’t dance, and I’m too fat to fly, but we also serve who only read and review. The reviews will be published on my blog, on Amazon where applicable, and perhaps one other location. I think I’m holding for an official announcement, and maybe some instructions, with respect to the Other Location.
sounds like a plan
An excellent plan indeed. I shall look forward to your reviews.
Historically, it’s taken at least a month and a half to gather it together. Things MIGHT be moving faster this year, but I’m not certain.
One of the things that leapt out at me when accusations were made of “block voting” and people not accepting the wide variance in nominating votes for SP-recommended works as a counter-indication.
I think the implications of it NOT being a block vote are even scarier.
What’s easy to forget is the DELAY cycle.
A lot of people eligible to vote this year voted for the hugs last year – that second jump from 1300-ish to 1900-ish (though likely the vast majority are participating again this year).
And likely most of the remaining 200 or so ware more SP/RB participants.
Arguably, even if 20% or so of the increase since the 1100 in 2012 was non S/RP related, we’ve almost doubled fan participation in the last three years, and over 30% of all current nominees are likely puppy related.
Factoring in that at least some percentage of existing world con voters before that were not beholden to identity politics and nihilism in their stories, and puppies may very well drive the future of the Hugos.
They HAVE to believe it was a minor clique voting a straight ticket – because thinking that 30-50% are voting a NON-block ticket but similar enough tastes that even a couple-hundred vote scatter results in a majority of the hugo noms being stuff puppies like truly means their grasp of this cultural gate is slipping.
Of course they do. The idea that they aren’t in the majority is literally unthinkable.
Or a bunch of them are wasting their nominations on absolute tripe…
Psh, all the more reason for me to continue shilling for Jeffro Johnson! Also, is it just me or did she say that Vox Day was worse than Requires Hate in a sideways kind of way?
Yes, she did. Of course, Vox has a penis, which amplifies his Evil Points.
+2 sceptre of patriarchy
(note to self: do not read Cirsova’s comments unless mouth is empty. Almost doused the keyboard on that one)
Feel free to drop by any time! it’s a laugh a minute over at Cirsova. Or at least it will be once this Hugo drama finally blows over…
Thanks for the shout out. I appreciate the appreciation.
You’re welcome. It’s a pleasant change to see a balanced analysis of the whole affair.
I try. I was a newspaper reporter and then editor in my early career. I’ve always been proud of the fact in my eight years at the newspaper nobody ever complained that I had misquoted them or taken something out of context. (I wish I could say nobody ever complained I’d misspelled their name, but a certain Rev. Ken Bellous who turned into Rev. Bellows, and poor Pastor Remple who became Pastor Ripple would belie that claim… 🙂 )
Making Light has put a lot of work into establishing the tone and “culture” of the “parish” – which is to say, there are voices and opinions which are welcome, and those which are not. Anti-right voices are given far more latitude and support than pro-right voices. That’s their option, but it’s not the same as a open discussion forum. Anyone trying to claim otherwise is incorrect.
Exposing RH/WF was work on the side of the angels. God works in mysterious ways, and has only the warped timber of humanity to build the House.
The person of RH/WF is not her(?) work. We should not conflate the two.
I think that the increase in interest and particpation in the Hugos is AWESOME, but given WoT, London, and the nomination works package, it’s possible to over state the contribution of SP to the increase. We should be proud of ourselves, but we should not sprain our writing hands patting ourselves on the back.
Honestly, I think the increase in interest and participation is the best part of the whole thing. I don’t really care whether it’s due to new SP voters, new RP voters, or new anti-puppy voters. Or even a sudden whim of a collection of random people everywhere.
A public participation award with participation levels like 2008 is a very, very sick award indeed. There should be tens of thousands of nomination ballots and at least as many voting ballots.
The participation numbers are staggeringly low. It’s humiliating for the award to mean so much yet be determined by so few.
On the other hand, they’re useful for argument. Brad currently has just over two thousand Facebook friends. (I shudder to think of what his news feed must look like. I have two hundred and it feels crowded.) If every new nomination this year was due to his campaigning, that’s less than 10% of his friend list.
So we’re not talking about vast hordes of people here. This is actually a natural growth, as every year for the last eight, save for 2014, grew by roughly 200 nominee voters. Brad’s ENTIRE friend list is LARGER than the number of nominee voters this year.
But since when have numbers gotten in the way of a good feel-narrative? It must be true, because there’s a tingle in my heartstrings!
FWIW, Vox’s blogs have just under 50,000 pageviews per day, and 1.6 views/visitor, or about 30,000 visitors a day. 150 – 500 votes to score a nomination is nothing – .5% to 1.6% of the traffic at one site.
Yeah, I know. But then I understand math and statistics.
I know Ed Willett from the Canadian SF scene. He’s a nice guy, and smart.
Both are traits to value.
Wait, they think you are right wing? Sarah and Larry are kinda lefty. You and Brad are left wing extremists.
It is almost like different people assess political positions differently.
Though, you do seem to support rule of law to some degree, and have some agreements with the cultural consensus underlying the American form of government. Maybe that is right wing in some eyes?
Some eyes think Comrade Mao was right wing. So yeah…
Rule of law matters. So does *everyone* regardless of rank or any other attribute being subject to said law (or it ain’t a law, it’s a recommendation). Apparently this makes me a rabid right-wing Mormon male (that was news to my husband, I can tell you).
Thank you for sharing these Kate. 🙂
I read both articles.
The nicest thing I can say about the first one is that I saw two lies and at least one instance of sloppy work. It makes me suspicious. If the writer is lying there, where else are they lying? Such details, suspicions, could hurt them when the Feline starts filling out her final ballot.
On the second one – – I left a comment, even though the post was several days old.
My thoughts (excepted from the above referenced comment): I have been a fan of SF/F for over 40 years but now some are saying that my voice, and others like me, should not count because we registered for World Con for the first time this year; that we are the wrong kind of fan because we do not go to conventions. Some are saying we are wrong-headed (or worse) just because we like writers that they hate. I say to them – you’re wrong. This sand-box is big enough for all of us. My love of SF is no less than yours simply because I cannot make it to the conventions. My love is no less because I was ignorant until this year. My love is no less than yours simply because I may like a different kind of SF. My love is no less than yours and I have as much right to my voice as you do.
On the difference between what Mr. Scalzi did a few years ago and what Brad did this year: (I followed a link back and saw the post, so this is not just hearsay.) In *my opinion*, what was done by Mr. Scalzi was simply blowing his own trumpet. –Look at me, vote for me, type stuff.– I perceive that kind of behavior as “Campaigning”. What Brad did was collect stories, taking some suggestions from his friends and fans, and post them for all to see. He posted a recommended reading list – which I will add did not contain any of his own works – and encouraged his fans to read those works; to vote for them if they found them worthy. In my opinion, what Brad did was more acceptable, it was less about him, and more about the quality of the work.
In all honestly, if someone like myself, an unknown, put together something like Sad Puppies, it would have gone unnoticed except by a small handful of people. We all share stories, books, art, websites, we like and we encourage our friends to check them out – and if there are awards coming up, we encourage them to vote for those stories, books, art, websites.
I come from the opposite side of this argument, and I have to say that it’s interesting (and a little sad) how people see things differently. Is it really is your honest belief that there are people in the SFF fandom who think you shouldn’t be able to nominate and vote for whatever you enjoy, because you have a different taste or don’t go to conventions or registered for Worldcon membership for the first time this year? I can assure you that 99% of people in the fandom don’t feel that way, most likely 99,9%.
Slate voting is the issue. By voting tactically, a smallish minority managed to hack the Hugo nomination phase and take away all other voters’ possibility of getting anything they nominated on the ballot in numerous categories. People are very upset about this, and I think they should be.
I’m sure you or other readers of this blog don’t look at this the same way. Hopefully, this message doesn’t seem rude, because I don’t wish to insult anybody. I just want to try to communicate some of the fandom sentiment that I feel is (perhaps intentionally) misread among the Sad Puppy crowd.
You use words like “hack” to describe a process that was done according to the rules as written, then wonder if your post sounds rude?
You accuse us of intentionally trying to muscle out all other nominations when we simply nominated the number of nominations permitted with no real expectation that so many would make it, and wonder if your post sounds rude.
Either you are oblivious, or you knew you were sounding rude and just didn’t care.
I don’t want to be rude. I tried to explain why I feel that what the Rabid/Sad Puppy campaign accomplished was very very questionable, as non-confrontationally as I could.
I’ve seen you all over the place, trying to “explain” to us how what we did completely within the rules is “questionable” and I want to say I’ve seen you use the verb “hack” to describe completely aboveboard efforts as well. In case you haven’t figured it out, we disagree. We disagree. If we had considered it questionable, we wouldn’t have done it.
Here’s a tip for you. We did it. We’re probably going to do it again next year. Frankly, the wailing and gnashing of teeth is making me tingly all over.
So, you can stop trying to tell us how horrible we are when you’re not telling us we’re deluded because what we’re seeing out of our opponents isn’t really happening and then pretending any rudeness is purely accidental.
I know you disagree. Then we can discuss how things can go forward, in case you are done telling me how pleased you are that you have pissed off people you don’t agree with politically and aesthetically.
Something being possible by the rule book doesn’t mean it’s not questionable. Forming political parties in a vote for best works art is a bad idea and disrupts the whole system. The nomination statistics show how concentrated the RP/SP votes were, so convincing me about the fact that there was no significant slate-voting and everybody just named their own favorites is going to take some effort. I’m sure everybody didn’t do it and maybe you and everybody else in this blog didn’t do it, but a big enough group surely did.
Nobody can stop you doing SP4 next year, probably, but in case the majority of Worldcon members is not happy with your tactics, there’s going to be a rule change for 2017 and the nominations phase will be made more resistant to gaming by organized blocs. I’m not sure that “sticking it to the SJWs” (or whatever) and rule changes are the best way celebrate best SFF of the year.
Nah. I’m not in the talking mood, unless it’s talking about all the people libeling good, decent people who had the temerity to simply disagree. I’ve seen you going all over the damn internet, lecturing us on how we’re oh-so-wrong for what we did (when none of us figured it would work out like this either), and I’m not interested in discussing anything with you. Not until I see you call out the people on your side for accusing Larry and Brad of being racists, misogynists, and whatever kind of -ists they can come up with.
I’ll discuss it until then, but not with you and not with anyone who thinks libelous accusations leveled against good men who simply disagree is acceptable. Frankly, even if your next post was to decry these tactics, you’ve started off here on the wrong foot and I have no interest in a meaningful dialog with you.
For years, we’ve watched books we can’t stand get celebrated. We’ve watched writers be celebrated because of their sexual organs or their skin pigmentation, when all we care about are good books. Write a book with a story that appeals to me, and I won’t care about anything else, but I’ve been lectured over and over how I need to be more “diverse” in my reading tastes. Yeah, because when you’re dyslexic and ADHD, you can just override the desire to toss a book that tells you how much you suck as a human being for the sake of “diversity”.
So, we did something about it. WE GOT BOOKS WE LIKED NOMINATED. Don’t like it? Tough. Welcome to our world for the past twenty years or so, when the odd book we enjoyed got some recognition, but the trend was to “stick it” to people like us.
No, you’re not going to get any sympathy here. They’re going to change the rules? So. I really don’t care at this point. We’ll do it again, but we’ve also proven our point a couple times over now. Changing the rules will actually just show once again that you just can’t let the wrong people win Hugo’s.
And now I know you’re lying. The nomination statistics have NOT been released, and WILL NOT be released until August.
Or is it possible you’ve seen them? No, of course not. That would be breaking the rules, and TruFans have NEVER leaked the Hugo results before!
All that’s been released are very, very vague numbers that tell you absolutely nothing, such as who got how many votes.
They deliberately do not release the data until AFTER the results are announced, because that tells everyone how popular a particular work was. It can influence someone who wants to vote with the crowd, or who wants to see a particular work lose. I think it’s a wise move.
The only statistic that is released right now is how many valid ballots were received according to which medium.
The numbers I was talking about was a breakdown of male/female voting by category, stuff like that.
Absolutely useless data for seeing if a slate had significant impact in the voting, much less how much it may have skewed things.
Based on the variations in voting numbers across categories, despite the presence of Sad Puppies nominees in these categories, tells me that only a small portion of voters went straight slate (if any actually did).
“Forming political parties in a vote for best works art is a bad idea and disrupts the whole system”
Which was the entire point of the Sad Puppies campaign. Which you keep trying to “explain” away.
Hack: The Wrong People followed the rules and won so they must have cheated.
Gosh, if you don’t want to be rude and non-confrontational, why don’t you start by showing some respect for our intelligence, and cease the tactic of lumping Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies together? We aren’t stupid. We know that you are doing that because Vox Day is an easy target. He creates that persona because it makes sense to him to do it. That’s a primary reason why he wasn’t a part of Sad Puppies 3.
And by the way, your emails to multiple blogs have had a measure of success: as a direct result of your persistence, I made the decision to pay my $40 so I could vote.
And also by the way: is it just a rumor that you, personally, endorsed Pol Pot’s murder of 1.5 million Cambodian women, calling them ‘statist pariahs and enemies of the progressive movement,’ or did I just make that up in order to manufacture a link between you and Pol Pot?
And do you still deny that the United States Armed Forces have made great contributions to the cause of freedom world-wide? Because you DID deny that, earlier, although the Pol Pot thing I just made up.
Gee, Pat, why don’t you tell us what you REALLY feel!
Having more voters is good. Welcome onboard!
For me, Rabid Puppies and Sad Puppies do seem like a concerted effort that was split in two for the obvious purpose of avoiding backlash against Vox Day’s persona. There’s overlapping lists, Day talking about “we” doing SP4 next year, Brad Torgersen defending Day in his blog, similar dog batches etc. etc., so convincing me otherwise will take some effort. I don’t think everybody involved with SP agrees with Beale about much of anything, but it’s hard to see SP and RP as completely separate.
What my personal politics have to do with this, I don’t know. In my opinion, military solutions have rarely brought about peace, stability or positive change, but I guess we’re drifting off-topic.
“an inexcusably silly idea — a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”
-Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.)
Nope. Not drifting, just keeping you talking long enough, until you show your true colors.
You have no new information for me. You persist in being a weasel at 30,000 feet: you know it’s inevitable that you will hit the ground, but you are hoping to be sucked into a jet engine on the way, so you can do the maximum damage. Please feel free to re-engage if you should come up with any NEW approach, but someone else will have to reply, since “a fool does not seek wisdom, but only delights in revealing her own mind.” You had one chance to make a first impression, and you blew it. Your smarmy claims that you don’t mean to be rude are pathetic. Feel free to visit the snack bar. Perhaps you will find someone who is willing to listen to your drivel, but I have seen no evidence that you have done anything other than play the same song, over and over. I personally find it tiresome.
Oh my! A split-off campaign that isn’t 100% different from the original? HOW CAN IT BE THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE SIMILAR TASTES?
Also, you’re cute to think that the military isn’t in the business of bringing about peace.
Military solutions have rarely brought about peace, stability, or positive change? I don’t know where you got your history from, but military solutions are usually the only thing to bring about peace, stability, and positive change – because without the organized and hopefully strategically applied violence of military action, peaceful people are left hoping the bandits will leave them alone or paying ever-increasing amounts of Danegeld.
Now, if you can be so utterly delusional about how real problems get solved, you’re going to have to do more than offer platitudes if you want people to treat your arguments with respect.
Well, I was thinking more about US armed forces that were thrown at me than the general concept of enforcing rule of law and keeping the bandits away. It’s debatable whether, for example, war in Iraq has brought about peace, stability and positive change.
Debates about the utility of military force generally end up adhering to Godwin’s Law sooner rather than later, and even allusions to Chamberlain are sub-helpful. Perhaps another analogy…when in a boat, both changing course and maintaining ones heading have costs and benefits. A wise shipmaster will consider both, but then commit to one or the other, rather than trying to get the best parts of both.
When, exactly, were U.S. armed forces ‘thrown at you’.
DRAVEN!!! KATE SAID THE SUBJECT WAS CLOSED!!!!
And i didn’t read that for about ten minutes after i made that reply, sorry.
Uhh, it was easier to quote Starship Troopers 😀
just like the ‘lifehacks’ that consist of using something exactly as it was intended…
” By voting tactically, a smallish minority managed to hack the Hugo nomination phase and take away all other voters’ possibility of getting anything they nominated on the ballot in numerous categories. ”
I encourage you to read the history of Sad Puppies 1 and 2. Because many of us feel exactly the same way about how a small group of people did the same thing before Sad Puppies came along. The difference being Sad Puppies does everything in the open, and by encouraging more people to become eligible to vote. Sure, the suggested list of nominees helped Sad Puppies work. Speaking only for myself, I looked at the suggestions and said “hmm, yes that one is good, nope, that one left me cold, oh, they forgot about *that* one.” And for the record, nobody paid me a dime. I voted in pre-Sad Puppies Hugo nominations too. You know what? If I was the only one to nominate a work it didn’t make the cut. That’s life. It wasn’t anyone “taking away” anything from me, they were making their own nominations, and they had more on their side than mine.
Anyone, including you, can make up a list of suggested Hugo nominees. I encourage this, because it isn’t easy to keep track of all the eligible works and read them ahead of the nomination deadline. The real revolution is not the Sad Puppies nominees, it is the teeming throng of people who suddenly realized their power to nominate. Whatever nominee they choose. Isn’t that a good thing?
No single group has dominated the Hugo nominations to this extent ever before, so I don’t think it’s business-as-usual. Of course, some of everybody’s favorites are always left out and there’s nothing wrong with that. A slate completely sweeping whole categories makes it impossible for everything that is not on the slate to make it. The Hugo nomination system is designed that way, and your campaign showed that it most likely should be changed. As is, 15-20% of voters can decide 80-90% of the ballot, if they’re organized enough. I guess that you too can see why this might not be the best way to nominate works.
In the previous comments, I mentioned nomination statistics and tactical voting patterns we can see there, so I don’t go into it again. I aplaud you for nominating only your own favorites.
Groups of fans who know each other through shared fandom that might have overlapping tastes in what they think is good fiction worthy of “science fiction’s most prestigious award”? CONSPIRACY. That’s the only explanation! They can’t be real fans!
Correction. No single group willing to state openly that the Hugos are for anyone who wants to pay the money to vote and offer suggestions on what to vote for. In case you hadn’t noticed, this is the first year since the inception of the Best Editor (Long Form) category that hasn’t had two Tor nominees. Are you going to tell me that ALL the Tor editors are that much better than every other editor in the field? Are you going to tell me that PNH actually deserves every last one of his nominations over every other editor in the field?
Puh-lease. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
“Is it really is your honest belief that there are people in the SFF fandom who think you shouldn’t be able to nominate and vote for whatever you enjoy, because you have a different taste or don’t go to conventions or registered for Worldcon membership for the first time this year?”
Yes! I have seen the blogs and the comments. For this fan, it is hard to miss.
“Slate voting is the issue.”
Another misinterpretation. Yes, Brad posted a list. Yes, he encouraged people to read from that list. He also says to nominate *IF* we agreed. It was understood that the unspoken/unwritten conclusion was to nominate something else if we did not agree. We understood that. It is a shame that so many others did not. The fact that many of us did not follow the list, that we added our own suggestions, should be proof, but I fear it will not be. If fact, I have yet to hear *anyone* say that the followed that list to the exact letter.
“a smallish minority…”
I’m not so sure we’re as small as you seem to think. 😉
“I just want to try to communicate some of the fandom sentiment that I feel is (perhaps intentionally) misread …”
No misread here, intentional or otherwise. I get why those opposed to us are unhappy. You feel cheated. Just like we did last year when some people were bragging, crowing, that the awards went to writers who were other than white male – implying that they were voted on based on what the author was, not the quality of the work.
I am tired of mind-numbing, uninspiring, bland, stories; stories that bludgeon us over the heads with messages. I want less stories like “The Badges of Her Grief” (which came across to this reader as Humans = bad.) and more like “Blue Ribbon” (which this reader sees as inspiring, with courage and perseverance we can survive). [Both of these stories are in the March 2015 issue of Analog Magazine, I invite you to read them.]
Yes! I have seen the blogs and the comments. For this fan, it is hard to miss.
I’m sorry to hear that you feel that way. I am sure that is not the overal sentiment in the fandom or even in the Making Light community, though. Heated discussions have their drawbacks and it’s a shame.
The fact that many of us did not follow the list, that we added our own suggestions, should be proof, but I fear it will not be. If fact, I have yet to hear *anyone* say that the followed that list to the exact letter.
The nomination statistics have been published and the ranges are what they are. There were enough people behind the slate to short-circuit the whole Hugo nomination process, even if everybody didn’t vote exactly the same way.
I’m not so sure we’re as small as you seem to think. 😉
Maybe not. It will be interesting to see the final vote results. 🙂
No misread here, intentional or otherwise. I get why those opposed to us are unhappy. You feel cheated. Just like we did last year…
Hmm, do you feel that the results last year were not what they should have been? Or that people who were happy about them behaved badly?
<I am tired of mind-numbing, uninspiring, bland, stories; stories that bludgeon us over the heads with messages.
That’s what I’ve been hearing a lot from the SP crowd. I’ve not yet really understood what exactly was so messagey about Ancillary Justice, Equiod, Lady Astronaut of Mars or The Water That Falls On You From Nowhere (last year’s Hugo winners). Only one of these four works was my own first choice in its category, so I don’t think they were hands-down the best works there, but I don’t recognize them as messagey fiction in any way. Do you feel these works are mind-numbing, uninspiring and bland?
“I’m sorry to hear that you feel that way.”
Feel that way? FEEL?!? Saying I “felt” we were being targeted, dismissed, is the kind of tactics used by schoolyard bullies, saying their victims “misunderstood” the comment, that they were only kidding. No, I’m sorry I don’t “feel” anything. I saw it with my own eyes. They did, in fact, say that. Saying “Sorry you feel that way” is a backhanded non-apology – an insult.
Gee, I wonder how you knew where I saw it?
“do you feel that the results last year were not what they should have been? Or that people who were happy about them behaved badly?”
In a word – YES.
“I’ve not yet really understood what exactly was so message…”
Oddly, the people who respond on a subconscious level usually don’t notice the message. I’ll bet that you don’t see the “humans = bad” message that I saw in “The Badges of Her Grief”.
“Do you feel these works are mind-numbing, uninspiring and bland?”
Of what I have seen, Yes. And the less said about “If You Were a Dinosaur …” the better.
Saying I “felt” we were being targeted, dismissed, is the kind of tactics used by schoolyard bullies, saying their victims “misunderstood” the comment, that they were only kidding.
I’ve seen some angry and harsh rhetoric here and there, but I don’t think there’s been any deliberate attack on “wrongfans” or anything. If you feel you are targeted in Making Light, I’m pretty sure you could point it out there and the result would be a meaningful conversation. In my experience, it’s an inclusive community.
Oddly, the people who respond on a subconscious level usually don’t notice the message. I’ll bet that you don’t see the “humans = bad” message that I saw in “The Badges of Her Grief”.
I don’t have access to Analog, so I can’t comment on that story. (Do liberal people think that humans = bad?)
If you read the winners last year, can you specify what ideologically objectionable there was in Charles Stross’s Equoid, for example? That’s the most unpolitical story I can think of — a slightly humoristic adventure with a Cthulhoid unicorn. Based on the posts in Brad Torgersen’s blog, I would have thought that that was exactly what Sad Puppies wanted.
Ancillary whatever. Touted – and sold – as “post human”, “post binary-gender”, people raving about how “original” it was when (among others) Ursula le Guin did it better 30-some years ago, and (I think, it’s a LONG time since I last read a lot of these) Asimov handled the “non-binary gender” thing with a good story even better way back in the damn 50s. (details may be off – like I said it’s a LONG time).
The Stross piece I could barely start the thing and found it boring. Ditto most of the other contenders.
And the less said about “If you were a Dinosaur” the better, because it wasn’t SF/F, it wasn’t good, and it sure as hell wasn’t unpolitical.
Adding my .02 to Kate’s commentary.
The use of a recognized, gender specific, pronoun, after saying that the culture didn’t identify genders, comes across as a cheep trick. The author would have gotten the point across just as well if they had invented their own pronoun.
“If you feel you …”
Still with the “you feel” line. There is no feeling anything. I saw the comments by Teresa Neilson-what’s her name and now Moshe Feder (?) saying point blank that people like me are not fans. I don’t have the links handy, but I am sure one of the other folks here can pull them up if you insist. Oh, and folks have tried to call those enlightened people out to no avail. To them WE ARE NOT FANS. Do not try to act like it did not happen or that those of us the comments were directed at misunderstood the speakers. We understood them loud and clear.
So can the “I’m sorry you feel that way” line. As I said, that is not an apology. It is a passive/aggressive attempt to make the victim (in this case fans like myself) apologize for being hurt. It is, in fact, an insult. Now, you can either learn for this, or not. Your choice.
“Do liberal people think that humans = bad?”
Not all, obviously, but enough that I noticed a pattern and I am not given to noticing that kind of stuff. No, I am not kidding. There are plenty of ‘we have to protect the animals/aliens/planet from the evil human’ stories out there.
“…specify what ideologically objectionable”
It isn’t an objection to a certain ideology. It is the act of putting the message in there when it really doesn’t need to be. Like the one I saw tonight that added in something about the ocean levels rising to the point that an entire island sunk – it was not really relevant to the story. It was a not too subtle reference to AGW by the author. The story would have been fine without, the author inserted it to make some sociopolitical commentary. It is Crap like that that I object to.
I see, but the thing I was wondering was that what was messagey in Stross’s Equoid, specifically? Your previous comment said that it puts message in front of story. What message do you feel that is?
“Your previous comment said that it [Stross’s Equoid] puts message in front of story.”
No. I said “what I have seen”. I made mention of no title. You put the title in.
You have now surpassed my patience. If someone else here wishes to converse with you, that is for them to decide. I am calling a halt to your passive/aggressive game.
“The nomination statistics have been published and the ranges are what they are.” You continue lying.
Also, go read Making Light sometime. If you are really so confident about the content, then you’re in for a shock. But then, you’re a proven liar, so you no doubt already know exactly what we’re talking about.
“The nomination statistics have been published and the ranges are what they are. There were enough people behind the slate to short-circuit the whole Hugo nomination process, even if everybody didn’t vote exactly the same way.”
So for the last few decades fans of one type of science fiction dominated the nomination process. Occasional massive best sellers could overcome their biases like what the Harry Potter fans managed one year. Now thanks to voter drive efforts enough fans of other kinds of SF joined to push the balance of nomination domination the other way.
If you accept that it wasn’t a slate, but rather people with different tastes voting for what they think was the best, who happened to agree with brad enough that they thought some of his suggestions were actually the best, then the only complaint you’re left with is that there are too many people who like different kinds of science fiction.
If you boil down the various complaints, that’s usually the core of it. Some people dress it up in prettier rhetoric than others; that’s all.
I respect the (relative handful) of left-leaning folk saying “Stop frothing. You lost at your own game. Get over it and do better next time.” They’re at least being honest.
Spacefaringkitten, just to be absolutely clear here, you are talking about the campaigns mentioned by George R. R. Martin, right? And of course the now notorious TNH Making Light comment yes?
Not to mention Entertainment Weekly’s unseemly rapid backpedal after making ridiculous false accusations (I’m not going to dignify them with a link) that were both actionable libel and refutable by one of the links published in the article itself.
Could you perhaps add an explanation of how publishing a set of recommendations and an exhortation to read and vote for those you consider worthy is less ethical than the antics Martin describes?
I’d really be fascinated to see that argument, not least because I have difficulty believing anyone with honest intentions could contort the facts that way.
What Martin describes is a couple of writers and their friends agreeing to nominate something. It may be a problematic, but it’s small-scale, its effect is very limited and there’s no way you can tell for sure when that’s happening. There’s also very little you can do about it, because policing writers’ private communications is not possible (or desirable).
Are Rabid Puppies and Sad Puppies, with 300 voters nominating some of the same works, the same thing, then? I don’t think so, no.
One badly-phrased comment in Making Light in a thread of hundreds is not a proof that everybody (or anybody) in the fandom thinks you have no right to be here and say and vote what you like. If you read all Teresa Nielsen Hayden’s comments in that thread and the next, you’ll get a better picture of what she thinks. And whatever her thoughts are, the majority SFF fans don’t necessarily think alike.
The EW article I haven’t read. There’s much mud-slinging in the other direction as well in Breitbart and other outlets, but bad journalism is bad journalism and I don’t want to defend that.
In my opinion, there are some legitimate reasons for being critical of the Puppy thing. I enjoyed Matthew David Surridge’s long and detailed article myself.
@Spacekitten – Attempting to dismiss 10 + hit pieces in both mainstream media and specific fan/sff pieces with “oh Breitbart is bad too” does you no credit what so ever. Here is the original: https://archive.today/0NH1i
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Some person who would like to think that they’re on your side sent a press release out to those media venues, full of the lies you see there. Telegram was nearly as bad, but they did a better job of revising their hit piece.
Rational, logical, decent, ADULT people who disagree with each other don’t do this. (The Black Gate author was a model of polite disagreement on principles of world view, making it clear why he got nominated in the first place.) If you didn’t send those press releases out, then you can’t be held responsible for it. But there has been no signs at all of an outcry from the anti-SP side that this was unethical and abhorrent. And this happened THIS WEEK.
Speaking just for myself – this is what pushed me over into full Puppy support.
Okay, I read it. Calling Torgersen or Correia racists is bad thinking and reporting that as a fact is bad journalism. We agree on this.
And sending that false, defaming information out to numerous non-fannish media sites was a despicable escalation of the inter-fandom squabble, and crossed a line no one had even approached before. Do we agree on this?
Or will we operate under the assumption that because no one will admit to collusion in the distribution of information, that there was none?
Of course sending false and defaming information is despicable. Who on Earth would disagree? I don’t have any idea about how the information was distributed. The twitterstorm was quite public, on the other hand, and some medias (such as the Guardian) have been paying attention to Hugos and previous Sad Puppy controversies, so I don’t think the whole thing was going to stay under reporters’ radar either. But maybe someone did send some false information to media sites. Probably we will never know what happened exactly.
Who would disagree? Whoever sent it, for a start, and those who continue to quote it knowing that it’s false and libelous.
The “Breitbart and other outlets” articles don’t lie. It’s kind of amusing. People on the Sad Puppies side of the fence are getting angry over lies. People on the other side are getting angry over facts.
It’s completely disingenuous to claim that TNH’s views aren’t reflected by the majority of SFF fans when she is married to Tor’s top editor and he is supporting her, particularly in light of Tor’s long history of disproportionate numbers of Hugo nominations and wins.
The fact remains: whether by conspiracy or simply the groupthink effect of a number of like-minded individuals, a faction of Tor editors and authors have had an effective stranglehold on the Hugo awards for years. That faction is now throwing a fit and spreading lies because just once – once – they got shut out.
If they had responded by encouraging people to buy memberships and vote for nominations and award winners, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Instead they tried to spread the lie that Sad Puppies excluded women and ethnic minorities (you only have to look at the original “slate” – actually Brad’s list of recommendations – to see that’s a lie), that everyone supporting the Sad Puppy campaign is a misogynist, bigoted, old white male (which I guarantee you was news to my husband and me), that the campaign is all about hatred (no, it’s all about a fair go for ALL eligible authors, not just the ones in the “cool authors” clique) and so forth.
The fact remains: whether by conspiracy or simply the groupthink effect of a number of like-minded individuals, a faction of Tor editors and authors have had an effective stranglehold on the Hugo awards for years.
An effective stranglehold?
Take the best novel category (that’s likely the only one that has any importance sales-wise). During the four last years, books published by Tor have been nominated for Hugo as many times as Sad Puppies’ favorite publisher Baen books. Both have three noms out of 20. Orbit has more nominations than Tor and Baen combined. One of the three Tor books was The Wheel of Time, which was strongly supported by Sad Puppies. This year Tor really cashed it in and managed to get two books on the shortlist — other one of them is Anderson’s The Dark Between the Stars.
Note the use of “faction”. Now look at the nominees for best editor (long form) and best novel starting from 2012.
The same names keep showing up, and no, those names are not worthy of that many nominations. The faction that’s been running the Hugos like their personal fiefdom (and you are delusional if you think the wailing and beating of breasts on Making Light is anything other than lamenting the loss of a little fiefdom) promotes their favorites ruthlessly and badmouths anyone else.
Since you refuse to accept that this is the case when people across the political and ideological spectrum can see it, the topic is now closed. I could quote numbers and facts at you all day and you’d keep denying them.
In regard to “Is it really is your honest belief that there are people in the SFF fandom who think you shouldn’t be able to nominate and vote for whatever you enjoy, because you have a different taste or don’t go to conventions or registered for Worldcon membership for the first time this year?”
Please read the postings and comments over here http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/016199.html#016199
As far as I can tell, they are saying exactly this, that they want to “fix the problem” that people nominated stuff they didn’t like. They are discussing how to control and limit the nomination phase. That’s really hacking the nomination phase and taking away the right of the voters to get anything they want on the ballot.
They want to fix the problem in the current system that lets an organized voting bloc to sweep whole categories fairly easily. There are a number of solutions for that problem.
Some of them involve making the shortlist longer in case of a unified voting bloc, for example. Were that in use this year, some highest ranking works that the Puppies blocked off the list would have been added there. Do you object to something like that or see it as a hack?
There are other possibilities being discussed too, of course. It will be interesting to see what kind of proposal they come up with, if any.
Many years ago, I ran various maintenance efforts. One of the first steps in responding to problem reports always was to make sure there really was a problem there. As far as I can tell, the problem in this case is being assumed, and people are busily sketching out solutions such as limiting the nominations to a small, select group. Clearly welcoming the growth In participation? It certainly doesn’t seem like it to me.
There’s a lot of ideas thrown around. One is having six spots on the ballot and limiting the number of works a voter can nominate to four. That wouldn’t really hurt anybody either and would somwhat reduce the power of any slate there is.
You didn’t address the problem inherent in slate-voting on a very large field of candidates. You don’t think that’s a problem?
There’s no one way to decide what ballot is a ballot where “voters got what they wanted in there”, because that can be defined in many ways. The same applies to the final vote with the Australian transferable vote system: a work that gets most #1 ranks can lose, and you could perhaps argue that that’s wrong, too. Under a different system, there would be another set of winners.
Except if you actually read what is being posted at ML, people *are* saying that “this isn’t an election, it’s a judgement of quality, and there is a right answer, and this process is broken because it didn’t give us the right answer.”
I don’t think your summary of the discussion is justified.
Here’s a quote:
Hugo nominations, and even the voting are really supposed to be a survey, not a vote. Indeed, one cause of this problem is the SP treated this as an election (where political parties are common) and not as a survey (where they entirely invalidate the survey.)
I think there’s some merit in laying it out like that.
So the threats, lies, libels, and other nastiness from those making this kind of complaint (such as at Making Light) are justified? Really?
If you think that we have nothing more to discuss.
the voting are really supposed to be a survey
…as a person with some background in conducting research, I really hope they did not mean that seriously. This was an exceptionally inept means of ‘surveying’ even just WorldCon members on their opinions for the best works.
Had they said ‘straw poll’, it would be far more accurate, and less laughable.
I stand by what I said – the results were rejected not on the grounds of the process, but on the grounds of the results. Which is lousy reasoning in politics even as in science.
Tangentially relevant. I just looked at Mr. Willett’s books on his site.
Curses, it looks like I have even more titles to add to my “need to find/get and read” list. That Shards of Excalibur series looks exciting. -sigh- Does this list ever end? 😉
“Does this list ever end? ”
Would you *really* want to live in a world where it did?
-eyes dwindling bank account-
Never. In some cases it loops through the time-space continuiuinuum things and starts reading itself.
I find it hilariously tragic how much Gamergate as become the delusional equivalent of the Dragon from Excalibur for so many people:” A beast of such power, that if you were to see it whole and all complete in a single glance, it would burn you to cinders.”
“It is everywhere, it is everything.”
For god sake, they just like to play videogames, they are not the illuminati.
Sad puppies would have happened with our without GG not because of GG, but because some people kept doing the internet equivalent of ” not touching you”, and now it is sadness all around.
What I have a problem with is this:
“The attacks have had a serious and demoralizing impact on a range of people who either are themselves vulnerable or marginalized, or else who read and/or write stories in diverse settings or with characters from diverse communities. In other words, the people harmed have been the very ones we want to nurture, promote, and elevate—and note, who often share the views and are even some of the same people as those under attack by the Sad Puppies.”.
You see, THAT is NOT who I want to nurture, promote and elevate. I want GOOD writers nurtured, promoted, elevated and awarded! I could care less what sex, race, sexual orientation, or political affiliation they are. Hell, I love Lee and Millers work, and would love to see them get a Hugo, and I would bet money we disagree on 70 percent of the issues facing us today. Eric Flint too, I read everything he writes, and me and him could probably have shouting matches about the utility of unions. The list goes on and on, but they all have one thing in common. They can write a story that grabs you and just won’t let go. They deserve my vote, for the content of their work, not their personal lives and beliefs, to shamelessly crib from the Reverend.
Amen to that. I don’t mind if there’s message but it damn well better be wrapped in a story that I enjoy with characters I can empathize with. If I want to be lectured at or harangued, I’ll go to a lecture or one of those ranty sermons.
MODERATOR!! I CALL UPON YOUR AWESOME POWERS!!!
I got up this morning, and discovered that overnight, spacefaringkitten had tossed in several more posts. She is not changing her position one iota, merely restating it. Can there not be an end to this? There are many, many blogs where she can write. Must her work appear tiresomely on this blog? Please? Every time she makes the same blah blah blah, One or more of the MGC try ONE LAST TIME to point out her error, and describing the position of SP3. This, in my opinion, no longer has any value; it’s become a Monty Python skit on arguing.
Have we no recourse? The Mad Genius Club is where I discovered I could provide a service to the community by reading and reviewing books by MGC members and fans. In recent days, with the encouragement of Sarah, Amanda, and Cedar, I may have stumbled on a technique that could easily multiply the audience for reviews of your books by 5 – 10 times what I’m getting now. Certainly, we encourage the free exchange of ideas here; BUT when any person repeats the same blather over and over again, MUST we be forced to listen to it? Sanctions. Please. PLEASE!
If there’s a policy I violated, I’m sorry. I tried to separately answer a number of comments people had made to my previous comments in a constructive way.
Spacefaringkitten, you’ve stated your point several times, with much repetition. That’s enough for this post, please. I’m sure this topic will come up frequently on multiple blogs between now and August as people do more research into proposed rules changes, previous voting/survey patterns and the like, and you’ll have more than enough opportunity to discuss the matter again.
Hi Pat. I’m not an official moderator, but thus far SpaceFaringKitten has not violated any of the TOS yet.
Unfortunately, annoying the crap out of me isn’t a violation of the TOS here, and that’s about the worst she’s done. While she might be a concern troll, she’s a skillful one if that’s the case. So far, nothing that should be acted upon.
She’s either actively lying about the nomination statistics being released or she’s seen statistics and violated the rules. Either way, she’s trollish. Polite trolls are still trolls.
No argument, but I feel she needs to cross the line before the ban hammer comes out.
Not my playground, and I doubt she’ll show up at mine, so it’s not my call either way.
Oh, I wasn’t arguing that she should be banned. My tolerance level is usually set to just shy of Brad’s. (Because I’m an intolerant statist like that.)
Matt – Brad’s cussing and throwing around shade this morning. Where does that leave you? 🙂
More generally – I think SFK’s been annoyingly difficult to shake from ker position, but where I come from, stubbornness goes on the virtue side of the column. And SFK *is* trying to engage in several places, which I know is very wearing on the nerves. IANAM, but I didn’t see anything that would have warranted a banhammer, or even the suggestion of one.
Like I said, I wasn’t suggesting it. I was just confirming trollishness.
As for Brad cussing, well, I’m the son of a sailor. 🙂 (USN officer, but still.)
I was more commenting on my shock at BT’s crankiness this morning. Not that I don’t think he has reason.
(I’m a bit confused on ‘troll’ – to me, the word means more of a “say things with the goal of annoying people” rather than “repeating ones self repeatedly.” Do other people use it differently?)
It is even more annoying when the troll “repeats the same garbage over and over”.
It can be a mild annoyance when a poster talks about the “same thing over and over” but it may not reach troll levels.
There’s a “not-a-troll” that I’ve seen elsewhere who keeps repeating the same “logic” over and over to the point that others want him to “shut up” but he can also talk about other things that are interesting and enjoyable. [Smile]
And that “not a troll” can be annoying as hell, too.
But, in all honesty, he can be funny as hell when he wants to be too.
I’ve kept out of the whole thing with space kitty – but she’s effectively called us liars.
I can see where one may think there’s been SOME “coordination” with VD – Brad and he have talked, after all.
That said, VD is obviously doing his own thing – and the fact that not only can’t these people “get” that more than one person with similar enough ideas and goals may follow a similar path, or even play off each other (4th gen war, open source projects, “army of davids”) but SK told us to our face that SP and RB were deliberately split to make th numbers look SMALLER (exactly the opposite of what we’d been saying for years) and to provide deniability.
What. The . Hell.
Apparently we’re just saying stuff to sound nice but we really have other motives, and are lying to provide cover.
Paul, I can sorta see myself in that description of a not-a-troll. I surely do get boring on some subjects. I can’t speak to ever being entertaining.
Darius, Evil League of Evil is not a joke, but a reflection of the real hierarchy. We all get our marching orders from Vox. Vox somehow has time to give us marching orders. If I don’t convince Kate to support all my noms, and go off to create my own slate, it’ll be because we both have secret orders from Vox. And the Morman church is secretly part of the Catholic church.
Bob, I had to learn to recognize (& attempt to stop my self) from doing that. [Smile]
Sorry, Pat. Some of spacefaringkitten’s posts qualify as concern trolling, but she hasn’t hit bannable levels. Yet.
I know it’s annoying seeing the same non-arguments and lies over and over, but at the same time, you have a page down key (and if you’re getting comment notifications by email, a delete key). You don’t have to read.
Yes, I DO have those function keys and use them, HOWEVER:
Mad Genius Club.
Not Multiple Gushing Chorfs.
Even McDonald’s will ask you to leave if you stay there too long and don’t buy some fries. The equivalent to buying fries here is making a contribution to discussion. It’s GLORIOUS for people to exchange different positions. And sometimes, it might even be fun to say something outrageous just to get a reaction. But there is a quote, widely attributed to Stalin, that “quantity has a quality of its’ own.” In this particular case, with this particular person, the quantity of her posts has taken on the quality of something that crosses the line. I speak against her work, TAKEN AS A WHOLE. I do appreciate the open-minded attitudes of the moderators, and maybe this is all being played out on some other level that I can’t see. But, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, it’s just too much.
Ms Paulk. Great post, and conragts (or should that be condolences?) on becoming the Great Canine General of SP4.
I do not now your email address so instead I will simply link to a recent post of mine with an idea for your consideration. If you think its good, run with it, if not that’s ok too. In short, I personally beleive that SP4 should be more of a voter registration drive than a campaign for certain works. That now that we have exposed the rot in the house of Hugo, that we need to bring in a legion of fans to repair it. 2122 ballots is IMHO a disgrace.
If your interested I wrote more here
Thank you. I appreciate the flattery!
I’m still mulling over how I’m going to run SP4, but there won’t be much happening until after this year’s awards are announced.
Ms Paulk ( BTW is it Mrs or Ms I honestly don’t know)
I understand and I agree, in fact I am pretty sure I assumed that in the post I linked to previously. But at the same time the awards will not be announced until August 22nd, and there is no reason I can see that we should not brainstorm between now and then, If anything IMHO this is the best time to do so. iI say that because any hypothesis we come up with now will be on the record as coming before any possible competing hypothesis.
Please understand Ms Paulk,, I am not suggesting that you should trust me. I understand that I am new here and that I have not yet earned my spurs. However I sincerely hope that you will see me as an ally and allow me to contribute to the best of my limited abilities.
I think it’s possible to do things individually without The Impaler’s guiding hand. For instance, a person could pick a month and go through “all” the short fiction published that month, picking out the ones which one would want to recommend to others.
There may be other options.
I agree. And I am attempting, to the best of my limited ability, to contribute as much as I can to the effort. However I think its important that we be on record as to what our approach will be before the results are in, at least in broad terms. I fully understand that this will not prevent the sniping, bitching, moaning and complaining from the Chorfwaffen, but as LC says arguing on the internet is all about the bystanders (paraphrasing). The puppies have been accused of many things unfairly, but to those undecided observers the fact that there were posts from LC, Brad, and others that clearly delineated their goals, and were posted long before the drama is a huge point in our favor. Again I am simply trying to contribute as best as I can, considering that I am no one.
ummm…you might want to leave the “I am no one” talk alone for a while. Like forever.
Just contribute. Your contribution will speak for itself.
I only meant that unlike many here, I don’t have an audience to bring to the table.
Nobody did when they started. Many still don’t. It doesn’t matter.
And I’m not exactly a prominent author the way Larry Correia and Brad Torgerson are (not to mention Sarah Hoyt, Dave Freer, Cedar Sanderson, Vox Day…). I’m picking up in part *because* I’m not a prominent author.
Interesting. Do you mean that you feel the publicity will help raise your profile? Or that you feel that being a lower profile author will somehow be better for SP4?
I can’t be accused of doing this for a Hugo when the chances of me being nominated for one are somewhere south of zero, basically.
I understand the thinking, and it makes perfect sense. But I have a feeling it will not keep those exact charges from being leveled at you.
Welcome aboard marsultor13. 🙂
I’m still kinda new here myself. I’ve only been hanging around for about year. I know some of the folks can seem kinda intimidating at first, but by and large they’re cool. Find yourself a perch and enjoy.
For me, I am inclined to agree with keranih on doing a periodic story/book/etc recommendation. It would be nice to have an idea of what is eligible (and readable) before I have to cram read again. -sigh- Not that I object to have that much to read, just having to do it in so short a time. Like if I know a book is in the local library, I can read it at my leisure. (speaking of, I really need to get that copy of WarBound from my sister and get started.)
But, as Kate, said there won’t be much happening for a while.
Thanks Wyldkat.I agree that this is a cool place, the help everyone is willing to give to aspiring authors is amazing.
That’s just how we roll around here. 😀
It is muchly appreciated!
Remember, each and every one of us were new here at some point or another, so it would be kind of a jerk move to be otherwise. 😀
The true mark of character is not how you treat the little people when you are one of them, but how you treat them when they are not.
I would really appreciate a place where readers could list great new sci-fi they’ve come across. Perhaps on Facebook. It’s difficult on one’s own to find all the best writing in the year it is published. It often takes a year or two of word of mouth to filter down. It could be as simple as title and author or it could be a small review of why it was so good. It could be a Happy Puppies spot open to everyone. I’d be willing to help moderate such a site.