When is a List not a List

When it’s made by a Puppy, at least to judge by a substantial minority of the thousand-plus comments my announcement of Sad Puppies 4 last week. Apparently a little math geekery about statistics is enough to turn a list of stuff people like and think is the best of its type published this year into this evil thing called a “Slate”.

Now, I’m quite certain the way “slate” is being used here bears no resemblance to any of the common usages I grew up with. The closest equivalent I can see is “Party-line vote” which, well… Unlike the various iterations of socialist and communist organizations, party-line is neither required nor encouraged. Hell, I can damn near guaranbloodytee my nominations will not be exclusively from the top anything (unless you take the top 100% of the list in which case you have the entire list anyway so why bother).

Let’s see… I trained as a geologist so when I hear “slate” my first thought is “metamorphic rock, tends to split in sheets, used as roofing material and also sometimes as the base for blackboards” (these days those are mostly ply or masonite with paint, and they’re green rather than black. And have largely been replaced by whiteboards outside classrooms not least because most of the time whiteboard markers make less mess than chalk). All the other uses I’ve run into have been derived from that first one.

So, apparently this party-line vote thing where you give people the electronic equivalent of “how to vote” cards are in fact evil. The mere fact of compiling one must somehow open a portal to the realms of the Great Old Ones and corrupt the souls of all who read it.

! ! Cthulhu Fhtagn! Thou shalt nominate the works listed and only the works listed lest thy blood be the first spilled to awaken Dread Cthulhu!

…*ahem*…

No, just listing stuff people think is wonderful is not going to unleash terrible evils upon the universe. Neither is listing it in any kind of specified order. To judge by the puffed up outrage, I could have said I’d be listing them in reverse alphabetical order, after translating the titles to heiroglyphics and had no real difference (does “eye glyph” come before “stork glyph”? Probably… About nine months before at a.. *ahem*)

So, just to make things absolutely, painfully, single syllable words clear: The List is not a Slate. You do not have to choose from The List when you nominate. You do not have to pay attention to a single damn thing I do or say here except *bzztCRACKLEph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn…

weeble…

ohno…

We interrupt this blog to report that the author is currently undertaking a rest cure. Any betentacled eldritch monstrosities are merely products of your imagination.

240 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

240 responses to “When is a List not a List

  1. I look forward to seeing this list grow and morph over the next year. For me it will be a way of keeping abreast of new authors and works that I may have missed. Good luck.

  2. Somehow I don’t think this clear explanation will be enough.

    • TRX

      It’s an easy mistake for the SJWs to make. To them, obedience is mandatory, and “recommendations” are orders. And they expect that their followers are gormless losers who will blindly obey or Face Consequences.

      To them, there’s no real difference between a “recommended reading” list or a “you must vote this slate.” Kate issues her orders, her minions obey. It’s the basic primate social hierarchy, after all.

      This is one of the reasons the SJWs get so upset. The Odds just don’t recognize their places in the structure and keep wandering around like they were real people or something.

    • Sapphire

      The Anti-Puppies fail to see the gigantic hole in their reasoning: the Hugo nominations themselves are a “slate” of five, winnowed down from many choices, from which they are supposed to choose the best. According to them, this should be outrageous and unacceptable. Having 10, 15, 20 on the final list is still not fair! Who knows what great works would be excluded from a chance to win because they didn’t get into the top five? Yes, everyone should just vote for their favorite, irregardless of what others might say or think. Having a slate of just five nominations obviously tilts the vote towards those five and gives them an unfair advantage.

      If we are to believe the Puppy Revilers and take them at their word, the Hugo nominations deserve a big fat asterisk and should be no-awarded. The nomination process should be abolished, as well as supporting memberships, as only those who attend the WorldCon are True Fans. GRRM assured us so. There should only be one vote, taken at the Con, and let the rocket land where it may. . .

      • Nathan

        Yeah, the Hugo customs are rather antiquated. Can you imagine what would happen if a modern YouTube group got nominated and ran a completely normal and accepted (elsewhere) Vote for Us video and email campaign? Here’s a hint: 3k No Awards won’t beat 10k+. And if you lower the price, 3k definitely won’t beat 1 million…

      • I was going to cons when nobody had ever heard of George Railroad Martin. But because I can no longer afford to do so, he excommunicates me from Real Fandom.

    • Patrick Chester

      Oh, it’s clear. It’s just that it’ll be ignored and the PKs will lie while hoping no one reads anything from places like this.

  3. “Oh no, not again,” said the pot of petunias as it fell.

    *SIGH* Kate knows better than to say things like that during the end of the waning moon before the fourth supermoon eclipse of an astral age.

    Not that a Dread Old One will be enough to convince some people that there are more important things in life than arguing about something that doesn’t even exist yet.

  4. Aimee Morgan

    There’s also outrage at the suggestion that if you want to see your favorite author nominated, vote for one of the more popular works on the list.

    Puppies – Oh! If I want to see JD Robb nominated, and more people like Devoted In Death than Brotherhood In Death, I should put Devoted in Death on my ballot, even if I thought Brotherhood was a wee tad better.

    Kickers – Oh! My! Gahd! The Puppies are telling you to vote for one of the top ten, and we’ll ignore the part about how that’s supposed to get your favorite author a nomination if said author only has one eligible vote, ’cause reasons.

    Also, no one knows why David Gerrold is an unloved figure in Puppydom. ‘Cause the ass-terisk awards were so totally cool, and the money raised goes to a Terry Pratchett foundation, so if you hate the ass-terisk, you MUST hate Terry Pratchett.

    • Sara the Red

      Somehow, I can’t help but feel that if PTerry were alive to see the ass-terisk and the behavior at the awards…well, I expect he probably would have had some hilariously rude things to say. I doubt he was aware of the SP campaigns, what with his health issues in the last few years of his life (or if he was, was too busy wrapping up his life and business to get fussed), but I rather feel that he probably would have taken a dim view of the CHORFs behavior.

      (Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think he ever won a Hugo. Or was even nominated? Not that he’d have cared, he was making far too much money to be bothered.)

      • Mark

        I think it’s a comfort to us all that neither you nor anyone else knows what pTerry thought.

      • Matthew

        He was nominated once, for the 30-somethingth discworld book (can’t remember which – Thief of Time, maybe?). He refused the nom since he was GoH at that convention, and didn’t want the added stress.

        Yeah, they waited something like 40 books in his carer to nominate him.

      • But think of the Grand Ceremony we missed in some Discworld contest. All the nominees/contestants/racers get handed an ass-teric, then told no one won. I wonder what the occasion would have been, and whether Cohen the Barbarian was there as a contestant . . .

      • Tom

        Having actually met Terry on multiple occasions with extended conversations and having evidence that he had some level of trust in me as an acquaintance (I do not claim we were at a friendship level, although other people might use the term), I’m rather sure he would’ve had some hilariously rude things to say….about the Puppy campaigns. And given that I know he was friends or good acquaintances with a number of SMOFs, I rather doubt he would’ve bought the baseless accusations towards them either.

        Or, to put it bluntly (and this also applies to Kate Paulk’s piece at the start of the SP3 campaign that they were doing it for Terry), unless you actually knew the man, don’t try to claim that he’d support you when he can’t rebut you. And even then, I’m only giving my opinion here due to the above attempt to claim it; it’s not something I’d post out of the blue.

        • Synova

          Baseless accusations…… I imagine that anyone would condemn those, right Tom?

        • Kate Paulk

          I’m not sure which piece you read which said that. It wasn’t anything I wrote: the piece I wrote said that the fact that an author of Terry Pratchett’s caliber had never received a Hugo was an indictment of the decline of the Hugo awards.

          Using your acquaintance with the man as a shield of invulnerability smacks of bad taste commensurate with the bad taste of the assterisks. It won’t shield you from anything here: you stand and fall on your own efforts.

          So far, they are lacking.

          • snowcrash

            Your previous article:

            https://madgeniusclub.com/2015/04/02/%EF%BB%BF-terry-pratchett-and-the-sadness-of-puppies/

            Factually accurate of course, if somewhat missing context – as per what Matthew says above, he was nominated – for Going Postal – but declined for a couple of reasons. He was also the Worldcon Guest of Honor for 2004, so I doubt there was any antipathy/ ignorance of him by the Worldcon or Hugo members.

            Also to be noted was that for much of his publishing lifetime, the gap in time between UK and US publication didn’t really help when it came time for nominations.

            • Kate Paulk

              Such helpfulness. Such willful misreading of what I actually wrote.

              How kind of you to demonstrate how little integrity you’re bringing to this discussion so others here will know by your signaling that you are going to pick nits and shift goalposts and generally do your best to keep the Hugo in the hands of a tiny self-appointed self-styled “literati” (illiterati is more accurate) instead of supporting the actual goal of SP4 – to have so many people nominating and voting for works they love that NO faction can dominate.

              Go ahead. Burn them down to save them. You’ll play right into Vox Day’s hands.

              • snowcrash

                Such helpfulness

                No worries. Always happy to lend a hand.

                As to the rest of your post, it looks like you’re responding to someone or something else, as it appears entirely unrelated to my post above. I guess WordPress threading can do that.

                Regardless, Shepherd’s Crown – what did you think? I’m about halfway through, and while yes, it’s not top shelf Sir pTerry, it’s much better than the Raising Steam and Snuff were. It also wound up reducing me to tears in the first 50 pages, but…I don’t think anyone could have resisted that.

                • B. Durbin

                  “it’s not top shelf Sir pTerry,”

                  I believe that sources close to him said that while the book was complete and decently so, he didn’t have the chance to put the final polish on it. Sometimes it’s the little tweaks that really make something shine. (And “lesser” Pratchett is something like “bad chocolate.” It may not be the amazing stuff, but it’s still chocolate!)

                  • snowcrash

                    I think you’re right – I just finished it, and there’s an Afterword from his family and his long time assistant, essentially alluding to this.

                    That afterword, with it’s hints as to What Could Have Come, as well as the ending of tSC wound up reducing me to tears again. Sigh.

                    • Kate Paulk

                      I haven’t read it yet. Much as I would love to see Sir PTerry receive an award, if it isn’t good enough, I’m not nominating it or putting it on The List (I’m not taking anything OFF The List unless it’s a suggestion for something by one of the people who’ve pre-recused themselves)

    • Kate Paulk

      If I had the animation skills, I would totally make an animated gif showing the rocket “entering” the ass-terisk. This would give a clear visual to all those who’ve demonstrated their lack of reading comprehension.

      • The Other Sean

        Or a Sad Puppy peeing on… something. A fire hydrant with Scalzi’s face, or with the word Tor on it, or something.

  5. JSF001

    Not only that, but affirmative action which is basically what these people are pushing ends up hurting everyone especially those that they are trying to help. Like in college were they lower standards for emission for minorities to increase the number of minority’s enrolled. Of course the school work it’s self is still the same so while those minorities may have gotten in to the school they are not at the level of the school, because they did not meat the normal minimal standard, and then end up failing out with a bunch of debt.

    Similar thing with writing and publishing. When publishers are choosing to publish a work based on an authors “oppression” status or politics over the quality of the work they hurt all authors and publishers. When readers are looking for books to read and they are coming across more and more mediocre works, they lose interest in reading. Which the publishers see the dropping numbers of readers, and try to blindly correct with the cultish idea that simply “diversity” is the fix. Thus creating a negative feedback loop, till the whole thing crashes and burns. Of course indie changes that now a days, but the left is doing their best to straight up kill that to maintain control of a crashing system.

    • Kate Paulk

      Story first. If the message doesn’t further the story, drop it. Apparently this is too complicated for some in the industry and in fandom to understand.

      • JSF001

        Hell you could argue that the message does not even need to further the story, it simply not detract from it. Now admittedly, that point in where the message does not further or detract from the story is a really fine point that is extremely difficult to hit, that takes an externally talented writer to do. Though I guess at that point it could also be argued that the message is so passive, that it is not really a message any more.

        First rule is definitely Story First and foremost.

  6. You’re trying to convince a group of people of your good intentions whose backgrounds combine the snobbery of the Metropolitan Club with the politics of the Khmer Rouge. If I were you, I’d simply moderate the obnoxious comments into oblivion – your wall, your rules; there’s always File 770 for them to drool on.Don’t give them a chance – they don’t give you one, do they?

  7. James Schardt

    Look, the betentacled eldritch monstrosities can pay their $40 and vote too. We ain’t picky.

    • sabrinachase

      That is a very good point. Sad Puppies by their very *name* indicate they do not support speciesist bigotry. WE care about the sadness of puppies (unlike those other guys). And Elder Gods, and cthonic horrors, and space amoebas…they need good stuff to read too! And if they are busy reading something good they aren’t rampaging around devouring souls/spaceships/your new slippers. So really, supporting Sad Puppies is promoting galactic peace! (Unlike those other guys) 😀

      (Do I need the sarc tag?)

      • Wayne Blackburn

        Space amoebas do NOT need reading material. They don’t even have eyes.

        And they would just leave gooey tracks on the pages anyway.

        • Holly

          That’s why they use ereaders, duh. Just wet-wipe it away.

          The only problem I see with including all those critters in the voting contest is that we really want them cast in their usual roles as staring antagonists or protagonists. If they’re busy reading, will they have time to be written?

      • Patrick Chester

        Mr Trash Bags is glad to hear that. 😉

    • Kate Paulk

      It’s $50 this year. But yeah, they’re welcome to vote.

  8. It was the constant campaigning for Hugo votes that got me to stop reading John Scalzi’s blog. Even before Sad Puppies there was a heck of a lot of “Vote for me! Vote for my friends! Vote for The Right Books!” Then it turned into election central, all the time.

  9. snowcrash

    The closest equivalent I can see is “Party-line vote”….

    Actually, a closer equivalent would be “Straight Ticket Voting“.

  10. Mark

    “To judge by the puffed up outrage, I could have said I’d be listing them in reverse alphabetical order, after translating the titles to heiroglyphics and had no real difference”

    As alphabetical order was a genuine suggestion, I think you’re wrong about this. Reverse alpha is a little contrary, but go right ahead. (Umm, but maybe not the glyphs. And definitely not the glyphs carved in circles. And absolutely definitely don’t drop any blood on the glyphs carved in circles.)

    I’m not too concerned with what you want to call the SP4 process, I’m just going to look at the cause and effect. For example, for SP3 the cumulative effect was that a group of people got a lot more works nominated than their numbers would suggest than if they’d been voting normally. If the effect of what you do for SP4 is that it gets more works nominated than its proportion of the voters would usually get, then I’ll be holding similar opinions as I did on SP3.

    (Of course, if you get “The Shadow Over Innsmouth” nominated because everyone seems to believe that it’s a) a 2015 work and b) non-fiction, then I’ll be welcoming our new scaly overlords and not arguing….)

    • As alphabetical order was a genuine suggestion, I think you’re wrong about this.

      As having ten nominations instead of just five was an example of how Brad could have avoided it being considered a slate but now ten is a slate I think you are full of it.

      • Especially when someone already suggested “if you did 15 then it wouldn’t be a slate” on the announcement post, it’s all moving goal posts.

        • Mark

          The position of Patrick May on the length of the list isn’t very relevant to me because a) I’m not Patrick May and b) I wasn’t commenting on the length of the curated list.

          • And you’re opinion on how to make our work acceptable to you is relevant to us because…..?

            After all the moving goal post games arguments of the form “but if you’d only do this it wouldn’t be a slate” aren’t exactly the most credible thing in the world.

            Sucks, but that’s life.

            • Kathodus

              It is likely that a list of 10, ranked in order of popularity, will result in some (not all, maybe a lot, maybe not) voters nominating the top 5 from that list, hoping those works will be more likely to win. It can be seen as a wink and a nod, a pretense that there is no slate. Given last years nomination results, and that the vulnerabilities in the nomination process that allow a small minority of voters to dominate the nominations still exist, people are understandably worried about how the SP4 recommendation list is presented.

              I suspect part of the problem is also that there seems to be a tendency on the SP side to want a particular author to win, rather than a particular work, ie Aimee Morgan’s quote above: “Puppies – Oh! If I want to see JD Robb nominated, and more people like Devoted In Death than Brotherhood In Death, I should put Devoted in Death on my ballot, even if I thought Brotherhood was a wee tad better.” It’s a different way of looking at the nomination process than is traditional, and from the results of this year’s Hugos, it seems like the silent majority of Hugo voters* highly disapprove.

              * By which I mean, there were a whole lot more across-the-board No Awarders than there were people loudly complaining about the SP/RP campaign(s).

              • Alternatively, if I’m torn between nominating Tuesdays with Molakesh (highly recommended) and The Pretzel-Men of Pthark (not even mentioned on the list), I can now choose to boost Tuesdays’ chances since I already know that Pthark isn’t going to make it.

                • Kathodus

                  True. I’m not sure what people would think of that. From what I’ve seen, there is a range of opinion, from those who think any mention of eligible nominees before the nominations are finished is bad, those who think making a suggestion or two isn’t so bad, those who think saying “here are my eligible works” is Satan, those who think that is okay, etc., etc.. The purist (puritan?) in me doesn’t like the idea of any strategic nominating, but I dunno what I think about that, ultimately. I know I did not like last year’s nominations being dominated by a small percentage of voters. Other than that, I’m mostly listening to everybody’s arguments.

                  • I’m curious why you were upset that last year’s nominations were dominated by a small group of a few hundred voters, when the previous few years nominations had been dominated by a small group of maybe 50 voters? Is it only a problem when our side does it, or was the problem that we were open and forthright about the whole process – and were amazed that it actually had any effect at all? Or is it something completely different?

                    What brought your attention to this whole thing? Where and when did you first hear about the Campaign to Prevent Sadness in Puppies? Can you identify the sides and positions being taken? What side, if any, are you on, and why? If you could nominate a single SF/F work for this year so far, what would it be? Please think of this as a survey, and answer to the best of your ability. Inquiring minds want to know!

                    • Kathodus

                      I’m curious why you were upset that last year’s nominations were dominated by a small group of a few hundred voters, when the previous few years nominations had been dominated by a small group of maybe 50 voters?

                      I don’t buy your premise that “the previous few years nominations had been dominated by a small group of maybe 50 voters.” I do buy that certain high-profile authors (Scalzi, for one) received more nominations than they should have, but I don’t believe your implication that there was behind-the-scenes slating. The advent of the internet has changed a lot of things. One of them is that you now often have the ability to communicate directly with your favorite authors, musicians, etc., particularly in niche markets (like SFF). Authors who are more popular in the interwebosphere, who are basically networking with fans better, have an advantage. I don’t like that, and I think it needs to be addressed, but slates are not a viable solution. I’m not entirely sure what the solution is.

                      What brought your attention to this whole thing? Where and when did you first hear about the Campaign to Prevent Sadness in Puppies?

                      Hmm… I can’t recall if it was SP1 or SP2. I remember when VD was brought into it, because I was shocked to discover that he wasn’t just a loony posting on extremist right-wing websites. I was very surprised to see two realms I didn’t think had anything to do with each other – SFF and political bloviating – smooshed together. Basically, VD’s arrival during SP1 or SP2 (forget when that was) raised the volume on the campaign sufficiently for me to notice in more than just a “huh. Interesting headline on Facebook. Looks like the usual suspects are yelling at each other” kind of way.

                      Can you identify the sides and positions being taken?

                      Sad Puppies – believe that political ideology, racial makeup, and sexual identification – basically, identity politics – have taken over the Hugos, Nebulas, and (some seem to believe) traditional publishing. They believe awards and possibly publishing contracts are given out on an affirmative action basis, rather than based on the quality of works. They believe that people with the wrong identity – particularly white, Christian, heterosexual males – are not given a fair shake.

                      Rabid Puppies – believe that destroying things is fun.

                      Non Puppies – I’ll define that as Hugo voters who don’t identify as Sad or Rabid Puppies. A majority of them hate slates enough to No Award slated candidates unless those candidates would obviously have been nominated regardless of slates. Aside from that, they aren’t really a cohesive group.

                      What side, if any, are you on, and why?

                      I am a non-Puppy. I don’t like slates, strategic voting – whatever you want to call it. I would not have joined WSFS this year if it hadn’t been for the (apparently RP-driven) veer into far right politics that the Puppy campaign(s) took, and the extreme success of the slates. I have never considered myself well-read enough in a given year’s output to nominate (I spend a lot of time reading stuff I missed the first time around. Hell, I re-read the Chronicles of Prydain this past Spring, for reasons I can’t recall). I have since been told, by long-time Hugo voters, that the idea that you have to have read everything for a given year to nominate is a misconception.

                      If you could nominate a single SF/F work for this year so far, what would it be?

                      So far, my top contender this year is Novik’s Uprooted.

                      Please think of this as a survey, and answer to the best of your ability. Inquiring minds want to know!

                      HTH. HAND.

                • Mark

                  Joel, you have just demonstrated exactly how the SP4 top 10 can (and per you, will) be used to increase the voting power of SP4 participants over those deciding their noms in the normal fashion. By clustering your efforts around the top 10 (or even top 5) you can avoid wasted votes and boost your relative voting power beyond that of an ordinary participant. I was hoping that SP4 wouldn’t actually follow that path, but you are declaring that you think it’s an acceptable tactic.

                  Hence “If the effect of what you do for SP4 is that it gets more works nominated than its proportion of the voters would usually get then I’ll be holding similar opinions as I did on SP3.” comes into play.

                  • I’m assuming you also vote without regard to whom the pollsters give a better chance to, yes?

                    • Mark

                      Is strategic voting common in political elections? Absolutely.
                      Is strategic voting acceptable when you’ve been asked to list the 5 best things you personally have read this year? No.

                    • Nathan

                      I don’t get why not. If Roosterteeth, for instance, can send out Vote for Us emails for other fan’s choice awards, why is campaigning so bad for the Hugos?

                    • Mark

                      Nathan, from the Hugo FAQ:
                      * What if I still want to promote my book/film/self for a Hugo?
                      * Our advice: Be careful. Excessively campaigning for a Hugo Award can be frowned upon by regular Hugo voters and has been known to backfire.

                      People may not agree with that stance, but its existence was well known.

                    • Nathan

                      Not really an argument there, but a statement that such actions are frowned upon. Why should campaigning be frowned upon?

                    • Mark

                      Nathan, I’ll have a stab at replying, but this is very much my personal take.
                      The Hugo is an award for a specific work*, and the voters are asked to list what they personally think is the best work without being influenced by how much they like the author for other reasons, e.g. if he wrote their favourite ever book two years ago, etc etc. Campaigning of the sort you describe tends to convert things into a popularity contest about the author, not the work. What you describe is energising your fan base to vote for you just because they’re fans.
                      This has been the case throughout the history of the Hugos, so I can’t tell you if that’s where it came from, but it’s certainly how I see it today, and obviously a lot of others hold a similar opinion, although I couldn’t say if it is for the exact same reason.
                      *(Not all the Hugos are for a work, but the broad principle still holds for e.g. Fan writer.)

                    • Nathan

                      Three years of No Award campaigns shows this is honored in the breach.

                      Unfortunately, while I appreciate the distinction you are making, I don’t see how the Hugos differs from the Streamys Audience Choice award, where it is customary to campaign and conduct get out the vote drives.

                      Personally, I hope next year’s Hugos nominates something that brings in thousands of voting fans that don’t know and don’t care about the way things have been done by an increasingly greying and out of touch group. (And, after the awards ceremony and the wooden assholes, I think that is the only way to prevent further misbehavior by the con attendees.) Unfortunately, I don’t see it coming from the same people who managed to create a shrinking print market when science fiction and fantasy are booming elsewhere.

                    • Mark

                      Nathan,

                      “I don’t see how the Hugos differs from the Streamys Audience Choice award, where it is customary to campaign and conduct get out the vote drives.”
                      Well, one obvious difference is that campaigning is only customary in one of those awards, for reasons I’ve outlined above.

                    • Nathan

                      If the purpose of both fans’ choice awards is to determine the best work in the category, (and it is), there is no practical difference between an award that allows campaigns and one that doesn’t in getting to the same destination.

                      The exclusionary nature of the Hugos is a reason why it’s dying on the vine and consuming its own prestige.

                    • Mark

                      Nathan,

                      You may or may not like the lack of campaigning, but that doesn’t make it exclusionary. It’s open to anyone who cares enough to join and vote, and always has been.

                  • So, what you, and the idiot prior, are saying, us that *any* suggestions by SP’s are “bad.” We could list _100_, and that’s evil, but Locus can suggest 5, and “that’s okay.” The “hypocrisy of stupid” is so strong, as to be nearly inhuman.It’s all right for the Trad. 5 publishers to “recommend” nominees to the employees they “give” memberships to, but no one else can “band together *voluntarily* to nominate.” Your “elitism” has no place in fandom.

                    • Mark

                      You can list 100 in non-ranked order, go right ahead, I never suggested otherwise. I don’t think ranking the top 10 and putting that front and center is appropriate, for reasons I outlined above. Locus suggest far far more than 5 (more like 50 novels) and allow write ins.
                      I’ve see the claim that publishers bulk buy memberships before, but all I can say is *citation needed.
                      I’m afraid that the closest I’ve come to being Elite is a trading run to Barnard’s Star.

                • Mark

                  Oh, and you’re right about Tuesdays with Molakesh, it’s a very pleasant story. I can’t seem to find The Pretzel-Men anywhere though…

                • William Underhill, Barbarian 1st Class

                  Exactly. And the other point the unPups seem to be missing is that if you did decide to go ahead and put The Pretzel-Men of Pthark (I want to read that, by the way; I’m wondering where Thuvia fits in) on your Hugo nominations – the SPs would neither know nor care.

              • It is likely that a list of 10, ranked in order of popularity, will result in some (not all, maybe a lot, maybe not) voters nominating the top 5 from that list, hoping those works will be more likely to win. It can be seen as a wink and a nod, a pretense that there is no slate. Given last years nomination results, and that the vulnerabilities in the nomination process that allow a small minority of voters to dominate the nominations still exist, people are understandably worried about how the SP4 recommendation list is presented.

                Again, moving to ten is following a recommendation of what Brad could have done for it not to be a slate.

                Now you’re here telling us it is a slate with a wink and a nod.

                When Larry did SP2 he got criticized for not having 5 in each category because that’s how many noms there are.

                If SP recommends 5, it’s a slate.

                Therefore “If SP recommends, it’s a slate” is what is really being said.

                Reading between the lines with the aid of GRRM, if non-truefen recommend it’s a slate.

                We get it; we’re not cool kids and you’ll keep moving the goalposts to insure we’re never cool kids.

                Which tells me all I need to know about you and yours and how much respect to give your opinions.

                • Kathodus

                  Again, moving to ten is following a recommendation of what Brad could have done for it not to be a slate.

                  Now you’re here telling us it is a slate with a wink and a nod.

                  No, that’s not what I said. I said that making a top 10 list in order of popularity would be seen by some as a slate or, to put it hopefully less controversially – it would be seen as promoting strategic voting. A particularly math-oriented Puppy could, looking at a list of the top 10 most popular recommendations, arranged in order of popularity, figure out which five to nominate to have the best chance of winning*.

                  That is what I’m saying. I don’t give a kitten’s whiskers about whether you are a trufan. I’m not a trufan – I’ve never been to a Worldcon, and I’ve only been a WSFS member for one year. I’m new to this, too. Somehow, though, I’m having a way easier time understanding the meaning of “nominate what you think are the top 5 SF/F novels you have read that were published in X year” than some folk.

                  * for the less mathematically inclined, that’d be the first five choices on the list, if the list goes from most to least popular, or the last five choices on the list, if the list goes from least to most popular.

                  • I’m new to this, too. Somehow, though, I’m having a way easier time understanding the meaning of “nominate what you think are the top 5 SF/F novels you have read that were published in X year” than some folk.

                    Really, so you consider yourself a superior thinker then? Because you sure think some people will take a list with just that instruction in this way:

                    “It is likely that a list of 10, ranked in order of popularity, will result in some (not all, maybe a lot, maybe not) voters nominating the top 5 from that list, hoping those works will be more likely to win.”

                    You say you’re new to this so let me point something out.

                    SP2 got criticized because there were less than 5 nominations in some category on Larry’s recommendations. This was bad because Hugo categories have 5 nominees therefore “bad puppies”.

                    You saw what happened with SP3 and in that case multiple people said, if you suggest more than 5 (and more than once used the number 10) it wouldn’t be a slate.

                    Now 10 is a slate. We’ve been told:

                    1. 15 wouldn’t be a slate.
                    2. If math doesn’t exist it won’t be a slate.

                    Let’s say we take your random idea to prove it’s not a slate. Remember, Kate is going to send people to all the things people suggested with counts of how many people suggested. Do you think, just maybe, “A particularly math-oriented Puppy could, looking at a list of the recommendations with a count of how many people recommended them could arrange them in order to figure out which five to nominate to have the best chance of winning*.

                    No, that’s not what I said. I said that making a top 10 list in order of popularity would be seen by some as a slate or, to put it hopefully less controversially – it would be seen as promoting strategic voting.

                    The lesson of this year is that anything SP4 say beyond, “we’re horrible people who from now will not say a thing and never bother you again.” will be a slate and controversial.

                    That’s the lesson of this year.

                    * For you special snowflakes who think we’re mathematically illiterate you’re invited to come do my job and then explain those mathematics to me.

                    • Synova

                      It’s very likely that a number of the top 10 will be “non puppy” recommendations. The system is vulnerable to “strategic” manipulation. That’s okay, btw. Because puppies aren’t stooooopid.

                      Which is just saying… The assumptions that make this an imaginary problem don’t apply to the real world.

                    • Kathodus

                      I don’t think the number of recommendations for each item should be on the list. I don’t think anything that suggests a strategy for gaining more nominations, rather than finding works that you may think are the best of the year and therefore nominating them, is a good idea.

                      But ugh…

                      This arguing over definitions isn’t really getting anywhere, for either of us. I’m not saying, and I’ve not said, that the Sad Puppies voted lock-step. But look at this year’s nominations. Regardless whether you call the Sad Puppy slate a slate or not, regardless whether you claim the Puppies voted lock-step, the Puppy slate dominated the Hugo nominations. There is absolutely no way the RP/SP slates just happened to almost sweep the nominations.

                      Those nominees were then almost across-the-board No Awarded, which means only a small minority of voters are okay with gaming the system.

                      It seems close to 100% certain from what the Puppies are saying that the point of the Puppy campaign is, yet again, to attempt to get people to strategically vote, and therefore dominate the Hugo nominations. Call it a slate, call it a recommendation list, call it whatever you want, that seems to be the case.

                      You’re all angry that works you don’t think should have been nominated have been nominated in the past due to insiders gaming the system, so you feel you are merely returning the favor by gaming the system for your own benefit. I personally would not, will not, and have not taken part in any slate voting, in any attempt to game the nominations. If there is a secret cabal of SJW CHORFs doing so, I deplore that. I think most Hugo voters feel the same. I think the nearly across-the-board No Award votes for slated nominees this year upholds that theory.

                    • jaed

                      You saw what happened with SP3 and in that case multiple people said, if you suggest more than 5 (and more than once used the number 10) it wouldn’t be a slate.

                      It may be worth mentioning again that Sad Puppies 3 proposed:
                      – five novels, of which four were nominated, which is not five
                      – three novellas, which also is not five
                      – four novelettes, which is not five either
                      – four short stories, which once more, mirabile dictu, is not five

                    • julieapascal

                      “There is absolutely no way the RP/SP slates just happened to almost sweep the nominations.”

                      Of course there is. And it’s no mystery. No one had the first living clue just how few nominations controlled the Hugo ballot. The quite public hope was to gain a nomination or two and get people involved. So those involved people voted, not in lock step but enough had the same choices to sweep the ballot because the number of nominating votes needed was TOO SMALL.

                      Several of your fellow “concerned” commenters have more or less said that Puppy participation is acceptable so long as it has no impact. None. Any *noticeable* participation will be spun/proclaimed/judged to be “gaming” the system.

                      Probably, likely, again… a bunch of fierce warriors will arise to punish the puppy picks with No Awards… because that’s what people do when they are told there is some lofty principle involved. Gives them warm feelings of goodness and virtue. Bless ’em.

                      Because this we’re sure of… there can’t be a difference in opinion or taste and the Hugos can not actually represent the diversity in what people like best in Science Fiction because for the “defenders” not about putting what you like best of all at the top and what you didn’t like much, but other people did like, at the bottom. It’s about punishing people.

                      If it’s one nomination. Or two. It won’t matter. We see that now. We know it already.

                      Maybe some of YOU should make some effort to convince US otherwise.

                    • Bjorn Hasseler

                      Maybe instead of trying to tell Sad Puppies how to run their own sites, the forces of the establishment could work on getting those 2500 Noah Wards to *actually make nominations*.

                    • @Julieapascal

                      No one had the first living clue just how few nominations controlled the Hugo ballot.

                      Given that the number of votes for nominees and awards for previous years is publicly available, that is interesting. It paints the SP3 campaign as a foolish prank gone wrong.

                      @Julieapascal

                      Several of your fellow “concerned” commenters have more or less said that Puppy participation is acceptable so long as it has no impact. None. Any *noticeable* participation will be spun/proclaimed/judged to be “gaming” the system.

                      I can see how it seems that way. That’s not how I feel, but there has been a lot of hostility and name-calling, and given the largely rotten crop of nominees the SP/RP campaign(s) gave us last year, I wouldn’t think anyone would be surprised.

                      Hopefully the nomination ballots for this year will eventually be released so the outcome of EPH can be tested against them and, given it works to mitigate slate voting (a boon for non-Puppies and non-“Torlings” alike, both of which groups I number myself within), it will be ratified and we can all move on. Hopefully more people nominate in good faith this year and in subsequent years than before. Hopefully, this year VD doesn’t ride the Sad Puppies back into the limelight where he can bask in his unearned glory and proclaim multiple victories. This last hope is why I’m trying to find common ground here. That, and this year’s Puppy announcement reads as pretty inclusive to me.

                    • Also, that was meant for Kathodus, Herb. Sorry.

                    • Kathodus

                      @Shadowdancer Duskstar / Cutelildrow

                      I’m going to keep this short because 1) I gotta finish this art piece 2) I have to get some sleep-I have been pulling an all nighter to rush this through 3) I completely forgot we have a family outing today so desperately am short on time 4) wanted to at least let you know I’m not blowing you off.

                      Thanks.

                      I’m going to try to reply without quoting too much of your post, so as to save space, but I’m replying to all the original words. If that makes sense…

                      I DID read what you wrote. I was explaining how it comes across to us
                      –snip–
                      Similarly, when you go with descriptions like “most of the nominations…” you are, whether or not you meant to, saying what we like sucks.

                      Okay. I get that. My apologies. I now understand why you were saying that I claimed your taste sucks, and seriously, that sucks, and I’m sorry.

                      Not apologizing for any harsh words regarding “Wisdom from My Internet”, though 😉

                      You called our getting upset over being termed neo-nazis pearl clutching. I tried to explain that to a good number of us, if not most, that is an insult of the highest order…

                      Why is it absurd to you that we find the insult Neo-Nazi unforgiveable? Especially in the light of who we are? It isn’t an ‘insult only to me’ argument. I’m telling you WE FIND IT INSULTING. There was a damned good reason why we really, really got mad.

                      To be fair, I threw the “pearl-clutching” comment out after Bjorn told me I was pearl-clutching by objecting to being called a nazi, a marxist, etc., etc.. I seem to have aimed that “pearl-clutching” line at you thinking you were the one who made that statement. Again, my sincere apologies.

                      So, one more point, and I don’t mean this in a hostile or argumentative way… you enjoyed eg. “The Plural of Helen of Troy.” Can you give me the benefit of the doubt and believe that I actually enjoyed eg. “Ancillary Sword?”

                      Okay, fuck, sorry. One more one more point…

                      And seriously, I’ve experienced time and time again an album or a book or a story that I fucking hated that, for whatever reason when I read or heard it in a different mood or after some life experience, I suddenly loved. I’m open to that, regardless what the work, who the author. Even JCW, whose views I find seriously horrific (as a fan of underground metal, JCW’s politics are somewhat mild compared to some of the bands I love). Someone earlier in this thread gave an impassioned defense of JCW (and I’m getting super tired and can’t think of the proper string for an in-line search or I’d look up the comment – it may have been you, actually) that made me consider trying him again*. This is a common occurence for me. Earlier today someone convinced me to retry the “Malazan Book of the Fallen” series, which I bounced right off of about 1/4 way through the first book.

                      * Yeah, I know I said I bounced off him once and then his repulsive views repelled me for all time, but if his writing is good enough, I don’t ultimately care about his moral character.

                  • At this point, what makes you think that anything we do will please ‘everyone’? Or ‘anyone’?

                    Indeed, the Aesop of the man, the boy and the ass/donkey/mule come to mind.

                    And who are these ‘some people’ you speak of? I was not aware that the more terrified of the Antis suddenly have picked representatives to speak on their behalf. More to the point, I was not aware that suddenly Sad Puppies 4 and Mad Genius Club were now sovereign entities that require diplomatic relations from the opposition in order to negotiate for what we are doing.

                    You seem to imagine that we have powers of compelling people that we don’t actually have. The person who DOES, in fact, have loyal minions who will do what he says to do, is Vox Day. He’s over at his blog.


                    @the Mad Geniuses –
                    Are we seeing another form of VOOOOOOXXXX DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY here? Or more projection?

                    • Kathodus

                      @Shadowdancer Duskstar / Cutelildrow
                      A finer example of pearl-clutching and party-line toeing I have never seen. Pot, you make me look silver.

                      In your reply you have twisted everything I said to fit your idea of a SJW. It’s irrelevant whether you have purposely misunderstood what I’ve said, are completely blinded by your hatred of your imagined SJW enemies, or just have terrible reading comprehension skills. I could go through your rant line by line and attempt to clarify the points you took wrong, but obviously, anything I say to you is going to be put through your SJW filter and turned into something else. Obviously, if you seriously think there are on one side the right-thinking True fans of SF: the heroic Sad Puppies, and on the other side a small but well-connected coalition of rabid feminazi SJWs who want nothing more than to turn all of SF/F into Marxist propaganda, you’re not going to attempt any sort of honest conversation with someone outside the Puppy world, as you’ve already decided those people are The Enemy.

                    • Oh, look. DARVO tactics. You’re REALLY not helping yourself here.

                      Very hard to twist when I’m quoting you. It’s not my fault you managed to contradict yourself several times over in your various replies. That’s why I actually was attempting to very helpfully bring them to your attention.

                      You are quite concerned at how Sad Puppies 4 will be perceived by ‘non Puppies’; but you see, I’m illustrating how, with your statements, you manage to toe the CHORF party lines. You may not intend to do so, but, unfortunately, that is how you are coming off. You’re conflating JCW’s blog and personal stances with the stories he has written, but do not at any point demonstrate by example which of the stories nominated BY THE RABIDS were screeching anti-gay rants or such – oh and yelling at us for what the Rabids did really, really weakens the claim you make at the start that you recognize a difference between the two. Point of fact, and I know this might be VERY HARD FOR YOU TO BELIEVE – we like Mr. Wright’s fiction writing. It has NOTHING to do with his being Roman Catholic. I didn’t know he was until a year or so ago, but I was enjoying his writing style and ability to use the English language to convey his thoughts in a form that I, PERSONALLY ENJOY. That you broadbrush our enjoyment of his work as “wanting to piss off the CHORFs” – yeah, you’re not making yourself easy to have a chat about anything about, when we’re hearing “You suck, your choices suck, I hate urban fantasy why the hell are you reading that shit, why are you reading that bigot’s work how COULD YOU EVEN—”

                      You probably never got past the part where I demonstrate the rather abject difference of when one actually slings insults, versus descriptive adjectives. The party line has been that ‘CHORF’ or “ASP” are mean terms, except, they’re not. Both of these are simply descriptive adjectives. A good majority of the anti-Sad Puppies themselves adhere to militant feminist thought and rather racist anti-white screeds (NK Jemisin, for example), display the behaviors of Marxists and Socialists – notably clear to those of us who are old enough to remember those behaviors / have lived through that, like Sarah, Peter Grant, and myself. It is not helped either that T and PNH have displayed relativistic morality and behavior, which was greatly encouraged by the various cultural revolutions so popular at the time, notably with abject double standards and goalpost-shifting (I am quite sleep deprived at the moment so I cannot remember if they indeed marched with the American Communist party at some point, so I will let someone else say if they did or did not.) Other examples of the most noisy of the anti-Puppies, such as Phil Sandifer self-identifies as a Marxist (and bizzarely, occultist in the same breath), so again, I fail to see why describing them as they themselves describe themselves seems to be insulting.

                      You say you didn’t buy into the insults of Neo Nazi leveled at the Sad Puppies, but at the same time seem to dismiss that we have the right to be angry and offended. I asked for clarification why you feel we shouldn’t be offended, and instead ‘clutch our pearls.’ You did not respond, and instead claim I’m clutching my pearls.

                      In short, if you really want us to believe that you’re NOT here to kick puppies, perhaps you should stop KICKING PUPPIES, and oh I dunno, maybe apologize for being so dismissive of us in the first place. THEN try really, really hard to start over and play nice.

                      You say you want to have a dialogue, but come in repeating the same lines and lies and fake arguments and reasons that we’ve been hearing for YEARS.

                      That’s not a great starting point at all.

                      And that’s what everyone here has been trying to get to you, except you keep doubling down. It’s NOT helping your case in the least when you come over here with the attitude that we ALL SUCK ANYWAY.

                      ANYONE ELSE would tell you ‘take you, and the sequoia rammed up your arse, and piss off.’

                      That we actually HAVEN’T – well, that’s how patient we are. If you can’t deal with that, I’m not sure how else to help you.

                    • Kathodus

                      Point of fact, and I know this might be VERY HARD FOR YOU TO BELIEVE – we like Mr. Wright’s fiction writing. It has NOTHING to do with his being Roman Catholic. I didn’t know he was until a year or so ago, but I was enjoying his writing style and ability to use the English language to convey his thoughts in a form that I, PERSONALLY ENJOY. That you broadbrush our enjoyment of his work as “wanting to piss off the CHORFs” – yeah, you’re not making yourself easy to have a chat about anything about, when we’re hearing “You suck, your choices suck, I hate urban fantasy why the hell are you reading that shit, why are you reading that bigot’s work how COULD YOU EVEN—”

                      If you’d read what I wrote with more in mind than being offended and zinging me, you’d have seen that I said I had read Wright previously, before I knew anything about him, and didn’t like it. I then read his nominated short story and really didn’t like it (purple prose, no plot, too much message). I then read his writings on his personal and very public beliefs and decided fuck that, I don’t like anything about this.

                      I have no problem at all with people liking things I don’t like. I have no idea where you got that.

                      You probably never got past the part where I demonstrate the rather abject difference of when one actually slings insults, versus descriptive adjectives. The party line has been that ‘CHORF’ or “ASP” are mean terms, except, they’re not. Both of these are simply descriptive adjectives. A good majority of the anti-Sad Puppies themselves adhere to militant feminist thought and rather racist anti-white screeds (NK Jemisin, for example), display the behaviors of Marxists and Socialists – notably clear to those of us who are old enough to remember those behaviors / have lived through that, like Sarah, Peter Grant, and myself.

                      I was trying to ignore your “it’s only an insult when you say it to me” argument because it’s very difficult for me to formulate a polite response to that drivel. I disagree that Nazi Marxist SJW CHORF describes me. It is an absurd accusation for a host of reasons, and the fact that you sling it so readily knowing almost nothing about me except some internet posts you’ve apparently gone out of your way to interpret as uncharitably as possible doesn’t fill me with the need to justify myself to you.

                      And that’s what everyone here has been trying to get to you, except you keep doubling down. It’s NOT helping your case in the least when you come over here with the attitude that we ALL SUCK ANYWAY.

                      I neither said nor believe that. We disagree on some matters of taste. We disagree on politics. This is not uncommon in my world. I’ve seen people here apparently misunderstand people’s objections to SP3 and I attempted to show how someone who is not a CHORF, SJW, Marxist, or Nazi could still disagree with SP tactics. Yes, of course I have some anger about SP3. But if we’re all SFF fans, and we’re not simply trying to score points in culture wars and win a zero sum game, we probably have some pretty cool recommendations to exchange, given how large the SFF field is nowadays.

                      Please note, this was composed on my phone. I shudder to imagine the spelling errors I’ve missed.

                    • I’m going to keep this short because 1) I gotta finish this art piece 2) I have to get some sleep-I have been pulling an all nighter to rush this through 3) I completely forgot we have a family outing today so desperately am short on time 4) wanted to at least let you know I’m not blowing you off.

                      I DID read what you wrote. I was explaining how it comes across to us Puppies that, despite it being just YOUR opinion, we’ve heard it all too many times, and without actual details at this point it does sound like party line to us. I’m afraid that’s just how it is. I was saying you SOUND like that. Big difference.

                      Similarly, when you go with descriptions like “most of the nominations…” you are, whether or not you meant to, saying what we like sucks.

                      You called our getting upset over being termed neo-nazis pearl clutching. I tried to explain that to a good number of us, if not most, that is an insult of the highest order, and demonstrated a noted difference between how we describe things, and actually slinging insults. What I did is pretty much an example of what happens when we DO get pissed off and decide ‘fuck being civil to this cunt.’ I really did mean it as a demonstration.

                      Why is it absurd to you that we find the insult Neo-Nazi unforgiveable? Especially in the light of who we are? It isn’t an ‘insult only to me’ argument. I’m telling you WE FIND IT INSULTING. There was a damned good reason why we really, really got mad.

                      Larry regularly would teach people – women, minorities, gays – how to defend themselves. He still gets called misogynist, homophobic and racist. Peter Grant fought against apartheid and lost many of his friends because they got killed protecting Africans who were being secreted out. I’ve experienced firsthand violent racism, as in ‘get face punched in because how dare the uppity little Asian chick know English German AND French – and how DARE she fight back!’

                      So yeah, to us? That’s the ‘fuck you with a giant cactus until you say sorry’ insult. ‘pearl clutching’ is very dismissive of that, and earns you no goodwill in continuing to state that.

                      You say I know nothing of you. Similarly, you know NOTHING about me, so why persist in the ‘pearl clutching’ insult, when I have gone out of my way to explain to you WHY THAT SHIT AIN’T GOING TO FLY HERE?

                      really I can’t explain it any plainer than that.

                      And if you think we’re all lockstep here, you haven’t been around to witness the argumentative flareups of different opinions. But you know what? If one of us puts our foot in it? We’re capable of apologizing for the mistakes we make.

                      Also, I see no typos. Well done. With that, g’day to you. I’ll be gone for a long while. ~_~;;;

                  • Oh, and ‘rotten’ list of nominees? REALLY? By what standard do you judge them ‘rotten’? Tastes?

                    Go on, try to explain how SP nominations suck beyond ‘differences of taste’ and why you’re supposed to be able to tell us what we’re supposed to prefer.

                    • Kathodus

                      @Shadowdancer Duskstar / Cutelildrow

                      And who are these ‘some people’ you speak of? I was not aware that the more terrified of the Antis suddenly have picked representatives to speak on their behalf. More to the point, I was not aware that suddenly Sad Puppies 4 and Mad Genius Club were now sovereign entities that require diplomatic relations from the opposition in order to negotiate for what we are doing.

                      The discussion I was taking part in was about how non-Puppies will perceive the Sad Puppy movement this year. My “some people” qualification is precisely because I can’t speak for anyone but myself. Given the non-Puppy population is everyone not a Puppy, there’s no way to possibly call it a movement or for it to have representatives, etc.. Having read and participated in a lot of discussions about the subject (mostly just lurking, more than discussing), I’ve got an idea how various groups of non-Puppies (and *Puppies) will react. Or so I think. I could be totally wrong.

                      Oh, and ‘rotten’ list of nominees? REALLY? By what standard do you judge them ‘rotten’? Tastes?

                      I said “largely rotten.” There were good works, as well. This subject has been covered extensively in several places, but for example:
                      – John C. Wright’s convoluted, over-written, and ridiculous religious allegory.
                      – Three (or more) of the shorter works were actually novel excerpts or chapters of ongoing works, and made very little sense outside the framework.
                      – Wisdom from My Internet
                      – The submitted material for three of the four Puppy-nominated fan writers consisted largely of tirades against non-Puppy SF/F fans, which, given I’m not a puppy, made them seem pretty rotten to me.
                      – John C. Wright, in general. I’ll admit it’s not just his convoluted, overly-purple prose that puts me off to him nowadays. I bounced off a novel of his a few years ago, before I’d ever heard of him other than reading praise for said novel, but his horrific rants regarding anyone who doesn’t share his extremely narrow and rigid view of what he calls Catholicism make him nearly as repulsive as VD.

                      I found many of the nominated works far too message-oriented, with little love or attention paid to the story. Wright’s work is far too literary for my tastes, in addition to being message-driven. There was nothing along the lines of a “Forever War” or “Hyperion.”

                      I also enjoyed some of the nominees, and voted for them accordingly, but all together, the list stank of petty revenge.

                    • Bjorn Hasseler

                      Was there a memo? Because it’s freaking amazing how the inner clique apologists are all doing the same thing on this thread: picking a Sad Puppy point and trying to turn it around. You’re the ones writing message fic. You’re the ones bloc voting. You’re the ones being exclusive. Your stuff not SF / not quality work.

                      Projection much?

                    • @Kathodus: Replying to you from several comments that are in the replies to me…

                      Holy crap, man, you think I was clutching at my pearls? You shoulda been reading Puppy blogs back when VD dropped a screenshot of a Tor employee calling Puppies some names. Seriously, go read up on it – try googling Irene Gallo sad puppies neo-nazis – you’ll be absolutely shocked at the pearl clutching.

                      …not about sticking it to those dirty liberal CHORF scum. I’m a little doubtful about it, just given how much the Puppies enjoy calling everyone else names and attributing nefarious motives to anyone they disagree with, but maybe?

                      The fact that you dismiss the whole Irene Gallo thing shows you toe the party line. In fact, you’ve reached 93%. Sad Puppies have people on their side that actually fought REAL Neo Nazis, as in firefight, people dying, during the Apartheid. To you, that someone that fought against real racial discrimination and racial hatred with real bullets refuses to accept such an insult as ‘pearl clutching’ reveals quite a bit about your character. And yes, I found it PERSONALLY offensive since I’ve actually worked to fight against actual racial and ethnic discrimination, and have experienced violence because of racial hate.

                      I do NOT care to be called Neo Nazi, and fuck you if you think that’s pearl clutching, you’re a just the dick and balls-chopping operation away from being a screeching holier-than-thou pedophillic transgender claiming to be all for womens’ rights and knowing better than women what it’s like to be a woman.

                      What? Aren’t you the one implying that insults are perfectly fine, you fainting couch sandy pustrecent mangina? Y’know, much how that self-inserted asscactus GRRM calls for us to stop calling his side names, but in the same fucking breath, calls Sad Puppies names. Yeah, that kind of ‘calling names?’ Try again, we’re not falling for that self-kneecapping, beartrapped guilt-tripping trap that MIGHT have worked on someone on your side, given that they have eschewed the usage of the brains that a few hundred million years of evolution was supposed to have granted them and go with behaving entirely based on emotional impulses. Unfortunately for you, we’re refusing to behave as if we were subjected to frontal lobotomies and had that part replaced with a badly coded JAVA script going VOOOOOOOOXXXX DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY on loop as the sole response.

                      And that is the example of a VAST DIFFERENCE between when we’re actually hurling insults, versus descriptive labels on the Anti-Sad Puppies (ASPs.) Thus ends my demonstration, and I shall continue with a more moderated tone.

                      Wisdom from my Internet qualified because Your Hate Mail Will Be Graded qualified; you’re protesting that it has any merit for being considered a valid ballot simply because it’s Williamson, not “Scalzi”. You don’t seem to have a problem with Scalzi’s Hatemail making the Hugo ballot (indeed, winning the Hugo), but have… issues… when a similar non-Scalzi work is picked. If you were being fair at all, which you clearly are not – the protest would have been that neither book was valid originally, but since Scalzi’s book was nominated and won, Wisdom followed precedence.

                      And c’mon, does it really matter if the SPs meant to be associated with the RPs?

                      And yet you say you’re not conflating the two, and manage to neatly contradict yourself.

                      Given the non-Puppy population is everyone not a Puppy, there’s no way to possibly call it a movement or for it to have representatives, etc..

                      Sophistry statements in order to try make yourself sound more reasonable than you really are, also to inflate ‘agreement against Sad Puppies.’ “Non-Puppy” in this usage is anyone who is anti-Sad Puppies. Anyone who is neither are ‘not involved/unaware’ or ‘neutral.’ They will make up their own minds, not have you decide for them.

                      That’s why John C. Wright’s Christian polemics were nominated – he figured the SJWs would say “eww, gross, Christians!” and be all shocked and offended.

                      Translation: I didn’t like any JCW therefore nobody like me should like it, and anyone who actually thinks he’s good / likes his work only likes it because religious blahblahblah – proving you didn’t actually read any of the work and are echoing the common CHORF bullshit about his writing. Since, you know, like the other CHORF I dealt with, you don’t actually cite which story had what and just blanket apply it to his writing as a whole.

                      Oh, and the fact that you’re hauling in what JCW writes on his blog versus the work adds to the fact you DO actually judge the author, not the work. More CHORF party line there. Pale Realms of Shade was a whodunnit with ghosts, but ‘aaaah, JCW, RELIGIOUS BULLSHIT PRETENDING TO BE STORY is your party parroting. Okay. Care to explain how?

                      – John C. Wright, in general. I’ll admit it’s not just his convoluted, overly-purple prose that puts me off to him nowadays. I bounced off a novel of his a few years ago, before I’d ever heard of him other than reading praise for said novel, but his horrific rants regarding anyone who doesn’t share his extremely narrow and rigid view of what he calls Catholicism make him nearly as repulsive as VD.

                      “Nowadays.” Which means, at that point, you liked him, before you found out that he’s a very STRICT Roman Catholic, and omg he dares write about his points of view when they should NOT WRITE ABOUT THAT AT ALL, am I right? Yeah, how many people adored him when he was an atheist, but loathed him when he converted to Catholicism? Hmm. yeah. “Not party line.”

                      – Three (or more) of the shorter works were actually novel excerpts or chapters of ongoing works, and made very little sense outside the framework.

                      Without naming which ones and why you say so, you actually make yourself follow the party line of ‘but it sucks – objectively!!!- and I won’t say why.’ So if you were really, really trying to not make yourself sound like you’re an individual instead of following party line, well, you’re not doing that good a job.

                      I found many of the nominated works far too message-oriented, with little love or attention paid to the story.

                      Which ones? Totaled was pure sci-fi, A Single Samurai was classic hero story versus crazy odds, at no point did it get preachy (unless you count immersion into the fictional culture as preachy, and that’s SERIOUSLY stretching it) On A Spiritual Plain could have been EASILY set into the Star Trek universe, especially when you take the Bajorian and Cardassians into account -or was it a screech about any type of religious flavor even being mildly tasted = ‘message’ to you? Big Boys Don’t Cry was about ravaged innocence and betrayal; The Plural of Helen of Troy’s storyline? I just played a variation of the same kind of storyline in Star Trek Online’s last episode of the Iconian War, complete with time travel (The whole story arc in the season is worth a Hugo nomination at least, by the way, and is by orders of magnitude more science fiction and better written than If You Were A Dinosaur, My Love, Ancillary Justice and ‘World Upside Down’ rolled together)- and that’s plenty right there to prove you wrong.

                      I’d have to go and reread to give more examples, since it’s been several months already, but that’s just off the top of my head.

                      I also enjoyed some of the nominees, and voted for them accordingly, but all together, the list stank of petty revenge.

                      ..

                      That’s why John C. Wright’s Christian polemics were nominated – he figured the SJWs would say “eww, gross, Christians!” and be all shocked and offended.

                      …but because he felt it was the Puppy equivalent of “Your Hate Mail Will Be Graded”, and because he’s friends with the author.

                      …SP3 was more about publicizing Torgersen’s friends and fellow authors than about winning anything in particular. To that end, he didn’t actually nominate works he thought could win – he nominated works he thought would piss off the CHORFs.

                      , that this year’s SP4 will actually be about getting the word out about great stories, and letting people know they can nominate, and not about sticking it to those dirty liberal CHORF scum. I’m a little doubtful about it, just given how much the Puppies enjoy calling everyone else names and attributing nefarious motives to anyone they disagree with, but maybe?

                      You’re the one who, notably, is ascribing neferious motives to Puppies. Yet, it’s okay if you do it? Projection much?

                      Do explain why. I’d like to know why we’re supposed to give you special treatment over and above the treatment we are ourselves getting from you, in your own words.

                      I should note that we’ve seen a rather nice display of the Three Laws of SJW here. Since you yourself have displayed a notable lack of care of how Sad Puppies are treated, since by your behavior you believe we ‘deserve’ any ill treatment from your side, why, pray tell, are we supposed to display concern for how ‘Sad Puppies 4 might be perceived’ by anyone else. This is silly, since Sad Puppies 3 showed to everyone that the media is happy to lie about us as misogynistic, homophobic white men, who value the patriarchy, as opposed to the actual reality of us wanting to do recommendations of what WE considered GOOD STORIES (no, you can disagree with us, but hey, that’s what different taste is about, but hoo boy does your side take ‘disagreement’ into the realms of slandering in media so fast, it’s in the Andromeda Galaxy, breaking the laws of physics…!)

                      So yeah.

                      SJW reality has nothing in common with actual reality. You’re repeating the same untruths and expect us to patiently take it? Why?

                    • And *sigh* Forgot an italic closer after ‘World Upside Down’. My bad.

                    • @Bjorn Hasseler

                      Was there a memo? Because it’s freaking amazing how the inner clique apologists are all doing the same thing on this thread: picking a Sad Puppy point and trying to turn it around. You’re the ones writing message fic. You’re the ones bloc voting. You’re the ones being exclusive. Your stuff not SF / not quality work.

                      So you’re saying I’m a wrongfan having wrongfun?

                    • Bjorn Hasseler

                      Nope. You’re currently not capable of being a wrongfan. See, you have be able to *not* parrot the party line to do that. I’m sure your comrades are amused by your cleverness. But all you’re actually doing is just what I said, projecting.

                      it’s curious. If you think you’ve got the moral high ground, why are you co-opting Sad Puppy arguments?

                    • Kathodus

                      No party line being towed, here. I’ve been confused about the whole message fic thing, and the “wrongfans/wrongfun” thing for months.

                      I don’t claim any moral high ground. I never bought into the SJW/CHORF/Marxist/Nazi accusations in the first place. I think there are, respectively, some earnest people who have come to the wrong conclusions about the root cause of a problem, and some chortling trolls who love destruction. And to be absolutely clear, the earnest people are the Sad Puppies and the chortling trolls are the Rabid Puppies.

                      I do not have a problem with the kinds of books Sad Puppies (claim to) love. I don’t have a problem with Baen. I don’t have a problem with MilSF or with conservative authors. I honestly care very little about the identity politics of authors.

                      When I look at the authors and works the Sad Puppies claim to love, I see some good to excellent writers, and some I don’t care for (for instance, urban fantasy is usually not my thing, so those authors don’t generally catch my interest). When I look at the authors and works the Sad Puppies nominated, I see some obvious trolling, a lot of writers I don’t care for and/or that aren’t ready for prime time, and a few good ones.

                      My theory is that, like a Puppy said somewhere above, Torgersen didn’t have a lot of knowledge about how the Hugos work, or their history. He didn’t really put a lot of thought into winning his campaign, because he really, honestly thought there was some nefarious cabal controlling nominations. He never thought he could win because he hadn’t realized just how susceptible the Hugo nominations were to being gamed. SP3 was more about publicizing Torgersen’s friends and fellow authors than about winning anything in particular. To that end, he didn’t actually nominate works he thought could win – he nominated works he thought would piss off the CHORFs. He thought that, like previous SP campaigns, SP3 would get a couple works on the ballots, and those would piss off his “enemies.” That’s why “Wisdom from My Internet” was nominated – not because anybody gave a rat’s mittens for it, but because he felt it was the Puppy equivalent of “Your Hate Mail Will Be Graded”, and because he’s friends with the author. That’s why John C. Wright’s Christian polemics were nominated – he figured the SJWs would say “eww, gross, Christians!” and be all shocked and offended. This problem was exacerbated by some of the best nominated authors dropping out (thankfully, in the case of Marko Kloos, whose bowing out allowed TBP a place on the ballot). Then VD entered it. And c’mon, does it really matter if the SPs meant to be associated with the RPs? Because between the two groups, they asterisked up the awards something awful.

                      I’m really hoping, seriously, honestly, I swear to my Lord Harpo Marx in Hell, that this year’s SP4 will actually be about getting the word out about great stories, and letting people know they can nominate, and not about sticking it to those dirty liberal CHORF scum. I’m a little doubtful about it, just given how much the Puppies enjoy calling everyone else names and attributing nefarious motives to anyone they disagree with, but maybe?

                    • Draven

                      Party line toe rating: 75%

                    • Bjorn Hasseler

                      Agreed.

                      There’s the deliberate confusing of Sad Puppies and Rapid Puppies,
                      the damning with faint praise,
                      the “above it all”,
                      the praising authors for dropping out when the wrong people liked their work,
                      and clutching the pearls over the name calling.

                    • @Bjorn Hasseler
                      I’m obviously not going to get an honest discussion out of you.

                      There’s the deliberate confusing of Sad Puppies and Rapid Puppies,

                      That is a lie. I acknowledged the two groups are separate. I attempted to explain why, to a non-Puppy, given the outcome of the nominations, the distinction is minor enough to be irrelevant. it’s Germany and Italy, Abbot and Costello – alone they are weak, but together they can get things done.

                      the damning with faint praise,

                      I’ll give you that, though I didn’t mean for it to come out like that. I was attempting to be diplomatic, and to show that I gave your nominees as fair a shake as possible.

                      the “above it all”,

                      Hmm, I can see that, too. In that case, my attempted point was that I was drawn into this only after the Puppies attacked. I was not before and am not now engaged in any social justice activism or culture warrioring.

                      the praising authors for dropping out when the wrong people liked their work,

                      That’s an outright lie.

                      and clutching the pearls over the name calling.

                      Holy crap, man, you think I was clutching at my pearls? You shoulda been reading Puppy blogs back when VD dropped a screenshot of a Tor employee calling Puppies some names. Seriously, go read up on it – try googling Irene Gallo sad puppies neo-nazis – you’ll be absolutely shocked at the pearl clutching.

                    • Draven

                      and that last sentence of yours pretty much shows you don’t know where you are and just came in to kick some puppies.

                      Line toeing is now at 82.5 %

                    • Bjorn Hasseler

                      Kathodus: “@Bjorn Hasseler
                      I’m obviously not going to get an honest discussion out of you.”

                      What you mean is, I’m obviously not to start agreeing with your perceptions.

                      It really stung when I called your wingman Ampersand a liar, didn’t it? We make a point; you guys try to appropriate the point for yourselves. This is, by the way, why we say the Puppy Kickers have talking points; this tactic is new, utilized by two or more of you in the same week, and then you’ll be on to the next tactic. For the record, I think you’re drinking each other’s ink rather than getting marching orders from your establishment.

                      Me: “There’s the deliberate confusing of Sad Puppies and Rapid Puppies,”

                      Kathodus: “That is a lie. I acknowledged the two groups are separate. I attempted to explain why, to a non-Puppy, given the outcome of the nominations, the distinction is minor enough to be irrelevant. it’s Germany and Italy, Abbot and Costello – alone they are weak, but together they can get things done.”

                      And here is the rules-lawyering. Yes, you say this early on: “And to be absolutely clear, the earnest people are the Sad Puppies and the chortling trolls are the Rabid Puppies.” But then there’s this: “SP3 was more about publicizing Torgersen’s friends and fellow authors than about winning anything in particular. To that end, he didn’t actually nominate works he thought could win – he nominated works he thought would piss off the CHORFs. He thought that, like previous SP campaigns, SP3 would get a couple works on the ballots, and those would piss off his “enemies.” That’s why “Wisdom from My Internet” was nominated – not because anybody gave a rat’s mittens for it, but because he felt it was the Puppy equivalent of “Your Hate Mail Will Be Graded”, and because he’s friends with the author. That’s why John C. Wright’s Christian polemics were nominated – he figured the SJWs would say “eww, gross, Christians!” and be all shocked and offended.” Two works by John C Wright appear on the Sad Puppies’ suggestions but you hold Sad Puppies responsible for *all* the John C. Wright nominations. You undercut your own pro forma distinction between Sad Puppies and Rapid Puppies.

                      And now you say this: “That is a lie. I acknowledged the two groups are separate. I attempted to explain why, to a non-Puppy, given the outcome of the nominations, the distinction is minor enough to be irrelevant. it’s Germany and Italy, Abbot and Costello – alone they are weak, but together they can get things done.”

                      I have to hand it to you; this is very efficiently-crafted piece of rhetoric. It’s worthy of a Philadelphia lawyer. That’s to demonstrate that I’ve recognized the following tactics. First we have what appears to be a straightforward denial. You call me a liar. And then you promptly undercut your denial. By the way, that makes your accusation of liar illogical. “…the distinction is minor enough to be irrelevant…” Your argument is you said they were separate, so I’m a liar, but they’re really the same. And then the comparisons – points again for rhetoric. Abbot and Costello. I’m sure you’ll deny ever calling Sad Puppies buffoons on the grounds that you didn’t use that word. But you took care to imply it with malice aforethought, didn’t you? Germany and Italy. So while on the one hand you are complaining to Duskstar about Sad Puppies getting upset that Irene Gallo called us neo-Nazis, on the other hand you slip in the subtle reference to the Rome-Berlin Axis. No doubt you’ll now protest that you did not, in fact, just call us Nazis and that you were merely illustrating a partnership. Of course you *could* have used the Lone Ranger and Tonto to good effect there.

                      And this: “And c’mon, does it really matter if the SPs meant to be associated with the RPs? Because between the two groups, they asterisked up the awards something awful.”

                      You’re really playing the Does It Even Matter card? You say it’s a lie that you confuse Sad Puppies and Rapid Puppies (not *are confused* by them but *are confusing* them in the minds of others), but then you attribute RP noms to SP, your comparison are drawn from fascists and pratfall comedians, and you finally say it doesn’t matter anyway. I read Asimov’s _Foundation Trilogy_. I know what it means when someone’s later statements cancel out their earlier ones. It means you’re not here in good faith.

                      Me: “the praising authors for dropping out when the wrong people liked their work,”

                      Kathodus: “That’s an outright lie.”

                      Also Kathodus: “This problem was exacerbated by some of the best nominated authors dropping out (thankfully, in the case of Marko Kloos, whose bowing out allowed TBP a place on the ballot).”

                      That’s *not* praising an author for dropping out??

                      Kathodus: “Holy crap, man, you think I was clutching at my pearls? You shoulda been reading Puppy blogs back when …”

                      Ah, the false moral equivalency.

                      I believe you’ve now hit for the cycle.

                    • Kathodus

                      @Draven
                      I’m not going to respond politely to baiting. I kick back when kicked.

                    • Draven

                      I’m not baiting you. I’m making simple statements. You start out by saying “I’m not towing any party line”…. then you tow/toe the party line, pretty accurately, hitting most of the standard concern troll ‘I’m not a puppy or anti-puppy but…’ checkboxes we’ve seen dozens of times before.

                    • Sapphire

                      Kathodus: “I’m not going to respond politely to baiting. I kick back when kicked.”

                      Heh. That sounds like something Vox Day would say. Funny how things work at Double Standards, Inc.

                    • Kathodus

                      @Bjorn Hasseler

                      Your argument is you said they were separate, so I’m a liar, but they’re really the same. And then the comparisons – points again for rhetoric. Abbot and Costello. I’m sure you’ll deny ever calling Sad Puppies buffoons on the grounds that you didn’t use that word. But you took care to imply it with malice aforethought, didn’t you? Germany and Italy. So while on the one hand you are complaining to Duskstar about Sad Puppies getting upset that Irene Gallo called us neo-Nazis, on the other hand you slip in the subtle reference to the Rome-Berlin Axis. No doubt you’ll now protest that you did not, in fact, just call us Nazis and that you were merely illustrating a partnership. Of course you *could* have used the Lone Ranger and Tonto to good effect there.

                      Everything I’ve said has been nit-picked and any rhetorical weakness used to “prove” I’m being disingenuous. Any loose language is twisted to “prove” that I’m toeing the SJW party line. I didn’t start out attempting to out-argue anyone. I started out attempting to explain where I’m coming from, thinking if we reach the point where we can agree to disagree, but both understand each other’s positions, we would then have some grounds to talk about stories we enjoy. I understand the Puppy position, and am willing to accept you honestly believe it. I don’t believe in it, but given it’s impossible to prove or disprove, I’m willing to move on past that disagreement. From what I can tell, you won’t accept any non-Puppy position unless it’s basically “Yes, we are elitist SJWs who are trying to push our intersectionalist, Marxist, Feminist agenda on all of SF/F.” Any other claims on my part engender hostility. I’m not going to continue attempting a polite conversation when what you obviously want is a hostile debate, so yeah, I’m having fun instead of worrying about your feelings.

                      What’s funny, though, is that I seriously almost put in “The Lone Ranger and Tonto”, but decided, eh, fuckit, when in Rome… To be fair, regarding the Axis bit, Torgersen or Correia – I forget which, but one of the SPs – compared themselves to Confederate generals early on in this year’s kerpupple. So there’s a precedent for Puppies claiming common ground with the Bad Guys. Shit, now that I put it that way, I realize I should’ve said “PNH and TNH.” Also, another one that fell off the bottom of my possibly too short list was “Captain Kirk and Spock.” I ultimately didn’t use that one because I’m not sure it’s that strong a coupling.

                      Regarding SP/RP – I acknowledge they were not the same campaign. Some non-Puppies don’t acknowledge that. I’m not a complete sucker, though – I’m not going to pretend they weren’t related, that they weren’t working together at all, or that the success of one did not depend upon the other. And why would I care to split hairs about the two when the combined effect of those closely allied groups (Torgersen and Correia have acknowledged SP/RP are allies attempting to win the same “war”) is to dominate the Hugo nominations with their respective and related slates?

                      @Bjorn Hasseler

                      Also Kathodus: “This problem was exacerbated by some of the best nominated authors dropping out (thankfully, in the case of Marko Kloos, whose bowing out allowed TBP a place on the ballot).”

                      That’s *not* praising an author for dropping out??

                      Hmm… it’s true I said “thankfully,” but I was thinking of the fact that TBP was then able to get a chance at the Hugos. I don’t consider that praise. I consider that relief that a novel I consider Hugo-worthy got on the ballot.

                      @Bjorn Hasseler

                      Kathodus: “Holy crap, man, you think I was clutching at my pearls? You shoulda been reading Puppy blogs back when …”

                      Ah, the false moral equivalency.

                      False moral equivalency? One prominent non-Puppy claimed that the Rabid Puppies are neo-nazis, and that has been flogged and flogged. I don’t take responsibility for Irene Gallo’s insult. I don’t agree that it is accurate to describe VD as a neo-nazi.

                      So, ONE prominent non-Puppy issued the “neo-nazi” insult. On the other hand, multiple prominent Sad Puppies have repeatedly smeared everyone opposed to the Puppies as Marxists and Nazis, Torgersen squealed, apparently in all honesty, that people opposed to Puppies want to ship them in boxcars to Siberia.

                      I don’t harp on the Marxist, Nazi, SJW, boxcar-to-Siberia insults. I don’t bring them up until a Puppy brings up Gallo’s (mis-)statement.

                      @Bjorn Hasseler

                      It really stung when I called your wingman Ampersand a liar, didn’t it?

                      Well, first off, I’m not in contact with Ampersand in any way, and neither of us, as far as I can recall, has backed up the other one (I may be wrong, these arguments all blur together into one thick mass in my brain).

                      But the liar comment – was that regarding the validity of “If You Were A Dead Horse, My Love” as an SF/F work? I felt no stinging at the insults heaped on in that thread, but they were definitely crucial to my understanding that we apparently inhabit completely different worlds. The argument about what is/isn’t X genre, whether in music, literature, or whatever, is ancient and ongoing. It often gets heated and personal, but seeing how warped it’s been by this culture war thing you’re obsessed with was disheartening. I saw one side arguing that “reasonable people can disagree” and another arguing that “NO THEY CAN’T.” I saw both sides give arguments ranging from inadequate to adequate. I saw one side assume that the other was lying because MESSAGES. And I’m no fucking way going to engage in a discussion about the quality, qualifications, or anyfuckingthing else regarding “If You Would Please Stop Flogging My Dead, Gay, Dinosaur, My Dear.” Holy shit I couldn’t care about that poem any less at this point.

                    • Kathodus

                      @Draven
                      “I’m not going to respond politely to baiting” was a response to your claim that I “just came in to kick some puppies,” which was in response to my response to Bjorn Hasseler’s seemingly intentional mis-reading of what I’d previously written.

                    • Bjorn Hasseler

                      Ah, the double-down.

                      And the summary dismissal.

                    • Kathodus

                      @Sapphire

                      Heh. That sounds like something Vox Day would say. Funny how things work at Double Standards, Inc.

                      Oh, I’m a total hypocrite. Check this out:
                      – I’ve seen Vox Day praise The Three-Body Problem. I have also praised The Three-Body Problem.
                      – I’ve seen Vox Day claim to be a gamer. I, too, have played games.
                      – Vox Day is apparently a fan of SF/F. I, too, am a fan of SF/F.
                      – This is only a rumor, but if it’s true, it’s more evidence. I have heard that Vox Day breathes regularly. I also breathe regularly.

                      And yeah, when people insult Vox Day, he insults them back. And sometimes I do, as well.

                      Congratulations, you win a four CD box set of the Internet.

                    • Kathodus

                      You’re excellent at scoring points, Bjorn. Congratulations! Sorry, I’m out of Internet box sets right now.

                      Which rhetorical fail is that one?

                • TRX

                  > If SP recommends 5, it’s a slate.

                  The difference is, the SP lists are suggested reading lists, not suggested voting lists.

                  There’s a teeny-tiny difference between the two.

    • Synova

      Cause and effect being… If you’re lost in the noise so we can all pretend you’re not in the room… You’re golden.

  11. Haters gonna hate. Puppy kickers are gonna lie about what you just said anyway. I think your original announcement was more than clear to everyone what SP4 was about.

  12. “betentacled eldritch monstrosities”

    Hmmm . . . Kate with tentacled monstrosities . . . the better to Paulk people, perhaps?

    😀

  13. Quick! Bury that copy of the Necronomicon before she winds up host of A Prairie Home Companion. There still may be time.

  14. Uncle Lar

    Not to put words in Kate’s mouth, but I see SPIV as having some fairly noble goals this coming year. First, collect a list of likely popular candidates to nominate for the 2016 Hugo Awards. Next, simply explain the nominating and voting processes and how any fan can for a small fee be a part of them.
    I think I’ve heard that a supporting membership will be $50, up from this year’s $40, but still need to confirm that. Won’t matter much to me as I intend to invest heavily in straw futures to take advantage of the coming shortage. I predict straw will be in very short supply as the puppy kickers build an army of straw men as they desperately attempt to find something to criticize us on.
    I’m most curious to see what forms straw Kate, straw Amanda, and straw Sarah take on, but I guarantee that the real ones are nicer, kinder, and have better racks.

  15. Just to make these asshats’ heads explode, I think that you should put the list in randomized order, since alphabetical order favors the people whose names or titles start with letters early in the alphabet. Seriously, take the list in alphabetical order, do a random permutation on it, and use that as the published list. To really get them to go into conniption fits, rerandomize the list every month or so and post it again. They won’t know what to be outraged about, because they are so stupid they are likely to look on each list as a completely new set slate uh, I mean, “set of recommendations.”

    • Kathodus

      I’m pretty sure that would make all but the most anti-Puppy non-Puppies happy.

      • Bet you pay check to pay check (and I’ve got an 80% probability of being on the bigger risk side of that) that Kate could post ten randomly picked eligible works and a different 10 every week during nominating season and it would still be a slate.

        You willing to lay down coin?

        • Kathodus

          I’m sure you could find someone who’d still say it’s a slate. As I mention elsewhere, some people are against any recommendation lists at all, regardless where it comes from. If you’re trying to make everyone happy, you will always fail.

          Not a betting man, sorry.

          • Then just is the differential on people who will decide suggesting 10 things for 5 slots is a slate if they are in order of how many people suggested them over a random order.

            Will we convince 1, 10, 100, or 1000+ people with that change?

            Kate is already implementing suggested changes and she’s already getting blasted. At this point I think we’re past the critical point in terms of diminishing returns.

      • Confutus

        Nope. The non-puppies have created a boogeyman, now they are stuck with one. Now what are they going to do with it?

        • Confutus

          The framers of the US constitution envisioned that the electors would individually select their individual preferences for President of the US.
          This worked for the first three presidential elections. However, by the election of 1800, this system broke down, and the electors divided themselves into two parties, the Federalists behind the Adams/Pinckney slate and the Democratic/Republicans behind the Jefferson/Burr slate. The electors voted for the party more than the candidate. The idea of individual electors voting their individual preferences was abandoned by both sides and has never been recovered.

          It is by now clear that the majority of voting members of the WSFS gathered to the no Award slate. Whether it was because Vox Day is so vile that he contaminates everything he touches, or because “slate voting” is so evil that it must be opposed by an anti-slate doesn’t matter. In either case, they have abandoned the high ground of deciding on the individual merits of the works being nominated.

          • Nathan

            Of course, one of the claims of earlier Puppy campaigns was that WSFS members had already abandoned the high ground of deciding on the individual merits of the works being nominated…

            • Confutus

              But they didn’t announce it…and it was such a gradual process that I daresay many of them didn’t even notice it was happening. It started back in the 1960s when the true-fen started sneering at Trekkies, and amplified in the 1970s when Star Wars brought in a vast new audience. These were considered to be “popular” and “media”, and not “real” or “good”. Along with the aspirations to be “literary”, and “respectable”, and increasingly, “politically correct”, they lost touch with the energy and enthusiasm of the younger generation, as well as the vast marketplace that considers work that is “literary”, “respectable” and “politically correct” to be stultifying or worse. The in-crowd became comparatively parochial and incestuous. Then an outsider came along with a different yardstick of merit and declared that theirs had become twisted out of shape, and was met with cries of Outsider! Barbarian! ENEMY!

              • And when the 1969 StLouiscon committee went out of its way to say to that Trekkies and other “sub-fandoms” were not welcome — er, did not have their attendance solicited, a well-known pro spoke up against them, crying “Stomp the Shadowman! They are US!”
                His name? David Gerrold?

                • William Underhill

                  Seriously? Oh, that is too, too rich… Now, of course, he sings a very different song, because he’s part of the ‘in’ crowd. He’s accepted so of course he doesn’t see a problem.

    • You know, that’s a really interesting suggestion. Especially if the list was randomized more often. I don’t have to do it, so I suggest weekly. Or even better yet – anybody out there know how to code that so it randomizes the lists on each page view?

      The purpose, of course, is not to get any particular author or work nominated, although that would be nice. The purpose is to win the moral high ground, by showing that there is literally nothing we can do, that the puppy kickers won’t criticize.

    • TRX

      Ooo, evil. I like it!

  16. Chis Nelson

    As a casual observer to this sorted list affair and unschooled in the “culture awards”, I’m uncertain and con-fused to what I’m supposed to vote for, quality works or their creators beliefs? (Do I need to feel guilty listening to Wagner and light a menorah or stare at young men when reading Delany?)

  17. Tom

    I’ll be blunt. The raw facts of what happened this year were; 1) Pups of both persuasions gamed the ballot by lockstep nominating from the slate. 2) The results of the voting clearly showed that Pups are vastly outnumbered by the voters who really don’t like slates/lockstep nominating.

    Unless your aim is to repeat what happened this year, you need to be as above reproach as Caesar’s wife with respect to slateness…*in the opinion of those outside your echo chamber*. And given that GRRM (on http://grrm.livejournal.com/440444.html?page=2#comments) and others already have concerns about the order by popularity and 10-limit list aspects, you’re in trouble.

    What’s going to determine whether people outside your echo chamber think it’s a slate or not will be how well and how the final ballot corresponds with your lists. We know from long experience that the tail is long enough without major favorites at the top that things that get on the ballot are only on 10-15% of nominating ballots. If your lists consist primarily of things that have no buzz beyond your lists (i.e. appear on other lists as well) and those items make up a much larger percentage of the ballot than makes sense given that 10-15% chance *per item* of picking something that ends up there, it’s going to be considered lockstep nominating again and you’ll almost certainly get the same results in the actual voting. Remember, even Torgersen’s call for suggestions got something like 30+ for best novel…with the top number of people suggesting any one of them at 5. Honestly given, Pup nominations have the same long tail/small percentage favorites as anyone’s nominations.

    So, like it or not, if you want things to be different next year, you do need to listen to and act on points brought up by people who are not your core supporters, especially if those points are coming from multiple sources. In the final voting, it’s going to be whether they think SP4 is slate equivalent, not you.

    • Matthew

      You know, most groups of under 500ish don’t get voting differentials of over 100 between slated works, which the various Sad Puppy nominated works got.

      Basic math fail on the lockstep voting claim.

      • It’s not math. It’s religious belief on their part. If we DIDN’T vote lockstep, then their behavior is despicable. Therefore we MUST have voted lockstep. I am tired of these fools.

        • Kate Paulk

          Yep. It is a matter of faith. And really, really funny the way this is what gets picked up on rather than “Let’s get SO MANY PEOPLE nominating and voting that NOBODY can dominate, not even us.”

          Which, of course, is also religious

        • And as the mathematical evidence is plain to see: we didn’t vote lockstep / en bloc (but we can’t see the nominations, because that might just reveal any other ‘en bloc’ groups). Ergo: either Math is not Tom’s strong suite or he refuses to see what he doesn’t want to see. It is obvious that long-term thinking or strategy are not his strengths either. I think ‘transparent democracy’ – what a free vote on SP4 is – is too complicated too. Well, I’m not going to do the thinking for you, Tom. But there is a certain famous creek your side has paddled itself into before dropping the paddle. And you’re busy abusing the only people who could possibly have helped you. Smart thinking! Good luck with your ever-diminishing echo-chamber.

          • Craig(2)

            The maximum lockstep vote for *Rabid* Puppies, based on the lowest nomination total for anyone on the RP Ballot, is *29*. Feel free to double-check my data.

            Eliminating 29 votes from every RP recommendation would have changed three nominees.

        • Steve Moss

          The Puppy Kickers are hypocritical agenda driven lying idiots. Ignore them. They’ll be muttering to themselves in a corner in no time.

    • So, like it or not, if you want things to be different next year, you do need to listen to and act on points brought up by people who are not your core supporters, especially if those points are coming from multiple sources. In the final voting, it’s going to be whether they think SP4 is slate equivalent, not you.

      Yessa, massa, we wrong-fen gonna lissen real good massa…look massa we doing 10 like massa said we should of done this time. And we makin all the deliberatin and stuff public like massa said.

      Oh, massa said 15, ohs we can do 15 massa.

      Oh, and when is massa going to release the nomination tallies so we can see if there was any slate nominating? Is there maybe a non-SP/RP slate revealed by that which is why we wrong-fen can’t see it but massa’s EPH people already got the numbers?

      tl;dr: FOAD.

    • Synova

      Clue… Dude. I’m not about to bend over to kiss the assignment of those who have declared themselves my judge and master. Why are you here?

    • Kate Paulk

      Oh, tut, tut. That’s a load of twaddle from start to finish. Either you’re delusional or you’re a liar – which is it?

      You’re acting like a naked man jeering a small stain on someone’s shirt, and apart from the amusement value your arrant hypocrisy provides, I don’t care what you think I should do.

    • jaed

      Pups of both persuasions gamed the ballot by lockstep nominating from the slate.

      When you start a post with a lie, many people will not bother reading any further. You may want to consider embedding the lies further down, if you wish your other points (if any) to receive broader consideration.

    • The Other Sean

      Maybe you should listen to others outside your Puppy-Kicker echo chamber.

    • MC DuQuesne

      “The raw facts of what happened this year were; 1) Pups of both persuasions gamed the ballot by lockstep nominating from the slate.”
      Tom, unless you have access the nominating data you cannot know if that is a fact. The fact is that the puppykickers are coming up with the most farcical of theoretically possible privacy violations to keep from releasing the information that would prove or disprove what you take on faith and claim to be a fact.
      The statement that the puppies voted in lockstep has no more factual basis than the statement that the Torlings ran a secret slate. Reasonably anonymized nomination data would prove either statement. One side is fighting tooth and nail to hide that information. To assume their carefully constructed narrative is susceptible to facts is logical.

      • julieapascal

        Seriously? Details?

        I thought the release of the raw data was standard practice and forthcoming.

        • jaed

          Glenn Glazer, who is vice-chair of the Sasquan concom, has been emailing people who have requested the raw data, claiming that it can’t be anonymized, for reasons which are not clear, and therefore can’t be released. The privacy of Sasquan members is extremely important, we are told.

          There has been some discussion on File770. Apparently the concern is that:
          1. If someone publicly posted part of their nomination ballot, AND
          2. If that publicly-revealed part of the ballot was unique (that is, if they nominated something that no one else did), AND
          3. If this person did not post the rest of their ballot, AND
          4. If this person’s post was linked to their identity (e.g. a blog post made under their real name), THEN
          the rest of that person’s ballot could be determined, AND
          5. If the rest of the ballot was embarrassing to the person, revealing it might be a problem. If all these conditions are met.

          (For example, consider the case in which noted author and Trufan-about-town Oliviad Leafhop publicly mentioned having nominated Google Ate My Brain – which no one else nominated – but also nominated “Totaled”. And then spent the next few months denouncing the Puppies and all their favorite works, including “Totaled”, as “puppy shit”. This might be embarrassing.)

          I do not know whether the obvious solution of anonymizing any unique works nominated (that is, if only one person nominated Google Ate My Brain, substitute a random string for Google Ate My Brain) has been considered. This would prevent revealing part of the ballot even in the unusual case discussed above.

          Release of the raw nomination ballots, as I understand it, is not standard procedure, but it is required by a resolution passed at the Business Meeting held at Sasquan. The concom is now stonewalling that requirement.

          (I have also heard that the Sasquan admins have been analyzing the raw data in cooperation with the proposers of EPH, the Tor-backed proposal to change how nominations are made, to help determine what effects EPH would have on nominations. The conclusions of this analysis may or may not be related to the refusal to release the raw data. Although I do have some suspicions at this point.)

          • Mark

            A few clarifications:
            There has been no release to anyone, EPH-affiliated or otherwise. The release being discussed is the same as the “release to EPH” that gets mentioned.
            The release isn’t mandatory, the business meeting passed a non-binding request so that anyone proposing a voting method change could use it for testing.
            The privacy concern is a very real one: a substantial proportion of nominators came via LonCon memberships, which are subject to UK and EU data laws. These make the US laws look laissez-faire by comparison, and no-one with any sense would risk breaking them without being very sure you’d got it right.

            • Craig(2)

              Mark:
              “What wasn’t included in Glenn’s statement is that this year’s Hugo system administrators are working with a committee composed of proponents of EPH, so that proposal can be tested without any privacy violations that might occur by releasing the data with no controls.”

              Which was from:
              John Lorentz
              Sasquan Hugo Administrator

              That certainly sounds like plain English for “EPH proponents have access to the data”

              • Mark

                Craig

                As me writing that a few days ago, EPH proponents were saying they didn’t currently have access to the data, and were making various suggestions about how anonymisation could be achieved. I’ve checked and can’t see any updates to that. There are mixed messages, but I suspect the quote you give means they are working with them on how to release the data, but have yet to do so. EPH has been worked on publicly throughout the process, and if the data was out then it would be announced quite loudly.

              • Mark

                Durr, “As of me writing that…”

            • That excuse would be more convincing if it had not only been made AFTER the protests.

    • William Underhill, Barbarian 1st Class

      And apparently you missed the part in Ms. Paulk’s post where she said the entire freakin’ list will be linked – all of them – and again, where she said, in comments, that she hadn’t mentioned “read before nominating” because she wasn’t to the point of talking about nominations yet.

    • TRX

      > I’ll be blunt.

      Is that what they call it now?

    • Alan

      “you need to…” – NO. You are not the boss of SP4, or any of us who support their objectives, even limited to the Hugo awards, UNLESS you and your friends are actually voting in far more tightly locked steps than any of the SP folks ever have (once again for the slow, RP was NOT = SP). Which, if you are, you may be the boss of who gets awards but loses you all of the moral high ground you’re asserting.

      What SP4 needs is internal clear thinking about recommendations development, promotion, & nom/award voting philosophies that are most likely to achieve the stated objectives; no more, no less. That requires relatively little advice from proven PuppyKickers & their sympathizers, actually – the SP4 team has wicked smarts. Information per se from neutral parties may be useful and probably welcomed. Information from PK’s is, understandably, likely to be looked at skeptically.

      “whether they think SP4 is slate equivalent” – or even care, if they’re actually just voting for individual books themselves, y’know.

    • Since you have the “raw facts” on the nomination numbers, perhaps you can tell us exactly how many GamerGate members voted. Since, after all, the claim that MY bunch “tipped the scales for the Puppies” actually made it into a variety of newspapers on unquestioned claims by the anti-Puppy crowd.

      Let’s hear verification of just how huge this horde of gamers “sticking it to the man at the behest of Vox Day” was supposed to be.

      “Raw facts”? I’m a unicorn. I can smell mythology at twenty klicks.

  18. Nathan

    Any chance that there could be a business proposal/rules change section to the SP4 site? Back before the Kickening in April, even some of the most rabid Puppy opponents agreed it was time for a video game category. And it might be time to take a good hard look at the supporting membership category, perks, and price. If forgoing the con reports and advertising sent out by the con means that a $5 voting membership would be feasible and the con won’t lose money on overseas memberships, it should be considered as an option.

    • That’s not a bad idea. It’ll be different from the recommendation pages: more discussion, talk about parliamentary procedure; maybe we get someone from the ConCom to weigh in—but I like it.

      • Kate Paulk

        It is a good idea, although video games are explicitly eligible for both long form and short form best dramatic presentation. I”m kind of hoping I”ll find the new Overlord game awesome enough to warrant nomination.

        • Draven

          new overlord game? yay!

          (not that the second half of November isn’t going to disappear into fallout 4, for me)

        • The idea I was seconding was a page on SP4 for discussion of proposed constitutional changes.

          • Kate Paulk

            Oh, sorry – my mistake. I like that notion and I’ll try to get something up this weekend.

            It’s been one of those weeks at work. I’m having a lot of them lately (thank Dog the biggest set of changes releases at the end of this month)

            • Must be something in the air. Heard a wail of terror Tues AM, and got a busy group e-mail on Wed that the main off-site servers had gone down and they didn’t THINK anyone’s cloud-based classrooms, files, and do on had vanished. Maybe. Something something update something something glitch/feature something something don’t panic (yet). I patted my hard drive and kept on going. Then my printer tried to choke to death . . .

            • snowcrash

              Oooh, sorry to thread hijack, but if you’re making changes to the SP4 site, it’s my understanding that MidAmeriCon 2 will be giving out the 1941 Retro Hugos as well, for work published in 1940. I ‘m hoping review and recommendation threads can be put up for those as well.

              Over [removed – moderator] there’s been compilation of works that would qualify, and they’ve been listed [Link removed – moderator]onwards by category.

              There’s a lack of suggestions for the Semiprozine, Fanzine, Fan Artist, or Fancast categories, so if anyone knows of works that would qualify, please drop a post in that thread as well.

              • Nathan

                Might as well add the Retros if the Kindly Ones are willing.

                One vote for Slan as a Puppy nom.

              • Snowcrash DO NOT ADVERTISE OTHER SITES HERE WITHOUT PERMISSION.

                • Mike Glyer

                  You guys only mention it every fifth comment. A person could be pardoned for thinking that was permission.

                  MODERATOR (Dave Freer): 1) This has been applied to other posts from other posters. Do you consider File 770 to have special privileges? More equal than others perhaps? Other posters displayed the elementary good manners to ask before posting live links.
                  2) As your site is known for having abused this one, and you are known to employ selective quoting as tool to belittle, abuse, and generally attack the posters here and puppies as well as selective moderation against the pups I can see no advantage to us in directing traffic for your benefit. On the basis of your comment, this has gone from a warning to the link being removed.

                  • Angus Trim

                    Mike, would you answer a question? Why are you here bullying us? This is a writing site for Christ’s sake. Not a war zone.

                    The war zone is File 770. The guy that runs that site is constantly linking to other sites trying his damnest to keep the pot stirred up.

                    Instead of constanty stirring the pot up, why not do something constructive? Like write about honest to goodness fan stuff? Instead of riling up your readers to come to this site and tear it up, why not keep them entertained there?

                    The Hugos are over for several months. Quit being a sore winner and get back to the business of writing a fan blog, without the shit stirring.

                • snowcrash

                  Dave, given that the post and link in question just went to the tail end of a comment thread, and contained compilations of works identified as being published/ released in 1940 by their Retro Hugo category, it seemed to me as fairly harmless, and didn’t twig to me as advertising – there’s a couple of other mentions of the same site here as well.

                  I hope you will reconsider and allow the link to be posted (and I hope the categories make it to the SP4 site as well).

                  • Snowcrash, that was why I hadn’t removed it, just let you know I was pretty pissed about it, before Mike Glyer blundered in with his entitlement. It’s not the mention but the live link that really has been a problem in the past. As you’ve asked politely and have made an effort to engage here I offer a compromise – copy and paste (with the link in place to the comment on file 770) to your own site, and I’m happy to either insert that into your post or to have you post it as a fresh link. I have quite a few of magazines from the 50’s that I’ve picked up over the years, but nothing form the 40’s.

    • What about “Best Collection”? Then I could just have voted for THE BOOK OF FEASTS AND SEASONS (or CITY BEYOND TIME) instead of worrying about whether Wright had “too many” nominations, and whether I should pick Just One to support.

      • Mark

        Best Editor Short Form is currently a bit of a stand-in for Best Anthology and Best Magazine Editor combined. There are some discussions going about reforming the Editor and Semiprozine categories to bring in Best Anthology/Magazine/Publisher. Feel free to join in those discussions or make your own proposals.

    • Alex Jeffries

      There was a video game category in 2006. Nothing got enough nominations to even appear on the ballot. So, it wasn’t around the next year.

  19. Alan S.

    Do the list like this:

    1. Random ScalziCrud
    2. Random GerroldCrud
    3. Random HinesCrud
    4. Random McGuireCrud
    5. Random TorCrud
    6. Something competent
    7. Something else competent.

    A) It will still fail to win the trolls over. Rules 2 & 3 I think.
    B) Crudmakers will -demand- their own removal from the list.
    C) The trolls will end up voting for things on the SP list – because there’s no reason to remove them from the list anyway. Much angst.
    D) No puppies will be harmed in the making or execution of the list, because the actual goal (MAKE PEOPLE VOTE MORE) will be accomplished, with a side of no one competent confused by all the asterisks at the head of the list.

  20. My personal vote is to rank the recommendations. Part of the reason is that it seems to me that the Hugos may be dead, and although I don’t see much point in starting a different award, it could be that over the next few years getting ranked at the top for Sad Puppies would be more important (to some of us, at least) than that other dead award. Though I’d like to see more novel categories. It’s kind of silly that there’s only one novel category and multiple categories for shorter works, when novel is so much bigger and more important. I enjoy the occasional shorter work, but 95% of my reading is novels. I think novels should get at least 4 or 5 categories. If only we could figure out what the categories should be.

    • snowcrash

      Eric Flint had some ideas on this, that boiled down to:

      1) Short novels. Stories from about 40,000 to 80,000 words.

      2) Full length stand-alone novels.

      3) Mega-novels. These are stories which are actually a single “novel” in the sense that they are based on an integrated story arch, but which are so long that for practical and commercial reasons they have to be published in multiple volumes. Probably the classic instance in our field is Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. It is usually called a “trilogy,” but it is in fact a single novel.

      4) Series, properly speaking. These are stories which share a common setting and usually a common set of characters, but do not possess a single story arch.

      I dunno if it would be easy to distinguish between 3 & 4, but otherwise does seem quite an interesting jumping off point for a discussion

      • Aimee Morgan

        Looking at very long sets of books, the Dresden Files would be a Series, as they all occur in the same universe with the same characters, but there are breaks in action between books. Robert Jordan’s Twenty-Plus-Books-Over-Twenty-Plus-Years-And-I-Can’t-Remember-The-Name-For-The-Live-Of-Me would be a Mega Novel, as the story carries cleanly from book to book.

  21. William Underhill, Barbarian 1st Class

    Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I was mentioned on File770 (point #9 of Pixel Scroll 9/4). Why Mr. Glyer feels the need to quote me I’m not quite sure; I’m not a writer nor am I a BNF (Big-Name Fan, which I believe is the approved – by Truefen – term). But hey – one starts somewhere, I suppose.
    (http://file770.com/?p=24729)

  22. While this
    http://hugonoms2015.wikia.com/wiki/Hugo_Nominees_2016
    and this
    https://plus.google.com/collection/Qqbn6
    are Not Slates, and untainted.

    You can expect to understand this some day when the sea is less wet.

  23. I voted for a wide variety of works on the Hugo ballot. This included several works which were NOT on the so-called “Puppy slate”. The second I exhibited favor towards those works on File770, it was trumpeted as “proof Puppy works are sub-standard”.

    Literally, within two posts following. I was not ALLOWED by the so-called “CHORFs” to stray from what they themselves had mandated as the Puppy reservation. I felt no obligation to vote on any basis other than quality, yet the denizens of File770 made clear they felt I was.

    For example, “Sex Criminals” made the top of my list in the Graphic Novel category. I was disillusioned with the overall quality of the rest, where the art was often good but the story was little more than a collection of tropes. “Sex Criminals” had both excellent art and damned fine writing, the sort which made me want to see more of it. None of the rest in the category sparked that fire for me.

    “WHOOP-WHOOOOOOOP-WHOOP! Heresy detected! He’s not voting Zombie Nation! PROOF THAT THE SLATE IS REAL!”

    Y’know, part of the name of the fandom is “Science”. We like to pride ourselves that this means we’re more open to scientific methods and concepts, rather than loose sophistry.

    But for all the griping I’ve heard about John Wright being religious, the biggest faith-based vote at the Hugos was for “No Award”.

    • Mark

      Calbeck,

      If you’re referring to your visit starting with a comment at “June 11, 2015 at 8:03 am”, then “Literally, within two posts following” the reply you got was “Hi Calbeck! Do you want to talk about some books?” Unfortunately, you hadn’t read any of the books, so that bit of the conversation didn’t really go anywhere, but various people did talk about the Graphics with you.

      I fail to see where in the ensuing discussion you were not allowed to say things, but feel free to post some quotes and links to prove me wrong.

      • Doesn’t seem that you’re referencing what I’m talking about, which is the reaction people on File770 had to my talking about books I had read. Including, for example, Jason Cordova’s nomination entries, which I was not impressed with. I also spoke well of “Sex Criminal”.

        Both of my critiques were immediately held up as proof that the nominated Puppy works were sub-par, on grounds that a Puppy wasn’t going to slate-vote in their favor. This, of course, required the prejudice that Puppies were planning to lock-step in the first place.

        There was one person on File770 — exactly ONE person — whom I did have an actual discussion with, because that single person had actual questions and concerns instead of a bucket-list of accusations. He wasn’t pro-Puppy, but we had a thoughtful conversation… on his private blog, away from File770’s toxicity. Neither of us changed the other’s mind, but at least it was a meeting of the minds to begin with, and we parted on amicable terms.

        • Mark

          I was referring to that very discussion, yes. You talked to several people about the graphic novels and Hill 42. You also had other opinions which people disagreed with. No-one “Not ALLOWED” you anything. How could they, none of them had any mod powers to change what you wrote.

          • First, you just got done claiming I hadn’t read any of the books.

            Second, no one has claimed anyone invoked any “mod powers” to keep me on the “Puppy reservation”. Since you just made two consecutive leaps of logical disconnect in order to deny what actually happened — that open-mindedness and honesty were considered by File770 posters to be propaganda fodder, useful only in terms of maintaining a fictional narrative — I have little choice to conclude that you are merely conducting yourself in the same manner.

            Good day.

            • Mark

              Calbeck, in the thread I am referencing you said you couldn’t talk about the novels or shorts because you hadn’t read them yet. As it was in early June with plenty more time to get to them, there’s no criticism there. Personally I hadn’t got to the Graphic Novels and various other categories at that point. I’m saying that people did in fact discuss various works with you, and others would have discussed more with you if you were a position to do so.

              I’m addressing the following claim “Literally, within two posts following. I was not ALLOWED by the so-called “CHORFs” to stray from what they themselves had mandated as the Puppy reservation.” which is obviously wrong because no-one could prevent you from discussing what you wanted, and indeed you were able to discuss things you wanted. Where you talked about works you got discussion about works, where you discussed puppy politics you got discussion including some strong pushback against your stated positions, which is surely what you expected?

              • You continue to misrepresent, deflect and deny. In fact, since I was commenting on the quality of Jason Cordova to the effect I would not be voting for him, I had indeed read some of these works, but you came in here claiming I’d read none.

                The entire point of this post you’re replying to now is that my commentary on what I HAD read was deliberately distorted purely for purposes of propaganda, to claim that Puppies followed a slate and that my NOT following the presumed slate only meant that Puppy works were thoroughly sub-par. This despite the fact that, as you yourself noted, I had not read everything which had been nominated, Puppy or otherwise.

                File770’s denizens, with the exception of a single person, did not entertain the concept of a world in which someone could support the Puppies while also praising non-Puppy nominations and criticizing Puppy-nominated authors.

                That is the reservation the so-called CHORFs created for Puppies. I was not allowed to leave it since, apparently, doing so would have broken the ongoing narrative of a mindless army marching in lock-step in strict obedience to shadowy puppet-masters.

                It doesn’t take mod powers or the silencing of anyone to create and maintain such reservations — it is the basis, in fact, for almost any form of blind, emotion-based ideology: racism, sexism, any -ism which relies on the “othering” of human beings.

                Please stop trying to defend that.

  24. I look forward to more of this list. I am starting to have more books I want to try than money to try them all. It is a far better problem to have than the previous many years’ dry spell. For this I owe the puppy campeign a great deal.

  25. Hugo “Asterisk Awards”: Legal Analysis Complete

    Yes, I’m the guy who demanded a refund and a copy of my invalidated ballot from WorldCon, was told to go pound sand, and decided to see a lawyer about an Asterisk.

    Here’s the results of that inquiry, for the record, via Twitlonger. http://tl.gd/n_1snencp

    TL;DR: If the Asterisks officially serve to call all 2015 Hugo Nominations into question (they made no exceptions, everyone got one), then there’s no cause for legal action. If they are UNOFFICIAL, then they endanger the Hugo trademark (you have to defend against infringements, unlike copyrights) and it turns into an issue of class-action fraud. Tempted to file just to call WorldCon’s bluff…

  26. Are you going to nominate blogs as “fanzines” and bloggers as “fan writers”? If you do that, then you are going to unnecessarily alienate traditional fanzine fandom just like what the “puppies” did.

    Are you going to learn from the mistakes that Brad Torgersen committed or are you going to repeat them?

    Charles Rector,
    Editor, Fornax
    http://efanzines.com/Fornax/index.htm

    • Draven

      What exactly are the standards for a ‘fanzine’? What, exactly, differentiates it from a blog?

      Are bloggers not ‘fan writers’?

      Oh right, wrongfans, wrongfun, etc etc, we have to stick with your fifty year old paradigm.

    • Mild curiosity – do you assume we’re better and cleverer than your side are? I ask merely because despite the Puppy kickers having got nearly everything wrong last year, and the year before, and the year before that, which has increase puppy support year after year, your side seems absolutely set on learning nothing, repeating the same failed performance. So if you think we could learn, that does seem to imply that you think this. Or are you guys going to learn too? Analysis of your long term future shows you desperately need to reach out to the Sad Puppies. That is now very much harder and will ‘cost’ your side far more. We have nothing to lose. You have everything to lose. Keep not learning, and you will succeed in losing everything.

      We’ve learned a few things from Brad: He tried to be reasonable. Your side took that as weakness, and were more unpleasant.

      • Kathodus

        It looks like Charles is a Rabid Puppy to me. The first zine at his site says:

        Welcome to the first issue of Fornax, my very first endeavor in sci-fi
        fanzines. It is also, as far as I know, the very first pro-GamerGate
        fanzine. That it comes out now is fitting now that GamerGate has
        emerged as the dominant faction in sci-fi fandom, at least as far as the
        Hugo Awards nomination process is concerned.

        • As a member of the GamerGate consumer revolt, I actually laughed reading this just now. I’ve said it before on Eric Flint’s blog: GamerGate is a scandal about corruption in games journalism. While many gamers also happen to be SF/F fans, the Hugo Awards were not even on our collective radar…

          …until, that is, the movement was blamed by anti-Puppies in the aftermath of the 2015 nominations. Which made it into the press and managed to dovetail itself into ongoing accusations of misogyny, racism, and an epidemic of cat-raping.

          Yes, that last charge I just made up, but then again the first and second charges are made up too so why not? The greater proof of the pudding is that even a scandal-rag like Entertainment Weekly had to hastily reverse a narrative it had originally parroted without a second thought — and then, only because they were notified of having just committed actionable libel.

          Because our movement was smeared even further in an already-hostile press by anti-Puppies, the Hugos became just another front in the battle for improving journalistic ethics.

          • Kathodus

            Regardless, I highly doubt Charles Rector is on the side of the “puppy-kickers.”

            As someone who worked within the gaming industry for a couple years in the mid-90s, and who has several friends who have been obsessed with video games all their lives, I can affirm that the state of gaming journalism, at least, back in the 90s and early 00s, when I was paying attention at all… well, I don’t know if you could call it corrupt. I don’t know that you could call it journalism. It was merely paid advertisement for game companies with, I assume, the copy written by the magazine employees. There was one gaming magazine I remember that was not basically just interested in payola. I can’t recall the name, though, but they had hilarious writers and would eviscerate crappy games. One of my aforementioned friends went to work for them shortly before they folded (it’s hard to be a gaming magazine that doesn’t accept payola).

            I’ve heard that the GG movement has something to do with ethics in journalism, but I haven’t seen much evidence toward that, and most of what I’ve seen of the movement has been due to the insanely shitty behavior of, apparently, a minority of GGers (caveat: I’m not a gamer, so I don’t care, so I haven’t paid much attention).

            Anyway, from what I’ve seen, GG types are more prevalent on the RP side of things, somewhat present in the SPs, and completely absent within the group of people who oppose the two movements. Hence my jumping to possibly incorrect conclusions about Mr. Rector. It certainly wasn’t meant as an accusation or an insult.

            I find it… interesting that the GG… interest in the Hugos is about ethics in journalism. Is there anything that isn’t about ethics in journalism?

            • When the press is used to smear a group with falsehoods, it’s about ethics in journalism.

              And while AAA developers have long been lining the pockets of various gaming-news outlets, matters have gotten dramatically worse over the last decade, with incidents such as journalists being fired for giving HONEST reviews about games whose publishers were advertising heavily on the site (the Gerstmann Incident).

              Other incidents have included falsifying allegations of rape against a game developer, then refusing to apologize when the accuser recanted and apologized before a court of law. Advertising revenue was no longer enough by itself to sustain a number of these outlets, so they began making the news up or exaggerating scandals in order to generate outrage and thus site traffic.

              Most of what you seem to believe about GG actually originates with a Gawker Media vertical called Kotaku. When the Society of Professional Journalists was recently asked what they thought of Gawker’s ethics, they broke out laughing. The SPJ actually curates ethical guidelines for ALL news media in North America, and their own Ethics Committee member said “I would never quote or cite them”.

              That you’re apparently reliant on a Gawker narrative for your info on GamerGate goes a long way to suggest why you hold your particular views about the movement.

              The harsh reality is that a bunch of journalists who present themselves as social activists were already writing articles like “Stop Pretending There Isn’t a Videogame Rape Culture” (Brendan Keogh, June 2012). Keogh’s article spends its first quarter apologizing for even writing the article, not because he thought he would anger gamers, but because he thought he would anger social activists like himself. Midway through, he redefines “rape” itself:

              “That is rape culture: the means by which our society keeps women subservient to men by constantly reminding them that if they step out of line, if they for a moment think that they have as much freedom or power as men, men will rape them and put them back in their place. Rape isn’t just forced sex. It’s an act of exerting power.”

              He goes on to exhort his readership to support censorship:

              “Let’s not be bashful: videogame culture is complicit in the proliferation and continuing of rape culture…our own medium has apparently reached a point where trailers like the Hitman Absolution’s are allowed to exist.”

              This just barely touches on Keogh’s disconnects from reality — and yet, he is representative of a strong clique in gaming journalism. He was one of the authors of the “Gamers Are Dead” articles which put GamerGate as a scandal into high gear and had other journalists from non-gaming venues wondering what had possessed them to start attacking their own readership like feral dogs on red meat.

              Payola’s still a problem in the games-journalism industry. But it’s been far eclipsed by the pure toxicity being exhibited towards the culture from a chunk of the press which openly hates it.

    • I was involved in various “traditional fanzines”. Most of the people who published and/or wrote for them moved directly into blogging because it let them do the same thing for less money.

      All would be quite offended at someone telling them they’re not “really” fan writers or fanzine publishers anymore despite the only difference being they don’t kill trees anymore.

      • Have you never heard of EFanzines.com where you can publish fanzines on the web without using paper? Blogging is quite a bit different than fanzines and its a lot less interesting as well

        • William Underhill

          Some blogs are less interesting. Some are not. There is no fundamental problem with using a blogging site as an e-fanzine, though. What matters is the content. I’m kind of surprised an editor doesn’t know this.

        • It seems you have a particular interpretation of the term “blog”, which excludes “fanzine” and “fan fiction” for reasons you’ve yet to explain.

          WordPress, here, is a blogsite. How is it that, were I to create a piece of fiction and publish it here, it would cease to be “fan fiction”? What if I have a fanfic on a site dedicated to fanfic, and I republish it to my WordPress account?

          I could apply a practical demonstration right now, but 250k+ words are a lot to copy and paste.