Offer? What Offer?

Reblogged from Sad Puppies 4

Written by Kate Paulk 

I’ve heard through the Internet (all right, Facebook) that someone who fancies himself a big shot in the field has “offered” to stop claiming Sad Puppies 4 is all things evil in return for a few “reasonable concessions” on our part.

Since the person in question hasn’t bothered to make this offer to me, Sarah Hoyt, or Amanda Green, Sad Puppy supporters can reasonably assume that the so-called offer is not actually genuine.

Just to remind folks:

Sarah Hoyt, Amanda Green, and I are the management of Sad Puppies 4. The direction I announced back in September has not changed: anyone who wishes to recommend any work they have read/seen/heard/etc. that is eligible for a Hugo award may add the work to the lists at this site. We made this decision before WorldCon in 2015, and we made it without reference to any other party.

We do not care what the creators’ politics are. We do not care what the posters’ politics are. We care that people who love science fiction and fantasy have a place to build an awesome list of recommended reading/viewing/listening/artwork for 2015. We care that lots of people become involved in the Hugo Award process. Nobody is excluded from Sad Puppies 4. Anybody can participate or not as they choose. The recommendations will not vanish. Every recommendation will be in the final list. There’s no “gatekeeping” going on here, and no litmus test for participation…unlike the ultimatums being “offered” to the Sad Puppies.

When the final list is announced, we’ll post the top 10 for each category, whatever those might be, and link to the full list. Nothing will be hidden or secret. Anyone who wants to will be able to reconstruct the list from the recommendations posted here (I don’t suggest anyone actually doesthis. It’s tedious and time-consuming and I really should have written an application to do the grunt work for me. Hindsight is ever perfect).

Finally, we will not be publicly dissociating or associating Sad Puppies 4 from/with anyone. Anyone can make recommendations and everyone’s recommendations will have exactly the same weight as everyone else’s. Nobody will be asked to nominate or vote in line with the list. That’s been the policy from the start, and it’s been what I’ve said from the start.

If the person claiming to have made an offer had actually contacted me, this is exactly what I would have told him with or without his so-called “Puppy moratorium”.



Filed under KATE PAULK

34 responses to “Offer? What Offer?

  1. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

    It might have been GRRM but it’s a moot point as GRRM may be a “Big Shot” but doesn’t have the power to stop the “Puppy Kickers”. [Frown]

    • Christopher M. Chupik

      Pretty sure it’s Steve Davidson in this case.

      • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

        Even worse, GRRM is more of a “Big Shot” than Steve Davidson could dream of being.

      • Ah, yes. Steve Davidson. Now there’s a voice of reason, to be sure.

        I, at least, haven’t forgotten all that crap you said before, Steve, and I personally will not buy — or even read — anything you’re associated with ever again, much less make any “concessions”. I’m not anyone at all in the Puppy movement, of course, just a guy who likes to read F&SF, but I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one who feels this way.

        You went for the scorched earth tactics early on, Steve. STFU and live with the consequences of your actions.

      • ravenshrike

        I must imitate Korath the Pursuer here and ask, Who?

  2. julieapascal

    “I’ll stop lying about you if you do these things I’m demanding you do.”

    Offering to behave decently if there are “concessions” doesn’t make the person offering “good”, it makes them a (failed) extortionist.

  3. David Lang

    I hope that the final 10 list isn’t just based on the number of times it’s mentioned by people in the thread. That is far too easy to game, and leads to tedious threads with many repeats.

    it also turns the SP recommendations list into a ‘primary vote’

    compile the long list, from the recommendations, but then you need to use some judgement in distilling it down to the final list.

    • Synova

      I think it’s a non problem. “nominate without reading” isn’t the plan.

      • David Lang

        If the entire top-ten list ends up consisting of things that are all the opposite of what the SP have said they like, what’s the value in publishing the list?

        Even if all the SP do read the works on the list and only nominate what they like, it doesn’t make creating a list that’s dominated by nonsense meaningful if no SP is going to nominate anything on the list.

        a pure vote based on the number of times something is mentioned in the comments is meaningless on the Internet. It’s the same meaningless that lets Republicans vote in the Democratic Party primary, why let the opposition select the people that are going to be endorsed by your name?

    • Bibliotheca Servare

      “…use some judgement in distilling it down to the final list.” …”judgement” pal? Really? Define your terms. What do you mean by “judgement”? Assess whether the most popular recommendations are “worthy” of the “top ten”? Gatekeep for “badthink” and personal preferences? Seriously, what the ever loving frack are you trying to suggest here? It sounds like you’re saying the democratic process needs to be “managed” by people who know better than the voters what really “qualifies” as “Hugo-nom-worthy”. And that’s exactly what this “campaign” is designed to reject. Good day.

      • julieapascal

        Read the nominations and a person has to wonder if some of them are nominated by marketing departments. It’s tempting to make an attempt to weed out marketing department spam or self promotion or attempts to flood the lists with anti-puppy picks, not as participation (which is very welcome) but as sabotage… tempting to try to fix that but unnecessary and not likely to be a good idea in the long run.

        But what it isn’t is an offense against democracy. A marketing department promotion isn’t democracy. Getting a bunch of your friends to post “ha ha, we’ll show them” recommendations isn’t democracy. Letting anyone who wants to nominate as many stories or entries to any category that they want to isn’t democracy. We already put up with a bunch of people whining and crying about how Brad wasn’t democratic enough, essentially making up a problem that never existed because he did what he said he’d do the way that he said he’d do it.

        This is not a problem. Kate has explained she’ll publish the list and explained how she’ll do it. What we do with that list is up to those who read the suggestions and nominate those we like best. WorldCon *does* limit votes per-membership. Problem solved. If people have to start half-way down the list with their reading because it seems that shenanigans account for the work at the top, that is entirely up to them and their own judgement.

        • David Lang

          what if the entire top 10 appears to be the result of shenaigans?

          remember that 2500 people paid $40 to vote ‘no award’, getting a free e-mail account is trivial in comparison, and with the top ‘vote getter’ currently only having a dozen votes, do we really want to get to dueling robot campaigns? Once you start trying to weed out marketing or robots, you are exercising judgment on the list, and any such attempt is going to remove some legitimate ‘votes’ as well.

          SP4 isn’t supposed to be a primary for the hugos, it’s supposed to be a group of suggestions of good books that the SP think are worthy. If it’s just the result of an anonymous Internet poll, why bother?

          • I agree with this emphatically. The people who gamed the Hugo voting to No-Award five categories will certainly game the SP nominations if you let them.

          • julieapascal

            In that case… we win because the bad behavior will be clear. In order for all 10 of the top to be clearly anti-pup, say in novels, it means that someone will have had to come up with *10* novels published last year that are clearly meant to piss us off. This is not a reason NOT to publish the list. It’s a reason to publish it and shout it from the rooftops. There are a few individuals I’d not put past being dumb enough to try it, only a few, granted those few seem to thrive on collecting and directing internet attack mobs, but darkness dies when exposed to the light.

            • Bibliotheca Servare

              Indeed. All it takes to vanquish the darkness is a single candle. 🙂

            • Yeah, but what are you going to do after you publish the list? Tell your supporters to vote for the Puppy Kickers’ choices?

              • jaed

                Is “tell people to nominate and vote for the work they liked best” difficult in some way? The point of this exercise is to break the control of the social clique over the Hugos and get more fans interested and voting, not to vote for specific things.

                If some fools decide to game the list, they’ve shown that their true interest is maintaining control. If the said fools think that will discourage fans outside the clique from voting for their favorites, they are worse than fools.

                • David Lang

                  do you think gaming the list will make them look any worse than their actions last year at the hugos?

                  Any yes, Puppy voters will look elsehwere, and they will be able to brag about how even the puppies didn’t vote for the puppy list.

                  The SP list should not be a post counting excercise thata allows anyone in the world to make as many posts as they want. That is the worst possible way to assemble a list.

                  Gathering suggestions from anyone and everyone is good. But if SP are going to recommend a list, then it needs to be SP that are doing the recommendations, not SP+everyone else on the Ineternet.

                  I’m really tempted to take something that was published this year, but the author has stated they will refuse the nomination and do some real trivial examples of ‘stuffing the ballot’. I’ll bet that with an afternoon’s work, I could do so in a way that would make it so that you coudl only tell it was me by clues I deliberatly left.

                  Tor and other free VPN services can anonomyse my IP address (or I rent AWS computers for a few cents/hour), free e-mail addresses are available from many sources, creating new domains is not that expensive, and the only content of the message needs to be the titles. easy to script to submit over time so they aren’t all clustered together.

                  Again, anyone making suggestions is THE RIGHT THING TO DO, but allowing anyone to make the final decision as to what’s on the final SP4 recommendations list means that it’s not the SP recommendation list..

                  You folks are being too driven by Brad’s offhand comment about the SP3 slate being democratically decided on. and the nit-pickers challenging that. If the SP are going to publish a recommendation list, the criteria to be on it somehow needs involve SP deciding on the list, not just Internet posts with unknown affiliations.

  4. This kind of reminds me of those groups that offer to ensure that their demonstration will remain peaceful if they are given what they want.

  5. Christopher M. Chupik

    I expect that since Steve Davidson has started posting here, that he’ll reply to this and answer Kate’s questions.

    We’ll see.

  6. I just read Davidson’s demands for reconciliation.

    My response: Bugger off prevaricator

  7. With tongue so firmly in cheek that surgical restoration of both might be required…

    I hereby list my offer/demands:
    [Redacted – feel free to make better, funnier ones]

    In return for meeting such conditions you will get:
    – The sun rising in the east (except at times in extreme polar regions).
    – Liquid water being wet.
    – Fire resulting in burning.
    – Tapioca pudding being lumpy.

    The Great and Powerful Ox Has Spoken.

    (Silliness abounds, yes.)

  8. So, people who nominate books/stories/art/movies/what have you that they like stop nominating what they like, and this individual will stop telling the ‘net that said nominators are no longer beating their spouses? Oh that’s a heck uv a deal. *goes to get towel to sop up sarcasm puddle*

  9. If the prevaricator would actually read what people write it would be quite obvious to him there is a decided difference between SP and RP that both groups claimed.

    “The Sad Puppies are not Rabid.” From the fingertips of their devil living in their heads.

    “We are not Rabid Puppies. Larry and I are not Vox Day.” From Brad.

    “The Sad Puppies 3 campaign is a separate and different entity than the Rabid Puppies campaign.” From Larry.

    I realize that reading comprehension isn’t everybody’s thing. But if you are claiming to not only be influential in a field based upon the written word, and are supposedly publishing a SF/F magazine, it better be pretty farging high on your abilities. Since he continues spewing his lies it can only be because he’s a dishonest shitbag.

    *also posted at Nicki Kenyon’s blog*

    • Bibliotheca Servare

      Well, he (and his fellow-travelers) could also just…actually be *that* stupid. Malicious, disgusting bullies too, yes, but the possibility exists that they might honestly (stupidly…very stupidly) believe that Brad, Larry, and He Who Shall Not Be Named are *lying* or something equally moronic and delusional. Never underestimate their capacity to convince themselves that what they believe is real, and that reality is imaginary. They’ve long since grown numb to the burning sensation produced by their breathtaking stupidity. 😉