Kevin's Watch

Many people have suggested the solution to these issues is to increase the number of people taking part in the nomination and voting process. To that end, Mary Robinette Kowal and several others have offered to purchase a number of Supporting memberships to Sasquan, this year's Worldcon, for fans who otherwise couldn't afford the $40. Supporting membership gives nominating rights for the current, previous, and next year's awards (obviously too late now for two of those) and voting rights for this year's, as well as access to the 2015 Hugo Voter's Packet (electronic copies of nominated works donated by publishers) and participation in site selection fora future Worldcon (2017; there's an additional fee for that, which automatically becomes Supporting membership at the winning con).

The folks offering memberships are not asking for any kind of influence on voting behaviour (Kowal has said she'll decline next year if nominated, to avoid conflict).

maryrobinettekowal.com/journal/talk-with-me-about-being-a-fan-of-science-fiction-and-fantasy/

Even if it's not through this offer, you should consider taking part in the Hugos if you care about the results.

I always feel guilty that I have no interest in Mary Robinette Kowal's books because every time I read about her, she's being such an awesome person.

Two nominees from the Puppy slates have been found ineligible and removed from the ballot. John C Wright's novelette was previously published in 2013; it has been replaced on the ballot by Thomas Olde Heuvelt's "The Day the World Turned Upside Down" (not from the slates). Professional Artist nominee Jon Eno did not produce any eligible work in 2014, and has been replaced on the ballot by Kirk DouPonce (a Puppy nominee).

Note that prior to the ballot's initial announcement at least two other nominees from the Puppies were also declared ineligible.

Two of the nominees have withdrawn their works from consideration for the Hugo Awards. Annie Bellet has withdrawn her story "Goodnight Stars", as she feels the politicisation of the nomination has poisoned any value it held. Marko Kloos has withdrawn his novel Lines of Departure, as he does not want a nomination associated with Vox Day's influence.

There has been no official announcement from the Hugo administrators as yet. It seems likely we'll see more works promoted from lower in the nomination list.

Marko Kloos' novel has been replaced on the ballot by Cixin Liu's The Three-Body Problem (translated by Ken Liu). Annie Bellet's short story has been replaced with "A Single Samurai" by Steven Diamond, a Sad (but not Rabid) Puppy nominee.

The ballots have gone to the printer and there will be no further changes.

On Saturday, Fanzine nominee Black Gate announced their withdrawal from the ballot (one of their writers had already declined a nomination prior to the final ballot announcement, and they had been vocally against the slates before the decision to withdraw). As the ballot has already been fixed and sent to printers, however, they will not be removed.

Observations:
1) This is turning into a real mess.
2) The people who were nominated through the slate then withdrew are actually coming out of this looking pretty good.
3) The withdrawals of Puppy nominees is damaging to next year's Sad Puppy attempt, as it sets up a situation where a lot of people will want to avoid association in advance, regardless of whether they change their methods next year.

I'm Murrin wrote:On Saturday, Fanzine nominee Black Gate announced their withdrawal from the ballot (one of their writers had already declined a nomination prior to the final ballot announcement, and they had been vocally against the slates before the decision to withdraw). As the ballot has already been fixed and sent to printers, however, they will not be removed.

Observations:
1) This is turning into a real mess.

Yes, particularly since Vox Day is making noise about "making sure awards are never handed out again" in categories that are voted "No Award". I'm not sure how much sway Vox Day had in all of this, but there will have to be an organized counter point to these slates, else Vox Day could make good on this promise merely through dominating the nomination process.

2) The people who were nominated through the slate then withdrew are actually coming out of this looking pretty good.

Yes, I might even pick up the Kloos novel... or at least I'm considering it.

3) The withdrawals of Puppy nominees is damaging to next year's Sad Puppy attempt, as it sets up a situation where a lot of people will want to avoid association in advance, regardless of whether they change their methods next year.

You would hope so, but it might also incite the Sad Puppy base and enforce their victim-story, which might lead to a stronger turn out for them next year during the nomination process.

Vox Day. What an asshole.

Orlion wrote:

3) The withdrawals of Puppy nominees is damaging to next year's Sad Puppy attempt, as it sets up a situation where a lot of people will want to avoid association in advance, regardless of whether they change their methods next year.

You would hope so, but it might also incite the Sad Puppy base and enforce their victim-story, which might lead to a stronger turn out for them next year during the nomination process.

I don't think it'll stop the organisers fielding a slate and their fans voting it; what it might do, though, is strongly limit the number of people who'll be willing to be listed on the slate, so that it could become even more ideologically skewed.

SerScot wrote:Vox Day. What an asshole.

Yea. The one Sad Pup guy I know even a little about [Torgerson]---I don't agree with him on many things, but I understand his argument/POV [which is a kind of argument that has ALWAYS happened in EVERY genre, pretty much forever in various periods]...
And he's not even completely wrong.

But Day? The word vile [and some others even worse] exists as applied to humans because humans like him exist.

The thing is: is the shitstorm a thing that, once it has passed, revitalizes things? Or [flip sides] either exterminates or permanently marginalizes [vibrant species award becomes roadside attraction for oddballs?]

I don't know.
Personally, I love Space Opera AND [Super] Human/Social consciousness lit.

See, that's my thing, too. I like both types of stories, though I don't read as much space opera nowadays as I did at one time. Both kinds of fiction have their place. And who knows what will happen in the future? Maybe classic sci-fi will naturally reassert itself, without the help of any Puppies whatsoever, and human/social consciousness fiction will hive off into its own genre.

Fiction's a big tent, and speculative fiction is one of the bigger sub-tents. There's room under the big top for everybody. Nobody needed to stage a coup.

It's the threat to burn down the house if WSFS will not cave to him that puts him squarely in the "Asshole" camp in my opinion. What a shithead.

With the announcement of the 2015 Hugo Awards results the Rabid/Sad Puppies saga has reached some sort of conclusion.

The result of 'No Award' in five of the major categories (in which all of the nominees were from the Puppies' slates) does mean that the awards were definitely damaged this year by the Rabid/Sad Puppies' carry-on. But it also means that no nominee from the Puppies' slates won an award (the exception being 'Guardians of the Galaxy', which was a popular choice in any case).

No doubt, this is not the end to this controversy, but it is unlikely that the Puppies will be able to game the nomination process next year. That they will continue to be a destructive influence on it is almost guaranteed

u.

I don't think it's unlikely they'll do the same thing again. The main hope is maybe some of them will lose interest, or maybe more people will nominate, but honest nominations will still be scattered among a very wide field of eligible works, and slates will still find it very easy to push other things off.

They're working to change the nomination process to stop this, but it takes two years to change anything about the Hugos - two consecutive Worldcons have to vote in favour of any decision.

Who'd have thought book awards would be so political...

--A

Murrin, I've no doubt that the Puppies will go with another slate next year, but what I think will happen is that there will be an unofficial alternative slate worked up before the official nomination process. What this will mean is that, while the Puppies may get some of their choices onto the ballot, there will be no clean sweep like this year, and thus no categories where 'No Award' is the winner.

Maybe then, when the new process is put in place, it will return to some sort of normality.

u.

I don't think a counter-slate will happen.

On the other hand, there's at least something positive going on, because it seems that the Sad Puppies are planning to release a longlist of recommendations, instead of the 4-5 titles per category slate they did this year. Unfortunately the Rabid Puppies will probably do a slate, and they seem to be more organised in their voting.

I've read a few articles about this since the awards were announced. The one you linked, ussusimiel, was a nice summary.

E. plurbus Hugo was adopted by the Business Meeting but will bot take affect until adopted by the 2016 WSFS Business Meeting. The proponents claim they will run tests to see how it will work over the next year.

I understand the rational but still don't like the proposal. Too complicated and we have no assurances it cannot be exploted in its own special way.

Is EPH the one that runs some sort of statistical analysis to remove nominations when lots of ballots are the same? Does seem a bit iffy.