Sitcom
MacBeth lolmac wrote in bethinexile
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
The Deed Is Done
Just finished my Hugo ballot (and just in time, because today is the deadline).

Yes, I voted Puppy-free.  That was the entire reason I got a voting membership.  If you would have liked to have voted a no-pups slate but did not have the disposable income to frivol on a voting membership, I invite you to join me in my personal No-Pup Vicarious Thrills Members' Circle!  Share in my act of defiance, even if it's only through a proxy.

No, I did not acquire or read anything on the Sad or Rabid Puppies' slates.  No, I don't feel any remorse whatsoever for voting against something I had not read.  That's what the pups do themselves (vote against things they won't read), and I've made the decision to do it back at them.  I'm years past the point of automatically doing the wrong thing for the "right" reason (and not just because of the number of times I have been thoroughly screwed over as a result of other people doing the wrong things, or failing to do the right things, for the "right" reason).  (Although that does counteract the potential for remorse even more thoroughly.)

I actually deviated from the no-pup ballot in one instance:  I really loved Guardians of the Galaxy, which was one of their nominees.  I was, in the end, unable to rank it below works that I genuinely thought were inferior -- and which were not the creative work of the Pupheads.

Now we wait to find out the results.  I'm hoping for a lot of unused rockets.  I had, at one point, been thinking that this might be a good year for me to actually attend -- I have never been to a Worldcon, although I've been to many others, it's in Washington state, I know a lot of the lovely folks running it this year -- and they actually asked me if I would maybe come? -- but once the canine excrement started coming down, I was glad I had not made the commitment.  I feel deeply sorry for my con-running friends and acquaintances, having to preside over this mare's nest.  I hope that everyone who attends, other than the Pups, has a truly wonderful time, stays healthy, gets enough to eat and enough sleep, meets wonderful people and generally rocks out that weekend.

Meanwhile, back here in the No-Pup Vicarious Thrills Members' Circle, the Save button has been pressed, and it's time for us to have a drink, or a cookie, or both.  What'll you have?

Hugo ballot without PuppyPoop

Thanks for doing your part to spite those horrid, brigading bigots who've forever ruined the Hugo Awards! The Puppies have moved science fiction BACKWARDS, when it's a genre which has always innovated literary & cultural shifts because authors tackle progressive & taboo subject matter by disguising it with aliens, dystopias, future speculation, horror, and fantasy technology.

doing the wrong thing for the "right" reason
Dare we hope that the Hugos will restructure the voting process to prevent bad faith voting in the future?

Re: Hugo ballot without PuppyPoop

It isn't the voting process that needs a fix, it's the nomination process. And I don't think it needs that much of a tweak -- just limiting the number of noms that a single member can submit will make it much harder to game the system. No system is unbreachable, but this particular fruit can be moved a lot higher up the tree.

Re: Hugo ballot without PuppyPoop

oh good yes they should do that

Re: Hugo ballot without PuppyPoop

I wrote in a brief summary of E Pluribus Hugo, another proposed amendment to the nomination process, in a comment below. E Pluribus Hugo is a bit complicated, but I think it would work better than the current proposal to limit the nominations to something less than 5, because we are already dealing with two slates.

Good for you! I haven't been following the Hugo Awards debacle all that closely, but it sounds like a truly unfortunate shitshow. I hope the people who have tried to game the system are disappointed, and maybe for a better system next year.

I wish I could pour myself a glass of white wine and toast your good citizenship, but I have three more hours at work, so it will have to wait.

And seconding your wish for a happy Worldcon for everyone!

Well, I did my voting and wrote the post over lunch, so I haven't had my glass of wine yet either. *clinks temporally-shifted glasses with you* Slainte!

*clink*

I too spent the 40 dollars to do a lot of voting for Noah Ward. I too cast a vote for Guardians of the Galaxy over films that weren't on the Sick Sad Puppies nomination lists. I, however, I also voted for Jim Butcher's Skin Game over other things that weren't on the list. I'm no more sorry I voted for that novel than I am I voted for that movie. I still repeatedly voted for Noah Ward over many a Sick Sad Puppy choice. Can I still get a cookie?

Of course you can get a cookie! What kind of cookie would you like?

Warm chocolate chip, please?

U can has chocolate!

I have to say, it's really impressive just how prolific and multi-talented that Noah Ward is, doncha think?

Edited at 2015-08-01 03:21 (UTC)

Yay 4 chocolate! *Happy dances.*

*Nods.* Once I got how the rank voting system works I was voting for that Noah Ward even in categories where I wasn't ranking him first. He could have a huge year at the Hugos this year. I just hope one or two other deserving nominees get a rocket. :D

I voted also, and went puppy-free also, though I did read many of their nominated works. You didn't miss much.

I support changing the nomination rules, but I support E Pluribus Hugo. (The 4/6 proposal had my early support and I still don't *oppose* it, but I don't think it can have the full effect without E Pluribus Hugo.)

The problem with 4/6 or the other nominate less than the final ballot options is that we are already dealing with two slates--each of which has been able to get works on the ballot without the help of the other.

E. Pluribus Hugo is a different way of counting nominations--each member has one "nomination point" that is split among all their nominations. (So if you start with 5 nominations in Best Novel, each gets 0.2 points from you.) The points are counted up and the two works with the fewest points challenge each other. At that juncture the work nominated by fewer members loses.

The crucial bit is the next step: when a work loses, it's removed from all the ballots that mention it, and their nomination points are redistributed. So if one of your choices lost, your point is redistributed among the remaining 4 nominees, which each get 0.25 points from you.

Count points, resolve challenge round, repeat until you have 5 finalists.

Slate nominees tend to be correlated among the same ballots, so the nomination points from those ballots don't concentrate as fast. Simulations using old Hugo data result in slates that would have taken all five positions on the final ballot if counted the old way, taking one or two positions counted using E Pluribus Hugo.

It's not perfect but I think it will work better than the current situation and better than other proposed rule changes I have heard of.

Anyway, here's to Noa Waard--I think this might be her year. *raises a glass of sparkling cider to you and the rest of the vicarious thrills members circle*.

You should've put this reply under Campy's comment, since she was asking; but hopefully she'll come back and read the thread and see it.

I put in a quick reply to one of her comments mentioning this comment :-)

I did read many of their nominated works.

You are a braver woman than I! I made sure to look at all the non-puppy nominated works, but the only things from the puppy lists I gave time to were ones I loved well before I knew the puppies had dragged them down into the poop. I voted for the things I knew and really loved, whether or not they got smeared by the puppies, and steered clear of everything else the puppies nominated.

If you go to her LJ and look up her "sad puppies" tag, you can read her observations on the works -- all of which sounded far too much like a real piece of work to me. I used one of the "Puppy-free Hugo ballot" guidelines for my starting point.

I used one of the "Puppy-free Hugo ballot" guidelines for my starting point.

Me too. I mean the only categories where I knew most of the nominees without doing any specific research were novel, graphic novel, movie, and TV show. Once I started learning about just how rabid some of the rabid puppies are I realized that some of the nominees I'd never have the stomach to read myself. I'm still really relieved that with two whole puppy slates they only had one puppy nominee in the graphic novel category, even if it didn't make picking my number one choice any easier.

I *intended* to read them all but I got so bogged down and discouraged after reading their fiction entries that I kind of ran out of steam. I started reading fun things instead to get my enthusiasm back up... and never really got back to my Hugo reading so there are some of the Puppy works in Best Related and the like that I haven't read.

Having read four (!) stories by John C. Wright I didn't have the heart to subject myself to "Transhuman and Subhuman". Having been bored to my back teeth by Lou Antonelli's "On a Spiritual Plain" I didn't make it to "Letters From Gardener" and so on.

Really, the takehome message here is not just how bad the works are, but how cliquesh the slates are. The more I read Puppy blogs, the more I realize these people are all nominating their friends and the occasional person vouched for by a friend. Where they accuse people doing well in the Hugos of "handing each other awards"? That's totally projection.

Having read four (!) stories by John C. Wright...

*Whistles softly.* Wow. That's one of the things I specifically knew I didn't want to do. I didn't have to hear very much about Vox Day and his pets to know I didn't want to read any of their stuff. Pretty sure calling his pet projects "friends" is putting them on too equal a footing. He's the one that started up his own little publishing house just to get his pets into print. Voting for Noah Ward rather than anything from Castalia House was the most satisfying part of voting for the Hugos for me, as much as I love GotG and Skin Game. I care less that the things I love win than I do that the poop from CH doesn't win a damn thing.

Well done! The whole thing has just sounded unbelievable, really. 0_o

Nice cup of coffee and a smile sounds right just about now...

*HUGS*

Such Sad, Sad Puppies....

Heya----Lea and I are headed for SASQUAN this afternoon, and I'm looking forward to seeing the presence and influence of the Sad Puppies (or the lack thereof) on the WORLDCON itself. I suspect they'll draw the sort of laughs which Donald Trump's hairpieces usually attract.

This kind of fanboy-connivance has gone on since the days of the Futurians, and usually over piddling personal animosities. Frederik Pohl recounted many of the early fannish squabbles with bemused, sometimes pained honesty in his memoir THE WAY THE FUTURE WAS; whether any of The Puppies would read it, or get anything out of doing so, is a very good question. This crowd doesn't seem openly prone to humility.

To paraphrase the immortal Cyrano de Bergerac (who wrote some proto- S-F himself), we shall see what we shall see.

I found myself with a SASQUAN membership by pure happenstance, and before I heard about Sad/Rabid-Puppygate. Providentially, my computer skills are sufficiently lacking that I clammed the online-voting process, and thus couldn't accidentally vote for The Rabid-Puppy Slate. Once I got the details on the whole affair, I was profoundly grateful I hadn't voted. (Next year is an entirely different matter, be assured---I want very much to help keep the Hugo Awards viable, and voting actively is the best way I know of to counter-act the ninnies whom Theodore Beal (aka 'Vox Day') would like to goad into voting yet another ideologically-based slate. Enough Is Enough, IMHO....

?

Log in