Merged 2014 Hugo awards.

[catsmate]

But canvassing for a politically-motivated anti-SP slate

And your evidence for this claim is........?

No, encouraging a "no award" vote in categories hijacked by the Puppies isn't clearly wrong. Why would it be?

Yup. Massive anti-puppyboy blowback and hence it must be a "SJW" conspiracy.

Whoopee, the Sad/Rabid Puppies managed to find some women to agree with them, specifically chosen just to give it an air of legitimacy. It's still a petty "cause", and I suspect that they're not actually running the show as much as being Sad Puppets.

Exactly. Given the well exposed misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia and general bigotry of the puppies, they now need something to hide behind.

As someone else said: Wow. Just wow. You really, really, really don't get it, do you? Look, the SCs made a political statement by cheating. OK, technically they exploited a loophole, but instead of being oh-so-PC, let's call it for what it was: Cheating. A cheating trick that threatened to ruin the whole award. And everyone else didn't like that, so they did the only right thing: They punished the cheaters by not awarding them for the cheating that they did. In any normal world, this is a perfectly acceptable reaction to cheating, and as such, it doesn't even need any other motivation.

Exactly. But the puppies can't accept that they're an unpopular minority so they invent grandiose conspiracies.

What difference does their gender make? If their goal is to usurp the Hugos, they're idiots.

Exactly.

If they let the grandstanding jerkwad Beale associate with them, then I imagine the criticism will be somewhat like it was last time.

It'll be amusing to watch how the women deal with Poxy.

I love how the SP narrative seems to constantly evoke the reaction to their gaming the system as some kind of Cabal that is pulling strings, applying pressure, and using astroturf tactics to foil the noble Sad Puppies.

The reality? A lot of science fiction fans from all walks of life took one look at a small group that was hijacking the awards and said that this will not stand.

But they can't accept that; it's like how woo-mongers in general can't accept reality when it contradicts them.

I also note that these articles constantly try to downplay any relations between the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies, and yet fail to mention the complete lack of ground gaining the SP had until they enlisted the aid of the RP.

It's amusing to see how easily Poxy manipulated and basically took over the whole process.

Again, how does one tell the difference between "no award" being due to canvassing and political motivation vs merely being a display of displeasure at the slate-voting the Puppies did?

But it must be down to a conspiracy....
Otherwise the puppy belief in their importance would be negated.

 

[Meed]

(Also, no comment on the false claims and demonization made of the SP folks? Okey dokey.

Demonizing and making false claims about the SP is wrong/uncool. I still don't like what they're doing and I still don't have a problem with people voting no award.

 

[Wildy]

As someone else said: Wow. Just wow. You really, really, really don't get it, do you? Look, the SCs made a political statement by cheating. OK, technically they exploited a loophole, but instead of being oh-so-PC, let's call it for what it was: Cheating. A cheating trick that threatened to ruin the whole award. And everyone else didn't like that, so they did the only right thing: They punished the cheaters by not awarding them for the cheating that they did. In any normal world, this is a perfectly acceptable reaction to cheating, and as such, it doesn't even need any other motivation.

Does that mean they should now remove the Hugo for Guardians of the Galaxy because it was nominated by the cheating cheaters?

 

[Wudang]

Does that mean they should now remove the Hugo for Guardians of the Galaxy because it was nominated by the cheating cheaters?

Well that's kind of the point. That still got an award because it was good. The rest of the stuff they clogged the lists with were pretty mediocre from what I've seen.

 

[luchog]

Well that's kind of the point. That still got an award because it was good. The rest of the stuff they clogged the lists with were pretty mediocre from what I've seen.

Guardians of the Galaxy was pretty much a shoe-in well before the Puppies spewed their nonsense in the polls. Interestingly, two of the Puppies nominees were considered actually worth the effort of reading, and both of them withdrew their works from consieration because they didn't want to be associated with the Puppies and their cheating.

 

[Wildy]

Well that's kind of the point. That still got an award because it was good. The rest of the stuff they clogged the lists with were pretty mediocre from what I've seen.

But in the case of the Sad Puppies, they thought that the works nominated were good enough and that much of what had been nominated in the past was pretty mediocre.

 

[Retrograde]

Again, how does one tell the difference between "no award" being due to canvassing and political motivation vs merely being a display of displeasure at the slate-voting the Puppies did?

You keep leaving out another option: how do you tell the difference between "no award" being motivated by politics/feelings and by the work in question just being mediocre.

 

[eerok]

But in the case of the Sad Puppies, they thought that the works nominated were good enough and that much of what had been nominated in the past was pretty mediocre.

I expect so, but that doesn't excuse their attempt to usurp the Hugos.

 

[Wudang]

But in the case of the Sad Puppies, they thought that the works nominated were good enough and that much of what had been nominated in the past was pretty mediocre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect ?

 

[luchog]

But in the case of the Sad Puppies, they thought that the works nominated were good enough and that much of what had been nominated in the past was pretty mediocre.

Except that was demonstrably not the case, since past works were actually nominated, while the majority of SP-supported works weren't until they mobilized a group of rabid racists and sexists to game the system. And past works did not get the "no award" one would expect for mediocre works. It's not like the SPs themselves could not have signed up and voted "no award" if they thought the works were below their standards.

But that is clearly not what happened, which is why they had to invent a mysterious cabal of SJWs conspiring to push them out. The fact that even some of their own nominees divorced themselves from the SPs is just another nail in the coffin of their conspiracy theory rhetoric.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

mobilized a group of rabid racists and sexists to game the system.<snip> they had to invent a mysterious cabal of SJWs conspiring to push them out.

It looks someone is indeed conspiratorial, and it's not the puppies.

The fact that even some of their own nominees divorced themselves from the SPs is just another nail in the coffin of their conspiracy theory rhetoric.

Or, you know, it's just reinforcing the claim that their works will be judged on their ideology and associations, not on the merit. Precisely the point SP was making.

 

[luchog]

It looks someone is indeed conspiratorial, and it's not the puppies.

Pretend all you want, but the SP were getting nowhere until the RP stepped in.

Or, you know, it's just reinforcing the claim that their works will be judged on their ideology and associations, not on the merit. Precisely the point SP was making.

A point that, despite that little little tantrum of theirs, was proven completely and utterly wrong. They were judged on their merits and found sadly lacking. At this point all the claims of "SJWs pushing us out" are sounding increasingly pathetic. If they want to compete in the Hugos, they should learn to write better.

 

[eerok]

At this point all the claims of "SJWs pushing us out" are sounding increasingly pathetic. If they want to compete in the Hugos, they should learn to write better.

I agree.

Consider: you're an ambitious SFF writer, and you don't think that you're getting noticed or read enough. You can (a) work to improve your craft, or (b) attack the Hugos. Call me a silly romantic, but I'd take the A train.

 

[Wildy]

Except that was demonstrably not the case, since past works were actually nominated...

And you're saying that the SP works ultimately weren't nominated this year? They just magically forced their way onto the list?

while the majority of SP-supported works weren't until they mobilized a group of rabid racists and sexists to game the system.

Reading through the past campaigns it sounds like SP were slowly gaining speed, it's just that this year was something of a perfect storm. If you can show me that SP actually mobilised a group of "rabid racists and sexists"

And past works did not get the "no award" one would expect for mediocre works. It's not like the SPs themselves could not have signed up and voted "no award" if they thought the works were below their standards.

But to be honest I find it hard to say that all the "no awards" this year are because the works are apparently mediocre, it seems just as reasonable to say that people voted "no award" in many categories simply because the choices were SP/RP nominations.

Then again, doing what you suggest probably would have resulted in the exact same sort of backlash: "The Sad Puppies are trying to destroy the Hugos by voting 'No Award'".

The fact that even some of their own nominees divorced themselves from the SPs is just another nail in the coffin of their conspiracy theory rhetoric.

Or that they didn't want to be part of the slate, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

 

[catsmate]

But in the case of the Sad Puppies, they thought that the works nominated were good enough and that much of what had been nominated in the past was pretty mediocre.

Or did they? Some of them certainly made claims along these lines but many of the works they nominated don't adhere to their own supposed criteria.

It looks someone is indeed conspiratorial, and it's not the puppies.

No. The puppyboys were going nowhere, as in previous years (remember this was the third year of their tantrum) until Beale got involved dragging in his followers and recruiting the gamergate loons too.
And describing Poxy as one of the "rabid racists and sexists" is perfectly accurate.

Or, you know, it's just reinforcing the claim that their works will be judged on their ideology and associations, not on the merit. Precisely the point SP was making.

No again. Writers recognising that being associated with an attempt to cheat the system and wanting no part of such an attempt is nothing to do with judging on ideology.

Pretend all you want, but the SP were getting nowhere until the RP stepped in.

Exactly.

A point that, despite that little little tantrum of theirs, was proven completely and utterly wrong. They were judged on their merits and found sadly lacking. At this point all the claims of "SJWs pushing us out" are sounding increasingly pathetic. If they want to compete in the Hugos, they should learn to write better.

In fact the works pushed by the puppyboys got detailed scrutiny, exposing just how awful many of them were.

I agree.

Consider: you're an ambitious SFF writer, and you don't think that you're getting noticed or read enough. You can (a) work to improve your craft, or (b) attack the Hugos. Call me a silly romantic, but I'd take the A train.

That's just crazy talk. Surely whining, attempting to cheap and throwing a tantrum will attract you the recognition you deserve.

 

[Matthew Cline]

And you're saying that the SP works ultimately weren't nominated this year? They just magically forced their way onto the list?

Slate-voting is neither magical nor "forcing", but is something that quite a number of people frown on. Are you implying that those works would have gotten onto the ballot even if there hadn't been any slate-voting? Or that people shouldn't object to the slate-voting?

EDIT: Or perhaps you mean to imply that what happened wasn't slate-voting at all?

 

[catsmate]

Slate-voting is neither magical nor "forcing", but is something that quite a number of people frown on. Are you implying that those works would have gotten onto the ballot even if there hadn't been any slate-voting? Or that people shouldn't object to the slate-voting?

EDIT: Or perhaps you mean to imply that what happened wasn't slate-voting at all?

And something that people don't seem to realise is that it was tried before, with negative consequences.

 

[catsmate]

There is an analysis of the Hugo 2015 nomination data here. The conclusion is:

So, Chaos Horizon is concluding that the effective Sad/Rabid combined block vote was 387-150, with sharp decay by both the popularity of the chosen work and the popularity of the category. I think that number can explain some of the vitriol in the field: of the 387 people who voted for Skin Game, at least 200 of them didn’t vote all the way to the bottom of the slate. More people only voted part of the slate than voted the whole thing—thus opening up the door for all kinds of online arguments as to exactly how “slate”-like this whole thing was. Expect those to continue as we move into Sad Puppies 4.

On to the Sad Puppy picks. When all was said and done, the Sad Puppies only had a few picks that were not mirrored by the Rabid Puppies (8, in fact), so we’ll learn far less here.

 

[catsmate]

As Worldcon 2015 approved the move to the points based EPH (E. Pluribus Hugo, link) system for nominations and this is almost certain to be ratified in 2016, from 2017 the puppyboy antics will probably have little effect on the award nominations. SP4 will be their last gasp.

For those interested in the minutia of voting systems there is more information and an EPH simulator here.

 

[Newtons Bit]

As Worldcon 2015 approved the move to the points based EPH (E. Pluribus Hugo, link) system for nominations and this is almost certain to be ratified in 2016, from 2017 the puppyboy antics will probably have little effect on the award nominations. SP4 will be their last gasp.

For those interested in the minutia of voting systems there is more information and an EPH simulator here.

Given the hypothetical scenario where the groups shown vote for a bunch of different 'others' before they're discarded:

1/3 of voters vote for A, B, C and two other works that are discarded
1/6th of voters vote for D and four discards
1/6th of voters vote for E and four discards
1/6th of voters vote for F and four discards
1/6th of voters vote for G and four discards

Given a thousand voters, the tally would be:
A 111
B 111
C 111
D 167
E 167
F 167
G 167

So even though 333 people for A, B & C, less popular choices would make it through to the ballot.