[General Battuta]

If popularity translated into literary merit, we'd be teaching 50 Shades, Twilight, Bayformers...

[Slasher]

expected puppies

was disappoint 

[Grizzly]

[karajorma]

ok, what I was saying was both were as likely.

I read karajorma's post as discounting puppy opposition, maybe glancing at this between builds at work isn't the best idea.

I never said that it was impossible for SJW to deliberately down vote the Puppies books as a protest, just that it would happen as an organised protest rather than the actions of individuals. Cause a single person posting a bad review is just pissing in the wind, it would take multiple people doing it to have any real effect on the ratings.

[Grizzly]

George RR Martin on the "Alfies", his own awards thing in response to the hugo drama as part of the Hugo Losers Party.

[Bobboau]

I'm sure that'll be much less controversial and lead to a more civil discourse in the world.

I never said that it was impossible for SJW to deliberately down vote the Puppies books as a protest, just that it would happen as an organised protest rather than the actions of individuals. Cause a single person posting a bad review is just pissing in the wind, it would take multiple people doing it to have any real effect on the ratings.

right, and I would say the reverse logic would apply just as well? swap puppy and SJW, up and down, and that seems like it would be about the same level of plausibility.

[Mongoose]

George RR Martin on the "Alfies", his own awards thing in response to the hugo drama as part of the Hugo Losers Party.

Okay those trophies are awesome.

[karajorma]

I never said that it was impossible for SJW to deliberately down vote the Puppies books as a protest, just that it would happen as an organised protest rather than the actions of individuals. Cause a single person posting a bad review is just pissing in the wind, it would take multiple people doing it to have any real effect on the ratings.

right, and I would say the reverse logic would apply just as well? swap puppy and SJW, up and down, and that seems like it would be about the same level of plausibility.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. I've already addressed the Puppy side of things.

[Bobboau]

I just restated the thing I said before, because you seemed to just restate the thing you said before.

[The E]

I just restated the thing I said before, because you seemed to just restate the thing you said before.

Yeah, but the thing you stated was a bit stupid. There are more people willing to post positive reviews of stuff they like than there are people who leave bad reviews because they dislike the manufacturer of the stuff for some more or less unrelated reason.

EDIT:
Also, fun fact: If your nominee for best Editor writes a book that includes not one, but TWO Chapter 5s, maybe said nominee is not actually Hugo material.

[Bobboau]

hey, you got a problem with chapter fives? do ya? personally I think there should have been at least three chapter fives. I mean everyone knows chapter five is always the objectively best chapter. I bet you would have wanted more chapter 3s.

[Ghostavo]

Was he the editor of his own book?

[The E]

Was he the editor of his own book?

It was self-published so, yeah, probably?

[Phantom Hoover]

Did he edit anything other than his own book?

[The E]

Well, he was nominated in his capacity as head editor for Castalia House, which in turn was nominated several times in other categories....

[AtomicClucker]

Welp, I've actually got little to say about how the Hugo's crashed and burned. What is evident, is that its slow but steady evolution in a cliquish grouping of byzantine politicking lead to a counter-revolution by stuffing the ballots.

Scalzi is a scumbag who prances around progressive circles and Vox Day's ramblings reminds of self-proclaimed prophet. To spare the usual "Dem SJWs!" my belief is something a bit more simple and sinister - the Political is Personal.

And that ain't some RadFem idea, rather, it's become a commonplace component of mass media and now we see it reach a head in Sci-Fi. I'm in Sci-Fi for the rayguns, atomic explosions, and intricate social parody or criticism of various social norms, not an author's reason to be bigot, asshat, or Bell Hooks sex toy. Personally, the destruction of the Hugo's in a necessary step if we wish to see the democratization of sci-fi, IMO. Cliques must crumble, the oligarchy's must relinquish their supposedly sacred podiums as gatekeepers and a new system that directly talks, speaks, and blasts its way to the fans.

[Grizzly]

But, the hugo is democratic. All you got to do is sign up to nominate and show up to vote.

It's literally as simple as pay taxes - get vote.

[AtomicClucker]

Given how the awards went, it was less democratic and more "burn the bridges" sort of thing.

Those in control couldn't stand getting stiffed, those contending for control cried fowl. Better that the apparatus burns down so we can try something new and the old guard can taste the ashes. Hugo awards actually mean little to me, because a lot more of my sci-fi has come from word of mouth, gatherings of fans, and reading previews and listening to free offers on audio tastes.

[The E]

Given how the awards went, it was less democratic and more "burn the bridges" sort of thing.

Those in control couldn't stand getting stiffed, those contending for control cried fowl. Better that the apparatus burns down so we can try something new and the old guard can taste the ashes. Hugo awards actually mean little to me, because a lot more of my sci-fi has come from word of mouth, gatherings of fans, and reading previews and listening to free offers on audio tastes.

Good thing that people with clearer heads prevailed and we'll be getting a new Hugo nomination scheme that is more resilient to overt politicization SP/RP style in two years. Meanwhile, we'll also have an unprecedented number of people who are going to be able to vote on next year's nominations, making the result much more relevant to the larger SF/F fandom than the awards have been in years.

EDIT:

And while we're on the subject of reasonableness, here's what Kate Paulk (who will be running the Puppies campaign for next year) had to say:

For starters the word slate is not going to appear anywhere. For second [Cross talk] I am not doing a slate, I am doing a list of the most popular works in all of the various categories as submitted by people who read on any of the various blogs that will have me. And I’m going to post ultimately the top ten of each, with links to the full list of everything that everybody wanted to see nominated, and I’m going to be saying “hey if you really want to see your favorite authors nominated your best bet is to pick something of theirs from the most popular in the list as opposed to the least popular”. That is going to be what it is. I don’t care who ends up on that list. I don’t care if David Gerrold ends up being the top of the list somewhere. That’s not the point, the point is that I want to see the voting numbers both for nomination and for actual voting go up above 5,000 up above 10,000, because the more people who are involved and who are voting the harder it is for any faction including puppies to manipulate the results.

This, I am completely fine with. Would be hypocritical of me not to be, given that Scalzi, Stross and other members of the dreaded cabal of puppykickers have been doing exactly this for years. It also addresses one of the main complaints I had about Torgersen's campaign, in that it excluded works that were in the Puppy wheelhouse just because Torgersen didn't know about them (and that the process through which he arrived at those particular recommendations wasn't exactly open or democratic).