The Hugo Awards Kerfuffle...

[Toby Frost]

Oh God, what have I done?!

Ah, let's just move on.

 

[JaimeRetief]

They never found any portacabins setup to make Accordions

Exactly.

 

[Overread]

I wonder, skim reading through this very lightly, if this might not be a good thing for the Hugo award.

One hand it allows for a new voting system to be considered, one more robust to abuse.

On the other it means vast increased interest in it which could suddenly boost numbers. If the pay-wall is dropped or lowered they could see that thousand turn to many thousands of voters. Marketing wise this drama could market the aware and prompt more backlash to "right the wrong".



Personally I'd opt for option 1 - a more robust system rather than relying upon some kind of voting war. Though I'm very sure if public votes remain part of it then there will be a fight.

 

[JaimeRetief]

I wonder, skim reading through this very lightly, if this might not be a good thing for the Hugo award.

One hand it allows for a new voting system to be considered, one more robust to abuse.

On the other it means vast increased interest in it which could suddenly boost numbers. If the pay-wall is dropped or lowered they could see that thousand turn to many thousands of voters. Marketing wise this drama could market the aware and prompt more backlash to "right the wrong".



Personally I'd opt for option 1 - a more robust system rather than relying upon some kind of voting war. Though I'm very sure if public votes remain part of it then there will be a fight.

Robust in what way, will you have to attend X number of consecutive conventions to get a vote or get an invitation to the mason lodge in order to be a voting member?

DO not forget that there are two perrils here, make entry to exclusive and elitist and the awards will completely lose touch with reality and invite massive cronyism and fandom lobbying, make voting too permissive and we will have the likes of Twilight, Harry Potter and other such pop detritis win every year.

 

[Overread]

It's a good question.

Impossible to answer to.

The only way you can "stop" the popular winning is to have an elitist approach. That might be picking those select few to vote; it might mean advertising in such a manner that its almost unknown to those who don't read sci-fi magazines and lurk in forums for them online. If its to be a major award, well known and influential and open to the public then the "popular" stuff is going to rise up, no question about that.

Already you've identified that you don't want that; that you'd rather the "old boys" club approach. But then again you also then say that they must vote on the "right" things. Now what is right? Is Twilight right or wrong?

It's wrong for you and its wrong for me, but its not wrong to all. Indeed to some its very right, same as Harry Potter. Who are we to ague that they do not deserve to be there? Because we read more fantasy than others - well maybe that's a criteria, maybe there is indeed merit in that. But how could you quantify that? Can it even be done in this modern day and age.

You could try an exam - pass X number of questions but it would never work and be far to difficult to design with all the various niche groups that comprise fantasy as a genre.

 

[JaimeRetief]

It's a good question.

Impossible to answer to.

The only way you can "stop" the popular winning is to have an elitist approach. That might be picking those select few to vote; it might mean advertising in such a manner that its almost unknown to those who don't read sci-fi magazines and lurk in forums for them online. If its to be a major award, well known and influential and open to the public then the "popular" stuff is going to rise up, no question about that.

Well you could tighten the criteria for nomintion, but then we get the good old problem of quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

Is science fiction only about spaceships and genetic modification?

Is fantasy only about elves, werewolves and knights?

And what do we do with YA bestsellers and crypto-romance novels with only thin veneers of fantasy and science fiction?

Already you've identified that you don't want that; that you'd rather the "old boys" club approach. But then again you also then say that they must vote on the "right" things. Now what is right? Is Twilight right or wrong?

I would say that Twilight is the worst thing to happen to literature since Mein Kampf, the armies of fangirls however will vehemently disagree.

We again go back to the definition of science fiction.

It's wrong for you and its wrong for me, but its not wrong to all. Indeed to some its very right, same as Harry Potter. Who are we to ague that they do not deserve to be there? Because we read more fantasy than others - well maybe that's a criteria, maybe there is indeed merit in that. But how could you quantify that? Can it even be done in this modern day and age.

You could try an exam - pass X number of questions but it would never work and be far to difficult to design with all the various niche groups that comprise fantasy as a genre.

I have a counter proposal, it might sound somewhat undemocratic, but it might impove things a bit, scrap the one man, one vote, principal, and replace it with a system where people with more contributions to the award get a bigger say.

Depending on the number of times a voter has been a supporting member, between one and three extra votes.

Depending on actual physical attendance at the con, maybe one or two extra votes, for no more than four extra votes in total.

Con volunteers should get an extra vote as well.

Previous nominees and winners should get one or two additional votes.

I do not think this is completely fair, but it might work beter than what is currently in place.

 

[Overread]

Trying to tie things to increasing vote weight won't work. If you base it on previous votes then when everyone votes each year you'll quickly see the current elites vanish fast (if such records of who voted for what are even kept long term - if not then everyone would start on the same slate). At that point all you'd do is have no weighting early on and later on an unfair bias to the older generations (by virtue of the fact that they've lived longer than younger ones).

Trying to ascribe votes as you suggest I think would fail; it makes no logical connection for how much a vote a person gets. To have multiple "votes" you do things that will have no basis in what you're voting for as such. What's to stop those legions of fangirls going each year? Heck the limits of the conventions size and location would be major problems.



The way I see it you would be best to split the Hugo. An award chosen by a panel and an award chosen by the people. That would be my first step.

 

[JaimeRetief]

Trying to tie things to increasing vote weight won't work. If you base it on previous votes then when everyone votes each year you'll quickly see the current elites vanish fast (if such records of who voted for what are even kept long term - if not then everyone would start on the same slate). At that point all you'd do is have no weighting early on and later on an unfair bias to the older generations (by virtue of the fact that they've lived longer than younger ones).

hence the cap on extra votes one can receive, and please note that you would have to attend the previous two or three cons, or at least to be a supporting member for that long, to get the extra votes.

Trying to ascribe votes as you suggest I think would fail; it makes no logical connection for how much a vote a person gets. To have multiple "votes" you do things that will have no basis in what you're voting for as such. What's to stop those legions of fangirls going each year? Heck the limits of the conventions size and location would be major problems.

I must disagree here, first of all the likes of Twilight and Harry Potter are, like most things that move such large numbers of teenagers, fads.
I generlly doubt that most would have the attention spans to care enough after an year or two.

Second, the main idea behind my scheme is that it would involce persistant involvement.

The pop fangirls and fanboys will still have the ability to, as it were, zerg rush with a single vote.

I am not saying it is perfect, but I think that it will strike a balance between die hard fans and the more casula readers and encourage more participation while ensuring that the most fidelitous fans with the strongest ties to the genre will get more of a say.

A decent balance between elitism and democracy.

The way I see it you would be best to split the Hugo. An award chosen by a panel and an award chosen by the people. That would be my first step.

That would still give you an award that is as relevat as the current Hugo, a few die hard fans and annelists from an obsucre con deciding who gets the "World" science fiction award, with most science fiction fans having no real influence.

The Goodreads readers' choce awards would probably still be far more relevant, and the amazon ratings from verified purchases.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Those quotes are somewhat patchy, here is the whole article


link to the original post

FYI I already linked to the original post/whole article.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Should add that I think don't the "rabid" and "sad" contingents are reducible to one another. RP is a personal project dressed up as an ideological one. SP is an ideological project dressed up as...well, whatever it is they claim the project to be about on any given day--I can't keep track of them all, to be perfectly honest.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Lowering the cost would only open the system up to more abuses, which is sad, because everyone who's actually interested enough in SFF should be able to voice their opinions. However, as we've seen, the Pups are more than willing to marshal the masses to get their way. Keep in mind how bad things are now with the slate, then imagine a free open to the public vote with Brad T. or VD rattling the saber of the GamerGate people. They already did, but it's a completely different result if you're asking people to spend $40 to piss off someone versus free and only five minutes of button clicking.

 

[JaimeRetief]

Lowering the cost would only open the system up to more abuses, which is sad, because everyone who's actually interested enough in SFF should be able to voice their opinions. However, as we've seen, the Pups are more than willing to marshal the masses to get their way. Keep in mind how bad things are now with the slate, then imagine a free open to the public vote with Brad T. or VD rattling the saber of the GamerGate people. They already did, but it's a completely different result if you're asking people to spend $40 to piss off someone versus free and only five minutes of button clicking.

That will insure casual trash like Twilight gets the award every year, and must I remind you who was nominated Time person of the year on several occasions.

I thought Sad Puppies started a few yers ago, if I recall correctly GamerGate is more recent.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Lowering the cost would only open the system up to more abuses, which is sad, because everyone who's actually interested enough in SFF should be able to voice their opinions. However, as we've seen, the Pups are more than willing to marshal the masses to get their way. Keep in mind how bad things are now with the slate, then imagine a free open to the public vote with Brad T. or VD rattling the saber of the GamerGate people. They already did, but it's a completely different result if you're asking people to spend $40 to piss off someone versus free and only five minutes of button clicking.

I think they should lower the cost of a supporting membership for ethical reasons unrelated to the S/RP slate fiasco. They clearly want/need revenue, so free is out of the question. But making that $40 count for a full two years' participation (i.e. getting to vote on the shortlist and getting the voter packet in the second as well as first year), or lowering the price to $20, the WSFS would generate interest in the awards and conference, while ensuring that a greater number of fans are involved in the most prestigious set of awards in the field (I know, I know...maybe not for long).

But I agree--it won't necessarily stop or even limit the effectiveness of slate voting. I'm convinced that the only real way to do that is to make it a three-stage voting process (as opposed to two-stage, as it is now):

1. Nominate whatever you want, up to 5/category.

2. Select shortlist from a longlist of, say, 25 selections/category.

3. Vote on that shortlist.

That way, even if you had two non-correlated slates in a given year with about the same backing S/RP had this year (250-350, according to most estimates), they would only account for 2/5 of the longlisted people/things.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

The trouble is the current voting system for the Hugo Award is trying to have it both ways. WorldCon sell the Hugo as something of a literary award, but it's handled as a tiered popular award with a small gatekeeping fee. Well, which is it? Does WorldCon want it to be treated as a literary award, or does WorldCon want it to be treated as a popular award? Literary awards typically have a shortlist drawn up by an invite-only panel which then votes or simply announces a winner. Popular awards use various forms of open voting. It has the minor gatekeeping fee (associate membership of $40) so they clearly don't want it to be a popularity contest, nor do the majority of fans as seen by the grumblings around the net on the topic, but, paradoxically, they also want it to be treated as some objective measure of the best of the best that SFF has to offer in a given year. Well, it seems it's time for WorldCon to stop trying to have it both ways. Either it's purely based on popularity with all the campaigning, slates, and voting blocs that will entail (absurd complaints of trash aside), or it's a prestigious committee-driven literary award. It can no longer pretend to be both.

 

[JaimeRetief]

I think they should lower the cost of a supporting membership for ethical reasons unrelated to the S/RP slate fiasco. They clearly want/need revenue, so free is out of the question. But making that $40 count for a full two years' participation (i.e. getting to vote on the shortlist and getting the voter packet in the second as well as first year), or lowering the price to $20, the WSFS would generate interest in the awards and conference, while ensuring that a greater number of fans are involved in the most prestigious set of awards in the field (I know, I know...maybe not for long).

But I agree--it won't necessarily stop or even limit the effectiveness of slate voting. I'm convinced that the only real way to do that is to make it a three-stage voting process (as opposed to two-stage, as it is now):

1. Nominate whatever you want, up to 5/category.

2. Select shortlist from a longlist of, say, 25 selections/category.

3. Vote on that shortlist.

That way, even if you had two non-correlated slates in a given year with about the same backing S/RP had this year (250-350, according to most estimates), they would only account for 2/5 of the longlisted people/things.

Wait, are you telling me that this was not done via the nominations system already?
How exactly did they differentiste between the spam and the actually relevant books, there are hundreds of things that can be called science fiction each year.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Wait, are you telling me that this was not done via the nominations system already?
How exactly did they differentiste between the spam and the actually relevant books, there are hundreds of things that can be called science fiction each year.

I am indeed saying just that--ridiculous as it is. You nominate anything you want, up to 5/category. Then a shortlist of approximately 5/category is drawn up, though to make the shortlist the selection must count for at least 5% of total nominations. It's been estimated that S/RP only accounted for 250-350 votes (and probably on the lower end of that), of which probably 60% were RP rather than SP (as the RP-only selections did better than the SP-only ones). But since there's so much diffusion among the other nominees, that's all it takes.

 

[soulsinging]

Fanboys and con attendees being reasonable, what a laugh.

As I said already, I do not care about the Hugo and Nebula awards, I am even willing to go along with the Puppies' argument that the awards do not give awards to quality books.
However that is the case because these events represent a very small subsection of the entire fandom and because science fiction in general is experiencing of a decline.
The so called SJWs are annoying, prone to histrionics and usually guilty of shallow oversimplifications and extreme and uncompromising political partisanship, but I doubt that they have the organizational capacity and persistance to take over science fiction publishing and fandom in some type of cloak and dagger behind the scenes invasion.
In my opinion they are incapable of getting drunk in a wine cellar.

I think you misinterpreted me. I was saying it is the SP's that are the nutty ones for clinging to their racism and homophobia, and they would rather destroy the awards than let them to go people they consider "SJW" whatever that is. I kind of feel like you have a specific agenda in this debate. You only joined a week ago (after the controversy), haven't posted about anything else, and have your profile set to private...

No offense to all the non-Americans here, but I truly think anyone outside the US can never really get this. As someone pointed out above, there is crazy racist religious element here in the US that is very real and that most of the rest of the west would find laughable/terrifying. The God and guns brigade if you will. It's easy to apologize for the SP's and RP's if you think this is just about defending the Hugos from PC-ness run amok and just appreciating cracking good space opera again, but if you live in the US and meet these SP/RP types you will see there is a lot to be afraid of and they are NOT fighting some good fight against oversensitive PC-ness. They want those PC people shut up so they can bust out their hoods again.

In the 90's, their influence was on the wane. In the wake of Oklahoma City bombing, Ruby Ridge, and Waco, the US began to recognize the threat of homegrown christo-libertarian fascists and the movements withered, relegated to the shadows and fracturing under federal investigation. The explosion of the internet, election of dubya, and 9/11 brought them charging back. Suddenly they were able to communicate and bond anonymously online and seemed more mainstream as America's fear of Islam grew. Then they were betrayed... America elected a black man. Since then, these guys have been in overdrive, stockpiling guns and ammo and talking about shooting up federal agents for representing the anti-Christ Obama (no joke, that is literally how he is described by many in my family and at these Tea Party rallies). The SP/RP thing is an outgrowth of this movement... they're defending the "old culture." They claim it's about wanting adventure and heroism, but really it's about their rage that American exceptionalism has become unfashionable from a literary standpoint.

 

[JaimeRetief]

I think you misinterpreted me. I was saying it is the SP's that are the nutty ones for clinging to their racism and homophobia, and they would rather destroy the awards than let them to go people they consider "SJW" whatever that is. I kind of feel like you have a specific agenda in this debate. You only joined a week ago (after the controversy), haven't posted about anything else, and have your profile set to private...

No offense to all the non-Americans here, but I truly think anyone outside the US can never really get this. As someone pointed out above, there is crazy racist religious element here in the US that is very real and that most of the rest of the west would find laughable/terrifying. The God and guns brigade if you will. It's easy to apologize for the SP's and RP's if you think this is just some PC-ness run amok and they just want cracking good space opera back, but if you live in the US and meet these SP/RP types you will see there is a lot to be afraid of and they are NOT fighting some good fight against oversensitive PC-ness. They want those PC people shut up so they can bust out their hoods again.

In the 90's, their influence was on the wane. In the wake of Oklahoma City bombing, Ruby Ridge, and Waco, the US began to recognize the threat of homegrown christo-libertarian fascists and the movements withered, relegated to the shadows and fracturing under federal investigation. The explosion of the internet, election of dubya, and 9/11 brought them charging back. Suddenly they were able to communicate and bond anonymously online and seemed more mainstream as America's fear of Islam grew. Then they were betrayed... America elected a black man. Since then, these guys have been in overdrive, stockpiling guns and ammo and talking about shooting up federal agents for representing the anti-Christ Obama (no joke, that is literally how he is described by some in my family). The SP/RP thing is an outgrowth of this movement... they're defending the "old culture." They claim it's about wanting adventure and heroism, but really it's about their rage that American exceptionalism has become unfashionable from a literary standpoint.

Oh, oh the thought police is after me.

This is far from the only topic I have participated in, the reason for my posting here is because it is so active and because I get regular updates about it from the alert system.
Oh, and because I read quite a few pretty naive posts divorced from reality as well, that usually gets me fired up to join in on the vaerbal warfare.

Might I suggest that you check your facts before asking somebody if they are a communist or not mr.McCarthy?

 

[Hex]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, please.

Let's keep this general, not personal. I know most of us believe very strongly in the principles involved here (it took all my strength not to leap in to defend Twilight), but we can still keep the argument about those principles.

 

[JaimeRetief]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, please.

Let's keep this general, not personal. I know most of us believe very strongly in the principles involved here (it took all my strength not to leap in to defend Twilight), but we can still keep the argument about those principles.

I agree, well not about that book, but in general terms.
I am not even a citizen of the USA, let alone a Republican damb it.