?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Six Days Left

Less than a week remains to cast a vote for this year's Hugo Awards. Voting closes on July 31, but it would be wise not to wait until the last day. Sasquan has already warned that its servers may overload if there is too large a rush of last-minute ballots. Remember, you can vote NOW, even if you haven't finished reading, and return later to change your ballot once you've read more.

The ballot is here: http://sasquan.org/hugo-awards/voting/

And of course, you need to be a member of worldcon (Supporting or Attending, either will do) and secure a PIN to be able to vote.

You can join here: https://sasquan.swoc.us/sasquan/reg.php

Membership also allows you to vote for site selection for the 2017 worldcon. There are four contenders: Japan, Montreal, Washington DC, and Helsinki.

Parris and I are supporters of the Helsinki bid. I was GOH at Finncon a few years ago, and at Archipelacon more recently, and the Finnish fans are wonderful. Also, I favor making worldcon truly a global affair, which means going outside the US from time to time. Finland has never had a worldcon. Montreal and Japan are also outside the US, of course, but both have hosted worldcons in the recent past. I missed the Japanese worldcon, but I understand that it is still massively in debt, so going back there so soon seems unwise. I did attend the Montreal worldcon, and it was one of the worst-run in recent memory, with a truly horrendous hotel and party situation. On the other hand, Washington DC has not had a worldcon since 1974, and the Washington bid is a very strong one, with a great concom and great facilities. They are probably the favorite this year, and in any other year I'd be backing them too. This year, though... it's still Helsinki for us.

How you choose to vote is, of course, entirely up to you.

As for the Hugo Awards proper... I do not have the time or the space or the energy to share my own views on every story and book and writer on the ballot. This is by no means a normal Hugo year, however; Puppygate has plunged all fandom into war as never before. So I will recap a few of my own views from previous blog posts downstream.

I oppose the "nuclear option" of voting No Award down the board, to protest the hijacking of the ballot by the Sad and Rabid Puppies.

I favor reading the work, and voting for the stories, books, and writers you feel are worthy of a Hugo. Those you do NOT feel are worthy of the Hugo can and should be ranked below No Award or left off your ballot entirely.

This does not mean I am entirely opposed to voting No Award in all cases. Far from it. Having now finished most (not quite all) of my Hugo reading, I can say that I will probably be voting No Award myself in... hmmm... at least three categories, maybe four, maybe even five. These are categories where in my judgement none of the nominated work is worthy of a rocket.

But in those categories where I do find one or more nominees to be of sufficient quality, I will be voting for him or her or them, regardless of whether or not they were on a slate. And yes, this is true even if only one nominee is worthy. To throw out that one worthy nominee because they "had no real competition" (as some have suggested) seems wrong-headed to me. If it is worthy of a Hugo, give it a Hugo, that's what I say.

Let me be specific here. Short Form Editor, Long Form Editor are all slate, but there are nominees in both who deserve a Hugo, and I'll be voting for them. The Puppies liked a lot (though not all) of the nominees in the two Dramatic Presentation categories as well... but you know, so did I, so I'll be voting for those as well. Sorry, but IMNSHO, only an idiot would want to "no award" GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY or INTERSTELLAR because the Puppies slated them. I am not going to tell you which movie or TV show or editor or novel I am voting for. I've mentioned some that I liked in older blog posts. Your mileage may vary; read, watch, consider, vote.

I will, however, make one exception there, one "endorsement," if you will. I am voting for LAURA MIXON for Best Fan Writer, and I urge everyone reading this to do the same. (Hardly a surprise, I know, since I suggested that she be nominated in the first place). Having looked at the Hugo packet, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that Laura is plainly the best writer of the five nominees... but there's more to my choice than that. In this year of all years, with Puppygate turning so toxic and hatespeech spreading all over the internet, it behooves us more than ever to honor someone who spoke up AGAINST Hate and for healing, not by spewing vitriol in retaliation, but calmly, dispassionately, with clean hands and composure and... most of all... compassion. A victory for Mixon here would have huge symbolic value, I think; a vote for her is a vote for decency, and a vote against the trolls and haters of all stripes and persuasions, be they left-wing or right-wing or just loony.

Anyway...

FILE 770 reports that Sasquan membership has passed 10,000, and that more than 2900 Hugo ballots have already been cast. http://file770.com/?p=23985 The record was set last year at Loncon, when 3587 ballots were received. Given the Puppygate war, there's a good chance that Sasquan will break that record, since it seems memberships are still pouring in.

Six days left.

Let your voice be heard.

Comments

( 47 comments )
Jeddy B Wilkinson Jr
Jul. 25th, 2015 07:11 pm (UTC)
Just out of curiosity
Once the voting is closed would you be willing to disclose how you voted?
grrm
Jul. 25th, 2015 07:23 pm (UTC)
Re: Just out of curiosity
No, probably not.

I mean, I may drop a remark or two. Or not.

But there are too many categories, too many nominees, it would take too long to discuss which I like and which I didn't and why.
autopope
Jul. 25th, 2015 07:40 pm (UTC)
Re: Just out of curiosity
Note that a detailed breakdown of nominations and the final ballot is traditionally published AFTER the award ceremony.

The shortlists -- including the folks who were pushed down below the waterline by the slates -- will make for interesting reading.
grrm
Jul. 25th, 2015 08:12 pm (UTC)
Re: Just out of curiosity
The nomination lists always make for fascinating reading. They are usually released right after the ceremony, and are often posted at the Hugo Losers Party... ah, the Post-Hugo Nominees Reception... where writers gather around to pore over them.

This year will be especially interesting, of course, since they will reveal the names of those who were perhaps both damaged by the Puppies... the writers and editors and fans who would have been on the ballot in a normal year, but were squeezed off by the slates.

And yes, they are losers too, and deserving of recognition of such, and we intend to raise a toast to them all at my True Losers Party. I hope that many will attend.
kevin_standlee
Jul. 26th, 2015 05:49 am (UTC)
There is a resolution on this year's WSFS Business Meeting agenda asking this year's Administrators to release the raw nominating ballots (anonymized, so you can't tell how any individual voted). The Administrators are neither required nor compelled to do so; it's completely their call. The apparent reason for the request is to try running ballots through anti-slate-voting proposals to see how the proposals fare versus the simple first-five-past-the-post system we currently use.

I expect the resolution to come for debate and a vote at Thursday morning's meeting. If the meeting does what I suggest, the actual debate and vote on the anti-slate-voting proposals will happen on Sunday morning, after the Hugo results are announced the previous night.
livejournal
Jul. 25th, 2015 08:35 pm (UTC)
Hello! Your entry got to top-25 of the most popular entries in LiveJournal!
Learn more about LiveJournal Ratings in FAQ.
gman109
Jul. 25th, 2015 08:50 pm (UTC)
Great suggestion regarding Laura, George. I hope it has a positive effect, as I'm in lock step with what you wrote about her - she's hands down the best writer in all the categories I've read. I also agree that she maintained grace and composure when speaking out against the rabbs.

Regarding that: The pups subverted, gamed, hijacked, and cheated the Hugos in order to make a political point. End of story IMO. I might have even agreed with at least parts of their original complaints, but I'm absolutely against the way they went about trying to affect change, and found their statements defending their actions ridiculous.

So, the most important question for next year must be, "how is this type of behavior going to be eliminated in future Hugo award years?"

Since I and most others consider you the Supreme Allied Commander on this issue George, do you have any feelings or suggestions on how to combat future stupidity on this matter?
grrm
Jul. 25th, 2015 09:05 pm (UTC)
Getting more people to take part in the nominating process is the main thing. I have been trying to do that for years.

It's cool if people suggest books and stories and editors and fan writers on their blogs and facebook pages, pointing other fans towards things they loved. The more recommendations the better. And that includes the Puppies.

I do see a vast difference between me saying (as I did), "hey, STATION ELEVEN is a great novel and should be nominated for a Hugo," and putting together a slate and saying, "here are five novels, nominate them all," thereby locking up the ballot.

What we want is people talking about the stories... saying what they like, why the work is brilliant, original, award worthy, whatever. What we DON'T want is this crap about cabals and conspiracies and CHORFs and SWJs, and all the mean-spirited name-calling the Puppies injected into the process. The last thing fandom or the genre or the world needs is another attack on that dinosaur story (which did not even WIN the Hugo, for chissakes).

I am against all the proposed rules changes. I think those are overreactions that may have the unintended consequence of making this whole situation worse instead of better.


gman109
Jul. 25th, 2015 10:21 pm (UTC)
Thanks for that reply George.

It's funny you know, a lot of my circle consider anyone who describes themselves as "very liberal" to be in favor of more and more regulation in any given situation. Your answer here shows the folly of that perception, and I agree with it - more/different rules and regulations can't ever fix what the puppies did or could do in the future IMO.

It's not what I would have expected you to say either tbh, and I think I understand you better now. You put a lot of time, blood, sweat, and tears into writing about puppygate, it's obvious to anyone that the issue was very important to you, yet instead of fighting fire with more rules and regulations, it sounds to me like you're willing to trust the better angels of our nature, and to promote an intelligent solution to the problem in the future. I'm not sure how well that will work out for next year, but it impresses upon me the idea that unlike most of the puppies/rabbs, you're able to...I don't know, rise above it I guess.

I hope I'm understanding your point of view correctly George - again, I wouldn't have expected a self proclaimed "very liberal" person to shy away for just trying to regulate the problem away.

I think this is an important factoid, something the other side of this issue could take a page from.

Edited at 2015-07-25 10:22 pm (UTC)
peerchen
Jul. 26th, 2015 08:23 am (UTC)
Liberlaism
"It's funny you know, a lot of my circle consider anyone who describes themselves as "very liberal" to be in favor of more and more regulation in any given situation"
Well thats just means that "liberal" is just a tag and is not really saying much.

(This is one of the problems I see: The idea that your political leaning automaticly means you have to like these books, but will hate these other bookjs...)
grrm
Jul. 27th, 2015 07:02 pm (UTC)
It is one of the ironies of modern political discourse that both liberals and conservatives say they are fighting for "freedom" and the other side is against it.
gman109
Jul. 28th, 2015 12:51 am (UTC)
Agreed.

You're a good man George. Wise, untempered, and fair opinions, and still able to stick to your guns throughout the puppy/rabid nonsense honorably, with sound advice for all.

It's a pleasure and privilege to be able to exchange ideas here with you. Thank you very much for taking time for all of us here, it's appreciated. I've enjoyed getting to know you and your thoughts a little better here at LJ/NAB.
kevin_standlee
Jul. 26th, 2015 05:54 am (UTC)
While I agree that increased participation is a laudable goal, it's unclear that simply increasing the total number of people nominating actually counteracts deliberate slate voting, given that it's merely the first five past the post. If the total nominations go up but are highly diffuse, a dedicated group of slate voters can likely still dominate the shortlist with only a tiny number of actual ballots cast; probably less than 5%.

I'm awful leery of counter-slates myself. It effectively is saying that fandom must form political parties, with all of the negative baggage that entails.
Stevie Gamble
Jul. 26th, 2015 03:37 pm (UTC)
Kevin

Much as I'd like to believe that increasing the number of people nominating would work, I agree that the mathematics say it wouldn't; 5% of total nominations voting as a slate can take all or most of the places on the ballot, as it did this year.

That leaves the remaining 95% of us locked outside for the heinous crime of nominating works which we felt were worthy of a Hugo, whilst the 5% enjoy themselves nuking the Hugos; there is no way to prevent that other than by changing the rules.

Any rule change will take votes for it in two succeeding years, which means that next year we'll be staring at a heap of steaming rejects from the slushpile masquerading as Hugo contenders once again; that is a terrible prospect, but I think most fans will soldier on, aiming for the light at the end of the tunnel.

Frankly, if there is no end in sight because the rules remain unchanged then I suspect that most fans won't continue because we are not masochists, and we have much better things to read, art to admire, and performances to see. Worldcon will survive, but the Hugos will become an unamusing joke...

soon_lee
Jul. 27th, 2015 03:40 am (UTC)
"I am against all the proposed rules changes."

I am surprised you don't support "E pluribus Hugo". It's a clear improvement on the current system. EPH doesn't change the culture of nominating; you still nominate up to five works you deem Hugo-worthy. It's only the tallying that is different. It doesn't prevent bloc-voting but rather, EPH mitigates bloc-voting to a level of influence commensurate with actual voter proportions. How is that a bad thing?

What other solutions are there? Talking might work with the Sad Puppies, but it's really the Rabid Puppies who got their works onto the ballot, and you've said there is no talking to Theodore Beale. Beale and his Rabid Puppies show no signs of stopping as this appears to be a long term (~10 years) grudge on his part & he has expressed a desire to destroy the Hugos. I think EPH will mitigate their influence; if they can only get one or two finalists, bloc-voting will no longer a dominant strategy able to shut-out whole categories & Beale will probably lose interest after a while (I suspect part of the attraction for him is gaming: leveraging a relatively small number of nominators to achieve a big impact on the Hugo ballot). If we do nothing, Beale and his group will be able to continue gaming the Hugos and shutting out whole categories. I cannot accept that. Do you have an alternative?

As for increasing the nominating numbers, well there have been efforts for years toward that but although Hugo nominating numbers have been increasing in recent years, the growth is slow. And even if more people nominate, under the current system bloc-voters will still have a disproportionately bigger influence on the nominations. If the nominating system remains unchanged, the number crunching says that we need at least five non-slate voters for every slate voter as ~200(?) out of ~1000 nominators were able to shut-out a number of categories this year. I am not confident that more nominators will be the solution unless we also change the rules.

We have "No Award" as a last resort for the real dross when it comes to voting, but I would rather read & vote on Hugo-worthy candidates than have to deploy "No Award".

You have said previously that it is an honor to (merely) be nominated. If we get mostly slated finalists every year, that won't be true anymore.
grrm
Jul. 27th, 2015 07:08 pm (UTC)
You have no certainly that we will get slated nominees every year, however. At this juncture, no one knows if this is going to be a continuing problem, or if this is all going to be forgotten in a year or two. Making sweeping rules changes just to address what happened this year seems a massive overreaction to me.

In my original post on this, I pointed out the year that the Scientologists successfully stuffed the ballot to nominate one of L. Ron Hubbard's book. Fandom was horrified... but we did not immediately go out and pass a rules change. Even though, in theory, there was nothing to prevent the Scientologists from amping up their efforts and doing the same thing again, and again, and again.

soon_lee
Jul. 27th, 2015 07:41 pm (UTC)
But there is also no certainty that there won't be slated nominees every year either.

Any rule change has to pass at this year's Business Meeting *and* be ratified at next year's meeting before it can be implemented the year after.

If we pass EPH this year, we still have a year's grace to consider whether to ratify for it to be implemented for the 2017 Hugos. If we don't pass EPH this year and decide a rule change is needed next year, this year's Business Meeting agenda has "Popular Ratification" which will add another year to any rule's passage, so it won't be until the 2019 Hugos that EPH can be implemented. It's the choice of the potential of one more year of slates shutting-out categories vs three more years.

Theodore Beale (and his Rabid Puppies) is qualitatively different from the Scientologists. I don't think any amount of opprobrium will cause Beale to desist; I could be wrong but I highly doubt it because this sort of disruptive behaviour is how Beale gets his jollies.

For me, approving EPH at this year's Business Meeting is the no-lose scenario.
grrm
Jul. 28th, 2015 07:03 pm (UTC)
I think we are all crediting Beale with more power than he actually has. How many of his followers, most of whom are not fans and have more interest in the culture war than in SF, are going to be willing to pony up $40 -- going to $50 next year -- for Supporting memberships year after year after year just to fuck with the Hugos?

I don't know. Time will tell, I guess.

Until it does, I'd rather not mess with the Hugo rules.
Roger Christie
Jul. 28th, 2015 06:11 pm (UTC)
"In my original post on this, I pointed out the year that the Scientologists successfully stuffed the ballot to nominate one of L. Ron Hubbard's book. Fandom was horrified... but we did not immediately go out and pass a rules change. Even though, in theory, there was nothing to prevent the Scientologists from amping up their efforts and doing the same thing again, and again, and again."


Yes, but in this case, this is the third year this has happened, each year getting progressively worse, and we already have promises that it will happen again next year. Plus, we have VD promising to 'destroy' the awards.

EPH seems like a reasonable solution that devalues slates of ANY sort without destroying anything else. Also, it's not as though WC uses only one voting method for everything. They already have a completely different arrangement for the actual Hugo vote.
lagopus_muta
Jul. 28th, 2015 07:32 pm (UTC)
I think you are overly optimistic about future slate behaviour, and exaggerate the consequences of the proposed rules changes.

Slates seems more likely than not for the foreseeable future. The Sad Puppies campaign is in its third year already, and the organizers have said clearly that they plan to continue next year. I suppose "Sad Puppies IV" might be a honest recommendation list and not a "vote thise way"-slate, but considering the way puppies have defended their actions so far I wouldn't bet on them suddenly becoming housetrained. On the rabid side, Beale have expressed a desire to "burn down" the awards, and he seems perfectly capable of holding a grudge for a long time. We also don't know who else might get funny ideas - I worry that the puppies, by demonstrating how effective a slate can be, have opened Pandora's Box.

The E Pluribus Hugo proposal keeps the nomination process mostly intact. Voters nominate the same way as we do now - we list 1 to 5 works that we consider worthy. The difference lies in the details of how nominations are tallied, and this makes a practical difference only if there is a pattern of bloc voting. EPH reduces a voting bloc's ability to select all the works for the shortlist, but if there's no voting bloc it produces the same end result as the current system. In a year with a normal distribution of nominations - the kind of distribution we get when all voters are honestly nominating the stuff they like - E Pluribus Hugo and the current system will usually give the same result.

As for the Scientologist campaign, there's a couple of differences to the puppies. First, the Scientologists didn't have enough eligible works to sweep the shortlist the way the puppies have done. They had only one nominee, and the amount of influence they had on the shortlist wasn't a big deal. (Hubbard could have written and published five new short stories in one year and then have his church help him sweep that category - but I think fans would have started to talk about rules changes then.) Second, the Scientologists wanted a Hugo for Hubbard. When they realized they couldn't get that, they had little reason to go on. The puppies is on their third year with no sign of stopping.
grrm
Jul. 29th, 2015 01:28 am (UTC)
I think we will have to agree to disagree on EPH.

I will be voting against it.

The 4-and-6 proposal actually appeals to me for, having the virtue of simplicity. But not enough for vote for that one either.

Nor do I support the addition of a "Best Saga" category. We have to stop adding categories to the Hugos. Truth be told, we'd be better off dropping some, but that will never happen. Every existing category has its own constituency now, who will fight to the death to resist the elimination of their slot.
Marah Searle-Kovacevic
Jul. 26th, 2015 12:19 am (UTC)
Actually, Sasquan never said that. Modern websites can handle much more traffic than any Worldcon is likely to see. Every member could vote on the last day and the servers could handle it with no problem. If all 10,000 members tried to vote during the last hour, we might possibly have an issue.
smofbabe
Jul. 26th, 2015 12:28 am (UTC)
As you know, I have a problem voting for even one decent work in a puppy-dominated category because we are supposed to be trying to award the best work of the year in a given category. We can't do so if we know for sure that slate voting has prevented us from evaluating the quality works that in a fair nomination process might have been nominated.
grrm
Jul. 26th, 2015 04:14 am (UTC)
Yes, in a perfect world, maybe one can make that case. But the Hugos have never been perfect. No more than any other award.

For me, there have been plenty of cases in the past where "the best work of the year in a given category" was not even on the ballot. What do you do then? What I do, is choose from the works that are on the ballot, so long as I feel they are Hugo worthy. And if only one is Hugo worthy, I vote that one first and No Award second.

I don't see the sense in punishing a worthy finalist because the competition is all crap. Regardless of where the crap came from.

If CASABLANCA was up for an Oscar against four Ed Wood films, I'd vote for CASABLANCA... even if I did think that CITIZEN KANE (not nominated) was slightly better.
smofbabe
Jul. 26th, 2015 05:10 am (UTC)
For me, there have been plenty of cases in the past where "the best work of the year in a given category" was not even on the ballot. What do you do then?

In the past, I have generally chosen from the works that are on the ballot but that's because I was choosing from among works that represented what Worldcon nominators honestly thought were the best works of the year in that category, even if I might not agree with them on their evaluation of particular works. However, this year I'm not getting a choice among fairly nominated works, and given that there's no way to put an asterisk next to the winner's name, my choice in categories predominantly consisting of zombie slate nominations is to vote No Award, indicating that I don't feel that I have been given the opportunity to truly select the best of year in that category.
grrm
Jul. 27th, 2015 07:10 pm (UTC)
Does this mean you will be voting No Award in every category except Best Fan Artist? Because that's the only one without any Puppy nominees.
smofbabe
Jul. 27th, 2015 09:11 pm (UTC)
That's why I deliberately used the phrase "predominantly consisting of"
grrm
Jul. 28th, 2015 06:32 pm (UTC)
What does that mean, in practice? A majority of the finalists?
smofbabe
Jul. 29th, 2015 09:58 pm (UTC)
Yup. However, I should have added that for me, this mean the short fiction categories. In the fan and "people" categories, I have much better odds of guessing who else might have been nominated were it not for the slate voting :->
Michael O'Donnell
Jul. 26th, 2015 08:48 am (UTC)
Hugo Recommendations
GRRM said: “Getting more people to take part in the nominating process is the main thing. I have been trying to do that for years.

It's cool if people suggest books and stories and editors and fan writers on their blogs and facebook pages, pointing other fans towards things they loved. The more recommendations the better. And that includes the Puppies.”

For anyone interested in nominating next year, there is a list of eligible works at this Hugo Nominations Wiki:

http://hugonoms2015.wikia.com/wiki/Hugo_Nominees_2016

Anyone can add their recommendations to the Wiki. You can also add recs to this spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YWXIY1JjcjBRJTDzWB5gh3qAGY3EixF4ZxLkEcjiFR0/edit#gid=0

The spreadsheet is currently locked until later this year, but you can add recs to appear when it is unlocked via this form:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1fhXEPxLchKuhYgYgF1FTunU-3JhHaAzbSjrQSfnCo6o/viewform
(Deleted comment)
mrjoshuaspeaks
Jul. 26th, 2015 01:57 am (UTC)
Would you be willing to share your thoughts on the rest of the Best Novel Category?
Really enjoyed your shared opinion on "Goblin Emperor" and "The Three Body Problem". Understandably you wouldn't want to comment on all categories but perhaps the biggest of the "big ones" deserves a bit of harmless analogy? Having read all the nominees(even one god awful one)I have been very curious to see what you thought of Anne Leckie's second book "Ancillary Sword", since the first one was last years winner and it is considered solid writing it seems worthy. Also, what do you think of Jim Butcher as a whole? Not Hugo material IMHO but surely entertaining? Be Well, Mr. Martin.
Bob Jenson
Jul. 26th, 2015 02:36 am (UTC)
I have voted, and will probably look to tweak my ballot in the remaining 6 days - but if I can't because of site overload, I'll be happy with my ballot as is. I voted with my head and not my gut. It was a toss-up for best novel for me - two of them I could have voted #1 for. And the puppies backed "Interstellar" huh? I would have thought that was a no-brainer to get nominated anyways, and it got my vote for the #1 spot. Yeah, it had some issues, but geeze - it had an original story with an intriguing concept and some jaw dropping visuals. The "woo factor" to me was non-existent. And GOTG was a lot of fun, and I couldn't imagine ranking it under no award because of some trolling by certain supporters of it.
grrm
Jul. 26th, 2015 04:19 am (UTC)
Agreed.

It was a pity PREDESTINATION was not nominated. A terrific adaption of "All You Zombies," it deserved to be on the ballot. But in a way, maybe it's good that the Puppies were unaware of it, just as they were unaware of the Patterson biography of RAH. Since PREDESTINATION was based on a Heinlein story, there's a strong chance they might have made it one of their picks.

So what's worse -- missing the ballot entirely, or getting on the ballot solely because of a slate.

I pose the question. I don't know the answer.
kevin_standlee
Jul. 26th, 2015 05:56 am (UTC)
There's a resolution on the Business Meeting agenda to declare that Predestination got such limited distribution that voters weren't aware it was eligible for the 2015 Hugo Awards. If 2/3 of the voters at the BM approve the resolution, they'll extend its eligibility to the 2016 Hugos.
grrm
Jul. 26th, 2015 06:58 am (UTC)
It's distribution wasn't limited in Santa Fe. We screened it at the Jean Cocteau, to enthusiastic crowds.
sethb
Jul. 27th, 2015 03:40 am (UTC)
When did it play there? Google seems to think it opened early this year, so that wouldn't be part of last year's release and harm eligibility for an extension.
grrm
Jul. 27th, 2015 06:59 pm (UTC)
Opened January 9 for us. I think it was showing earlier in other cities, however.
kevin_standlee
Jul. 28th, 2015 06:44 pm (UTC)
January 9, 2015? Only 2014 showings start a work's 2015 Hugo Award "clock."
Bob Jenson
Jul. 26th, 2015 06:04 am (UTC)
Shocked - SHOCKED I say, that the puppies in their mad rush to ruin things for everyone overlook potential nominees they could support!
Yeah, I guess you could console yourself that you might have had a shot a getting on the ballot if it weren't for a slate, but if you had any shred of a conscience you would be haunted by an invisible asterisk if you made it on because of one.
rmholt
Jul. 26th, 2015 09:32 am (UTC)
Future world con
Finland is where I want to be
amazingstoriesm
Jul. 26th, 2015 12:16 pm (UTC)
"Nuclear Option"
George, I understand your dislike for the so-called "nuclear option", but I have a bit of an issue with your suggestion that "only an idiot" would vote no award in Best DP: Long Form.

I love Guardians of the Galaxy dearly and would have loved to see it win a Hugo Award as I think it an exemplary portrayal of space opera via film.

However, I feel that voting for it this year, because it was on the slates, would be the equivalent of endorsing the slate/vote campaigning engaged in by the puppies, and that is something that I just can not support.

In a considered, non-idiotic manner, I have therefore chosen to leave it off of my final ballot and have, instead, selected what I consider to be the best option that is not on a slate.

If the puppy slates between them had filled the category, I would be voting No Award for that category - even if it were 1969 and 2001: A Space Odyssey was in the running.

I can not in good conscience vote for anything that is on either of the puppy slates as I believe - after due consideration - that doing so will lend support to their efforts, however minimal that may be.

Rejecting slated works across the board also allows me to vote a clean ballot and to demonstrate how I did so. Violating that methodology (no matter how much I may want to do so for GotG) weakens the argument in my opinion.

I appreciate and respect your approach, but the fact that mine is different from yours does not make it "idiotic".
grrm
Jul. 27th, 2015 06:56 pm (UTC)
Re: "Nuclear Option"
I understand your reasoning. I just think you're wrong.

The makers of GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY have no relationship with the Sad Puppies, the Rabid Puppies, or any slate. I doubt they are even aware that these groups exist.

By striking them off the list because they were on a slate, you are engaging in Guilt by Association... and a very tenuous association at that. You are essentially giving VD and the Sads power over your vote... not what you vote for, but what you WON'T vote for.

Sorry, I continue to believe that is idiocy. I won't let the slates tell me who to vote for, and I won't let them tell me who NOT to vote for.
amazingstoriesm
Jul. 27th, 2015 08:30 pm (UTC)
Re: "Nuclear Option"
The puppies have already chosen who you can and can't vote for by denying us all legitimate choice on the final ballot.

I have chosen to address the entire issue of slates and the message I am sending is don't do it, no matter who you are or no matter the reason.

Choosing some categories to acknowledge the slates and others to ignore it weakens the argument; if GotG wins, you'll be "complicit" in helping the puppies get an award for one of THEIR nominees. Not that you are voting a puppy slate, but that's the way it will be played.
I've written to James Gunn in the forlorn hope that he'd address the issue and disavow the slate (which would let me pencil it in) but, as expected, received no reply. More is the pity.

I'm voting along cleanly defined lines: slate = no award or off the ballot, regardless of the category, regardless of the work. If that is effective, everyone on a slate in future will be rushing to disavow their inclusion, which is the effect that I am hoping it has.

We've got different political strategies, but that difference does not make one of them "idiotic" and the other "genius". They are merely different approaches to a situation that has offended many of us greatly.
grrm
Jul. 28th, 2015 06:39 pm (UTC)
Re: "Nuclear Option"
I am sorry, but the "nuclear option" offends me almost as much as the slates themselves. And I don't care "how it will be played."

Honestly, by now it is clear, WHATEVER happens on Hugo night, the Puppies are going to declare it a victory for them. That's how it will be played.

By voting No Award for nominees for everything on the slates, you will be giving the Puppies power over your vote, and hurting people who had no part in this, wanted no part in this, and are essentially innocent bystanders.

You want to take out a bad guy, but to do so you're spraying the crowd with machine gun fire and saying you don't care how many innocent bystanders get killed. You're destroying the village in order to save it.
Olov Livendahl
Jul. 27th, 2015 08:25 am (UTC)
More people nominating
I agree that getting more people to nominate would be great! In the spirit of this I have started a personal reading project - I am going to try to read as many new books (and short story magazines) as possible in 2015 and 2016. It's kind of hard when you're on a budget, though.

As for pointing to works that are eligible I'd like to point out that Nnedi Okorafor's Lagoon, which was published in 2014 and a lot of people liked, will be eligible next year as well, since the first American edition will be published in 2015. So now all you 'mericans will have an easier time getting hold of it.
filkerdave
Jul. 29th, 2015 04:49 pm (UTC)
My ballot has been filled out.

For the first time ever, "No Award" was my only choice in at least one category.

( 47 comments )

Profile

Spain
grrm
George R.R. Martin
George R. R. Martin

Latest Month

September 2017
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner