Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Hugo Voting Continues

With the Puppy Wars heating up again -- not that they have ever really cooled down -- this seems an opportune moment to remind all and sundry that there is still plenty of time left to join Sasquan and cast your ballot for this year's Hugo awards.

With the electronic ballot, once you have a membership number and a PIN, you can go and post some preferences and votes now, then return a day later, or a week later, or a month later, and change them, or add some more rankings. Your vote does not get counted until balloting closes.

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

If you have not voted the Hugo Awards before, please note that it is an "Australian ballot," a preferential system whereby one ranks the nominees. You don't just vote for one. You can rank NO AWARD as if it were any other finalist; ahead of some nominees, behind others.

(Which is the way I believe one should use NO AWARD. As I have stated previously, I am opposed to the nuclear option of just blindly voting NO AWARD in every category).

Of course, you need to be a member to vote. Supporting Memberships will cost you $40. You can sign up to buy one at https://sasquan.swoc.us/sasquan/reg.php

In addition to voting privileges, a Supporting Membership will get you the convention's program book (usually a handsome item, though it varies from year to year) and other publications.

You can also sign up as an ATTENDING member and actually attend the convention, which is the course I strongly recommend for those who have the time and the money. Cons are fun, especially worldcon; that's what they are all about. Reading, panel discussions, the art show, the dealers' room, the masquerade, filksinging... all sorts of great stuff goes on. Something for all tastes. And EVERYONE is welcome, despite what you have heard. (Just don't be an asshole. Assholes get welcomed too, but the welcome wears out more quickly).

Both supporting and attending members get an electronic "Hugo packet" that will enable you to read many of the works nominated for this year's rockets. You should do that, no matter what side of the Puppy Wars you are on; we want informed voters. Yes, sadly, IMNSHO this is the weakest Hugo ballot in recent memory, thanks to the Puppy slates... but there's still some damn strong work there, especially in Novel and Dramatic Presentation. And of course it is possible that your own tastes may differ from mine.

So join, read, vote. And fifty years from now, when your fannish grandchildren ask you, "Say, gramps, what did you do in the Great Hugo War?" you'll have an answer for them.


Jun. 14th, 2015 02:03 pm (UTC)
nauseating puppies
I'm so confused by the vast material circulating out there on the net. I earnestly try to read whatever I can and wrap my brain around the massive network of SFF contestants to a long time established noble faire of passionate and talented writers, readers and awards. I'm seeking some info that will simplify the whole thing in my own language so I can understand more than the basic amount I do which is that a group of bigoted misogynist anti social bullies saw an opportunity to "take control" (something like the stories they probably write) and leave a lot of cool people who try to live their lives in a "fair" manner, have "respect" for everyone and write their stories with the same theme, in the dust.
I loathe me a bully! I get worked up when I see a bully.

Honestly, just yesterday I STARTED to sign up to be a Hugo voter, after reading some disturbing blog posts and articles, I felt sick when I saw John C Wright and Vox Day on so many Ballots and decided NOT to even participate. Though I've read some of the books on the ballot, not enough so, I suck. I know. I want to HELP my team (your team George), I just feel like I'm alone here on the Internet. Normally I'm a fairly independent thinker but for this, I need a specific community where I can ask some questions, dumb as they may be and I need some direction, otherwise I'm not comfortable by myself jumping on a boat heading out to Sea. But imho, that's the difference between people like "us" and "others" who have no qualms gathering-up a group of people (their buddies) to pretend they care about SFF.
Just looking at John C Wright's face on Wikipedia makes me nauseated, let alone reading his vile comments about gay people.

Needless to say, I'm conflicted about partaking in the Hugo voting. I don't want to see them win ANYTHING, I'm sorry. I want to be honest. But on the other hand, I find this whole thing sickening. Especially that they call themselves "puppies", sad, rabid, happy or stupid, I don't care, they did that with clever and deceptive design and it's as galling as they intended.
what to do?

These are the titles of posts I've been reading:
~ most enlightening:
I Stand By Irene Gallo- Chuck Wendig
*and then these too:
The Revolution of Self-Righteous Dickery will Not Be Moderated
How Gamergate Radicals Seized Sci-Fi's Most Prestigious Awards
Hijacking the Hugo Awards Won't Stifle Diversity in Science Fiction
And Now For Something Completely Distempered 6/9

Edited at 2015-06-14 02:08 pm (UTC)
Jun. 14th, 2015 07:07 pm (UTC)
Re: nauseating puppies
Yes, this whole controversy is sickening, I agree.

But standing on the sidelines will not help anything.

If the membership fee is not a burden (I would never want anyone who can't afford it to spend rent or food money on a Hugo vote), join, read the stories, and vote for what you like best. There's some good stuff there, along with the crap.

Let your voice be heard.
Jun. 14th, 2015 08:36 pm (UTC)
Re: nauseating puppies
As someone who bought a member ship as a direct response against the "nuclear option", I also agree. The controversy is sickening. It's supposed to be about the writings, not the writers.

However, when I hear near-deafening silence at authors being broadly painted as "neo-nazis" or worse, an upswelling of SUPPORT for such public vitriol, yet a large amount of umbrage being taken at terms like "puppy-kickers" I wonder of Correia was right all along. Will the "puppy nominees" really get a fair shake? Or are they doomed because they have the wrong politics or beliefs?

I have been working my way through the voter packet, and so far there are some "Puppy works" that will be at the top of my lists. And some in the middle or even bottom. I don't care what John C Wright's beliefs are. Or Tom Kratman's. Or Arlan Andrews. Or anyone else's. I'm not voting for Pope or for President. I'm
voting on a story that was written.

Anyway, yes, it is sickening.
Jun. 14th, 2015 09:05 pm (UTC)
Re: nauseating puppies
Vote on the stories, by all means.

As for the epithets, there was an apology issued for that "neo-nazi" tweet, and the author of same was publicly reprimanded, so I regard that as a closed book. Sorry, I don't buy into the school of thought that says "the apology was not sufficiently cringing, so we will continue with our character assassination."

On the other hand, no one is issuing any apologies for "Puppy kicker" or "CHORF" or "SJW." Far from it. The users of same are doubling down. They will not even cease using these terms. They have appeared, not once in a single tweet, but hundreds of time all over the internet.
Jun. 14th, 2015 09:37 pm (UTC)
Re: nauseating puppies
Honestly I don't either. It's the very fact that such a public statement was made at all that's troubling. More so,the outcry against Tor for "caving in". As a newcomer to all this, I don't see either side having the moral high ground.

Out of curiosity, what would you think would be an accurate and non-offensive shorthand term for someone who opposes the whole Puppy campaign beyond the realm of good taste or manners? I agree that SJW is in poor taste to say the least. I don't even know what CHORF stands for (and frankly can't be bothered to look it up) What term would distinguish more thoughtful people like Eric Flint from, the well, "less thoughtful"?
Jun. 14th, 2015 11:48 pm (UTC)
Re: nauseating puppies
The people opposed to the slates are mainly members of traditional worldcon fandom, so one can call them simply "fans" or (more fannish) "fen," or even "trufen," an old fannish term.

If you want to bring politics in it, then call them "liberal fans" or "progressive fans."

There is no need for name calling.
Jun. 15th, 2015 05:30 pm (UTC)
Re: nauseating puppies
Denver author Lou J Berger has started a hashtag and is creating badge ribbons for the con that say #WeAreAllSF (we are all science fiction); writers, readers, publishers, everyone. The idea is to stop the vitriol and bring the community together. There's room for everyone. We don't have to all agree about what is "good" SF - and it's better and more rich of an existence if we don't! - but we do need to respect each other. Let's all play nice (fake it if you have to) and show everyone how awesome SF (and Fantasy) really can be.
Jun. 16th, 2015 07:34 pm (UTC)
Re: nauseating puppies
How about using "anti-slate"?

Practically no one objects to the participation of anyone if they vote what they read and liked instead of following a slate.
Jun. 16th, 2015 11:49 pm (UTC)
Re: nauseating puppies
I think the idea is to stop being anti anything and pro something. Pro-SF feels much more positive and actionable.


George R.R. Martin
George R. R. Martin

Latest Month

April 2018


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner