A Possible Unifying Event re: the Hugos
The Hugos and Worldcon are over, and thus did the internet see the Eighth Plague of Post-Hugo Pontification. Some declared victory, while others declared victory for totally different reasons, and lo did they yelleth at one another over whose “victory” was bigger.
But on the fifth day, a lull did fall upon the web of the wide world, as rational and informed people of all nations looked down in agreement and unity. For generations of canine tribal war paled in the face of one simple truth:
This was dumbassery most epic. Most epic indeed…
ETA: Good gravy, there’s more, and this one wants to bring in the FBI!
I invite fans on all sides to finally come together as one to ask, “Dude, seriously?”
Because wow…
Andrew Trembley
August 27, 2015 @ 6:15 pm
The Puppies attempt to “fix” the Hugos through more democracy was defeated by more democracy.
Elizabeth Schechter
August 27, 2015 @ 6:22 pm
Wait… his vote was invalidated HOW? Because the voting didn’t go his way?
Did he not take civics in school? Does he not understand how voting works?
Jim C. Hines
August 27, 2015 @ 6:27 pm
I think that’s one of a number of things he doesn’t seem to understand, yes.
Peter Eng
August 27, 2015 @ 6:35 pm
“Dude, seriously” is too much.
I’m stuck at “What the huh?”
Peyton
August 27, 2015 @ 6:53 pm
I went. I read. A lot. I shook my head in bemusement. The way he is parsing things, handing out the asterisks to attendees makes puts all the awards into question because that’s what asterisks mean in the sports world. Ergo, since all the awards were called into question his vote was invalidated.
Peyton
August 27, 2015 @ 6:54 pm
and by attendees I meant nominees.
bluestgirl
August 27, 2015 @ 7:03 pm
You did better than I. All I managed to figure out was that it had something to do with the asterisks and being very insulted but I couldn’t make myself read enough of it to get further than that.
sistercoyote
August 27, 2015 @ 7:24 pm
is all the further I can get. My brain refuses. Categorically. To process. This.
sistercoyote
August 27, 2015 @ 7:26 pm
But they don’t WANT democracy. As far as I can tell, the sorts who Jim references above want a hegemony, based on who they perceive themselves to be. (Anyone who tells me “not all puppies” shall kindly go forth and take a reading comprehension class.)
Badtux
August 27, 2015 @ 7:30 pm
They’re going to sue because… the majority voted against them? For realz? Man, I don’t see how *any* award could ever happen if the losers ended up suing because they lost. What next, they sue the Academy Awards because their “Atlas Shrugged” movie didn’t win?!
Eleanor
August 27, 2015 @ 8:20 pm
I heard many rumblings at the con about people’s votes being thrown out if they indicated they were in sympathy with the puppies. I heard the numbers 1,000 votes, 3,000 votes and 5,000 votes as being illegally thrown out. I do not pretend to know anything about it, but that was something that was being griped about in the halls.
Rizzi
August 27, 2015 @ 8:24 pm
I’m not sure, but I think it may be referencing this: http://www.scifipundit.com/home/did-worldcon-defraud-its-members
I don’t really follow the argument against Worldcon here, but I didn’t take the time to look too deeply into it.
Sally
August 27, 2015 @ 8:27 pm
I’ve heard many rumblings at cons about the Moon landings being fake, of guys having a girlfriend you wouldn’t know b/c she lives in Canada, of how you shouldn’t look in a mirror and chant “Bloody Mary”, of…
You get the idea.
Also, applying a sports metaphor to Worldcon, one of the least athletic endeavors on the planet, is pretty stupid.
Terry Williams
August 27, 2015 @ 8:33 pm
My only disappointment with Worldcon was that I didn’t see more of your books in the dealers area.
I managed to collect a kazoo but have no idea what the intent was for. Should have pulled it out during the closing ceremonies and pipe the procession out the the hall.
Jim C. Hines
August 27, 2015 @ 8:36 pm
Yeah. My sense is that a handful of the saddest and most rabid pups are trying really, really hard to make this into … something.
Jim C. Hines
August 27, 2015 @ 8:38 pm
And if there was the slightest evidence of this, I’m certain those same rumblers would be spreading it across the internet.
Larry Correia “audited” the Hugos a few years back and even he conceded there was zero sign of anything shady with the nominations or the votes.
Dave Hogg
August 27, 2015 @ 8:45 pm
For once, being a sportswriter pays off.
All an asterisk means in sports is that there’s a footnote regarding the stat in question. The batting-average record has an asterisk because it was achieved in a season where walks counted as hits. The record for turnovers in basketball has an asterisk because they didn’t start counting them until 1977.
It has been given a negative slant by people who want to put asterisks next to record set by steroid users, but those asterisks don’t exist. They are just the dreams of an angry minority who thinks sports were a lot better in their day, and all the new stuff is tainted.
Carol Elaine
August 27, 2015 @ 8:50 pm
There were kazoos? Dammit, I missed out on those. 🙁
Gary D
August 27, 2015 @ 9:20 pm
No one has confessed to passing out kazoos to some people attending the awards ceremony.
Either someone was foolish or someone wanted disruption. It seems like the type of stunt the Sad Puppy who put out that unfunny flyer would pull but that is speculation.
This discussing calling in the lawyers is the utmost foolishness from those who didn’t bother to read the rather arcane Hugo ballot rules and the possibility of No Award winning.
Ken Marable
August 27, 2015 @ 10:15 pm
I did hear grumblings about how over 11,000 people registered for Sasquan but there were only 5950 votes. So the other 5000 votes had to have been thrown away! Since obvs they voted! Conspiracy!!
Except for the fact that it was the highest percentage of members voting in quite some time. Having a little under half of the people not vote is actually quite low since voting on the Hugos is just one part of the entire convention. But there’s no need for facts to get in the way.
But if you are allowed to sue if your vote is cancelled out by the majority of voters, I might have to find a lawyer to look at some elections. This changes everything! If I didn’t vote for, say, our Governor or Congressional Rep – can I get a refund of my taxes?
Eleanor
August 27, 2015 @ 10:59 pm
Yup. That was kind of my point. This guy may be looking at it like those people were…if thier person didn’t win, it had to be because their vote was thrown out. I was trying to distance myself from that point of view, though, because I am nowhere near qualified to make such a claim. Even if I were, on teh intertubes with a baseless vague lawsuit threat would not be my choice for bringing it to light.
Eleanor
August 27, 2015 @ 11:05 pm
That is how I see it too. If there was any such evidence, it would be news, not rumblings in a hallway. But it does reflect the ridiculousnessthat was going on there. Kind of ruined my first Worldcon for me.
As an aside, I was one of those members who did not vote. Because I was not able to read enough of the entries to really make a fair decision, I felt my contribution would not be fair to any of the authors involved. Hugo awards, or any awards really, need to be based on merit, not what my friend said they liked or whether I liked the title. I hope next year to get more reading in and make a more balanced assessment of the nominees.
this is some serious street-preacher stupid right here | Crime and the Blog of Evil
August 28, 2015 @ 12:28 am
[…] is not a big enough facepalming gif in the world for this, so I will not bother appending one. h/t to Jim C. Hines for the unicorn-iconed claimant. […]
Laura Resnick
August 28, 2015 @ 1:02 am
Not a single year’s Hugo results have ever been exactly what I want.
CAN I GET ALL MY MONEY BACK, PLEASE? FROM EVERY WORLDCON I’VE EVER REGISTRED FOR?
Because, hey, if you don’t get your way at the Hugos, it’s not as if there was ever any other reasons to join the World Science Fiction Convention. What else could the con POSSIBLY offer if not eactly the Hugo results you want?
Megpie71
August 28, 2015 @ 1:42 am
Hey, if this one gets through, it could add a whole new level of inanity to the US Presidential elections, or even just to your Primary season.
Hopefully, however, any lawyer being asked to assemble a case will look strangely at the proponent, and point out that such things usually don’t make it to court because the judge tends to point at the plaintiff and laugh. Plaintiffs tend not to take such things calmly. It gets messy.
Tibicina
August 28, 2015 @ 2:05 am
From what I can tell the argument is that the asterisks were, somehow, an official award, but not one that anyone got to vote on. And because the worldcon rules say that you can only have one special award and it’s supposed to be voted on like everything else, they were somehow deprived.
Except, they weren’t awards. They were mementos given to all the nominees this year if they wanted one. That doesn’t make them awards. (And then smaller versions could be purchased by anyone the next day with proceeds going to the orangutan fund which was a favorite charity of Sir Terry Pratchett.
I believe I also saw people saying something about them ‘throwing out the votes from people who voted by email’, to which I kind of say ‘Ummm… there was no voting by email. Voting was on the website and they emailed anyone registered repeatedly about it and the deadlines. That would be like me griping that I emailed the government and told them my votes in the election and they ignored me when I hadn’t actually followed proper voting procedure in my state.’
lauowolf
August 28, 2015 @ 3:49 am
Quick hint.
If you can’t read fast enough to cover all the nominated materials, try working short stuff first, and vote the categories you can work through quickly first.
There’s no problem with a ballot that doesn’t cover all categories.
andyl
August 28, 2015 @ 5:02 am
As lauowolf said – you can vote in just the categories where you have sampled. For example it is perfectly OK to just vote in the dramatic presentation categories if that is all you are interested in. Or just the graphic novel. Or any combination of categories you can imagine.
It is also OK to give up on a work because you don’t like it (I did so this year – a few times). Although obviously those are likely to finish below No Award as you found them so bad you couldn’t finish them.
Finally as you are a newbie – you are able to nominate next year. So you can give all the good new stuff you have read or watched this year a better chance of making the final ballot. Don’t be worried that you can only think of a couple of works in each category that you think are good enough. The more people who nominate what they have read/watched the better.
Rizzi
August 28, 2015 @ 9:43 am
In fairness, I absolutely identify with the rabid puppies. That said, I don’t know what this particular argument against Worldcon is, not past what I linked. I suppose the point is whether or not the asterisk was handed out as an award or a momento.
Either way, the asterisk thing was wholly a dick move, and I thought the ceremony was disgraceful and disrespectful to the actual nominees. Not to mention the members who did legitimately pay to vote and be a part of the process.
Jaws
August 28, 2015 @ 10:39 am
Ah, yes: The danger of nonlawyers asserting legal theory in support of something that sorta sounds legal.
“Andrew Swallow” queried, with wide-eyed disingenuity, “@FBI By discarding email votes for the #SadPuppies have the #HugoAwards committed ‘Honest Services Fraud’? Awards increase sales #GamerGate”
No. Last I checked, Hugo Award administrators were not public officials, elected or otherwise. Therefore, this is at most a breach of contract between private parties issue not involving public funds (and therefore outside the FBI’s purview)… and even that assumes that the 1970s-1980s theory of honest-services fraud had not been gutted by the courts in the last fifteen years, which now require a clear quid pro quo (something of value has to pass both directions, directly linked) before terming anything like that “fraud.” Nor that the theory wasn’t far more nuanced than its name makes it sound (sort of like “fraudulent inducement of contract” doesn’t require “fraud”).
Oh, there’s my problem: I’m expecting someone who uses the #GamerGate hashtag at this late date to even acknowledge that nuance exists, or to do basic research before making a scurrilous attack.
Ken Marable
August 28, 2015 @ 10:41 am
Didn’t you know? It’s really about Ethics in Award Voting.
Pam Adams
August 28, 2015 @ 11:20 am
I personally liked the ceremony, and was one of those cheering when we heard the No Award announcements. (Bad puppies! No biscuit!)
I believe that slates are ethically wrong, and see nothing wrong with No Awarding the slates.
Camille Klein
August 28, 2015 @ 11:39 am
I’ve had the displeasure of knowing Scott Malcomson peripherally for many years now, thanks to my involvement in the Battletech community.
The man is a joke, straight up. He’s a no-talent assclown who thinks that he’s somehow important because he wrote a fanfic or two, and even other Battletech players laugh at his worthless ass.
He’ll file nuisance lawsuits, they’ll get thrown out, and he’ll whine right along with the rest of the Puppies.
Vixy
August 28, 2015 @ 12:19 pm
They were actually handed out to all the attendees of the pre-Hugo reception. Spouses, presenters, organizers, dates. My husband, who designed & made the bases, got one. I could have grabbed one but I figured we’d share (WA being a community property state). They were literally just in piles on the table as we exited the party to go to the ceremony.
Vixy
August 28, 2015 @ 12:25 pm
I suspect that part of the problem is that they don’t understand how the Australian preferential voting thing works. Which lots of people don’t, but explanations are available right there on the Hugo website. Their accusations of votes being “thrown out” when they are looking right at the publicized numbers gives me the impression that they misunderstand the redistribution of votes in that system.
Jim C. Hines
August 28, 2015 @ 12:44 pm
The members who paid to vote had the opportunity to vote, and their votes were counted. (If evidence to the contrary comes to light, I’ll be happy to join the criticism; and if it was deliberate, the condemnation. But thus far, I’ve seen no evidence.) The frustration seems to be that their votes were in the minority, and people voting “No Award” were the majority in five categories. Which is frustrating, sure. But it’s not invalidating anyone’s votes.
With the asterisks and the Hugo ceremony, I get that some people felt attacked, offended, and angry. Others genuinely didn’t see it in the same way. I don’t think it was intended as a slap in the face to nominees … but I can’t read people’s minds or hearts, and I don’t know for certain. And of course, good intentions don’t make everything okay.
Short version: I don’t believe this was malicious. I do believe people are genuinely upset. Different people had very different reactions, and that’s okay.
Jenora Feuer
August 28, 2015 @ 1:11 pm
Yeah, Malcomson. To the surprise of probably nobody who’s had to deal with him, a Gamergater as well. I saw him all over the comments about ‘Airplay’ when the journalist who started the whole thing started having second thoughts because some of the Gamergaters were living down to stereotype and complaining about only getting 15 minutes each: http://spjairplay.com/update6/
Donald Eastlake
August 28, 2015 @ 1:57 pm
What the WorldCon rules say that you can only have one special Hugo Award. A WorldCon committee can make up and give out as many non-Hugo Awards as it feels like. For example, at the Sasquan closing ceremony, many “Hero Awards” were given to people who had worked particularly hard on the convention.
But you are correct that these large asterisks were not “awards” of any kind, just a give-away offered to all nominees (or their acceptors if the nominee was not present). Like the Hugo rocket pin that was also given to all nominees (or their acceptors). (The smaller version asterisk was available to members for a donation amount of their choice to Terry Pratchett’s favorite charity.)
(Actually, since the change to the WSFS Constitution was ratified this year to replace “nominees” with “finalists”, I guess you should make that change above…)
bblackmoor
August 28, 2015 @ 2:55 pm
To paraphrase the court in MALCOMSON v. TOPPS COMPANY, INC. (Dist. Court, D. Arizona 2010), “Malcomson’s claim is unsupported by evidence in the record and is otherwise meritless”.
Alessandra Kelley
August 28, 2015 @ 3:33 pm
There appears to be a lack of understanding here of what “vote” means. Also democracy, the chance of being outvoted, invalidation, fraud, discard, and conspiracy.
I doubt this threat will get very far. I hope it does not cause difficulty for the exhausted, hardworking, and dedicated volunteers who do the massive amounts of work necessary to bring WorldCon about.
The amount of vaporlike and illusory speculation about ludicrous and frankly insulting conspiracies behind this whole sorry mess is really bewildering. Do the Puppies really think the world makes more sense as described by their stories?
Sally
August 28, 2015 @ 3:59 pm
The leftovers were then sold to members and the proceeds given to charity. Which was announced at the awards when the asterisks were shown off!
I guess a SQUIRREL ran by when that was explained. Puppies have short attention spans, after all.
Sally
August 28, 2015 @ 4:05 pm
I was ALMOST 100% correct this year, so I’ll be suing for (does math) an 11.7% refund of my supporting membership.
Now to go through the list of past Worldcons since the 80’s and see who else I have to sue.
Sally
August 28, 2015 @ 4:07 pm
I suspect they don’t WANT to understand the system.
Tamera
August 28, 2015 @ 4:22 pm
Gosh – I thought they were declaring victory last weekend. Amazing the difference a few days make!
The hypocrisy and the dumb – it’s MIGHTY!!
Badtux
August 28, 2015 @ 4:30 pm
Imaginary conspiracies are their stock in trade. Alex Jones is their prophet, and the feminist movement their Satan. Thus why they seem to believe we’re all part of some conspiracy to oppress manly white men writing manly white man adventure science fiction. Even those of us who are, well, manly white men. I mean, they even think Jim “Asterisk” Wright is part of their anti-manly-white-men conspiracy — a guy who shaves with a Bowie knife and kills bears with his bare hands for fun. (Well, not exactly, but he definitely *real life* did the kind of manly adventure things the Whiny Puppies only write about back when he was in the secret squirrel corps of the Navy).
David Y
August 28, 2015 @ 9:37 pm
When someone proposes changing the voting system, you might use a stack of Hugo votes over the years as some sort of evidence.
And they’ll really need to explain the system to the voters.
Badtux
August 28, 2015 @ 9:45 pm
Thinking more on the conspiracy thing: the Whiny Puppies are convinced that we’re part of some vast conspiracy against them, and furthermore, despite the evidence of the voting, they are convinced that they are the majority and that only a conspiracy has suppressed their vote. At which point they have disappeared down a rabbit hole and all reason fails.
The problem with dealing with irrational conspiracy kooks is that they are, well, irrational conspiracy kooks. Trying to engage with irrational conspiracy kooks is futile, because if you don’t agree with them then you are part of the conspiracy and thus evil. You can object all you want that you’ve never met your so-called co-conspirators and have no knowledge of any conspiracy and that you observed the vote and it was fair and properly counted, and they will simply assume that, because you’re a member of this conspiracy (because you disagree with them, duh) and thus evil, you’re lying to them.
It’s not a problem that is restricted to Whiny Puppies. There is a whole industry out there where hucksters pitch conspiracies to people who feel put-upon. The desire to believe in some vast and evil conspiracy seems to exist in a large subset of the public. And I don’t know what the solution is, because once they disappear down the rabbit hole of believing anybody who disagrees with them is part of some conspiracy, reason fails.
David K. M. Klaus
August 29, 2015 @ 4:22 am
F-Secure anti-viral software gives a warning that Scifiundit.com is a website which may contain malware and recommends not going to that page.
David K. M. Klaus
August 29, 2015 @ 4:22 am
Excuse me, Scifipundit.com.
Rizzi
August 29, 2015 @ 8:08 am
Hmm. I don’t get that warning, but I’m using different anti-virus software. I think the gist of the argument is this:
“3.3.17: Additional Category. Not more than one special category may be created by the current Worldcon Committee with nomination and voting to be the same as for the permanent categories”
The last part of that is emphasized on the site. The part reading that the nomination and voting have to be the same as for the permanent categories.
NowhereMan
August 30, 2015 @ 4:36 am
Okay. I just listened to the most recent Puppy podcast at superversive sci fi, and I think I know where the Pups are getting this.
If you look on the Hugo results, you’ll see that 5950 votes were cast, and 4900 *valid* votes were cast in the Best Related Work category. Now what this actually means is about 1050 people didn’t vote in that category, and also that, under the 25% rule, an entry had to rank above No Award on 1225 ballots in order to win. (Turns out No Award won anyway, so the 25% rule never applied).
J. Jagi Lamplighter says in the podcast that the 25% rule means that each ballot must rank 25% of the nominees or else it will be disqualified–in other words, if a Puppy just goes through, puts Vox’s #1 picks in first place in all categories, and enters nothing else, then the ballot will be rejected. And that 1050 ballots were rejected for these reasons.
She’s wrong, of course. But I think that’s one of the areas in which the Puppies are confused.
NowhereMan
August 30, 2015 @ 4:41 am
Ack, bad math. The 25% threshold for 5950 is about 1490, not 1225. Otherwise, everything there is right (I think).
Amazing Stories | AMAZING NEWS: 8/30/15 - Amazing Stories
August 30, 2015 @ 11:03 am
[…] is grounds for a class action suit against WSFS and/or Sasquan and/or….See a small part of it here. (I want a class action suit against puppies, but that might upset the […]