Slashdot Mirror

You seem to assume that there is an "organized fandom" voting on an "anti-Puppy" slate. Care to provide evidence about that?

"The Puppy-Free Hugo Award Voting Guide" blog posting still exists; see it for yourself: http://deirdre.net/the-puppy-free-hugo-award-voters-guide/

It didn't call itself a "slate" but I call it that. The recommendations in that slate were followed and Puppy-nominated works were outvoted, by 2:1 in several cases. It was an unprecedented number of votes any way you look at it and the anti-Puppy slate voting absolutely was organized.

http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2015HugoStatistics.pdf

In the entire previous history of the Hugo awards there had been only 5 "No Awards" voted. Then last year the "Puppy-Free" slate recommended "No Award" in 5 categories; enough people voted the slate that all 5 categories passed "No Award" rather than allow even a single Puppy-nominated person to win any category.

There was exactly one deviation from the "Puppy-Free" slate. The popular movie "Guardians of the Galaxy" was voted for best movie Hugo.

Since the Puppies seem to have made a huge amount of nominations, I conclude that if there is such an anti-Puppy conspiracy it is a rather incompetent one.

It's true that the Sad Puppies surprised everyone, even themselves, by sweeping several categories in the nominations and getting most of their picks on the ballot. After that, the anti-Puppy faction really got organized, with the results shown above.

And there was no "anti puppy" slate, only an "anti shit story" slate.

Factually incorrect. The slate that won was advertised as the "Puppy-Free" slate, only they didn't call it a slate. They claimed to be against slate voting.

http://deirdre.net/the-puppy-free-hugo-award-voters-guide/

Of course the Sad Puppies nominations had vote totals all over the map, and then the "Puppy-Free" list was exactly followed in actual votes by 2400-3500+ people.

There was one exception: Guardians of the Galaxy was so popular that it was voted for even though it was recommended by Puppies. That was it. No other Puppy-nominated work won anything.

The thing is, that never happened outside some fantasy of yours.

As documented above, exactly one Puppy-nominated thing won, and that was the hugely popular movie Guardians of the Galaxy.

On what basis do you think something different would have happened for Best Novel? Why do you think that Best Novel, arguably the most prestigious Hugo, would have triumphed over the slate when the rest of the Puppies nominations were defeated at roughly 2:1?

If the Puppies are right then Starship Troopers would be very likely to win a Hugo, on account of it being so diverse and featuring a non-white protagonist.

You might think so, but don't forget about the SJW cliques. It Has Been Decided that Heinlein was racist, misogynist, etc. so he would be voted down.

Also, it contains a lot of stuff that would be "problematic" now. People would be upset that there are no women at all in the Mobile Infantry. Of course, every Navy ship Captain was a woman, and the Navy tended heavily towards women, with the claim that women make better pilots as they have better reflexes and better instincts for navigation. Intellectually self-consistent SJWs should be offended on behalf of men, but I'd guess they would just complain about the lack of women in the MI and call it a day. (And just let alone the idea that you have to earn a vote! Heresy.)

Also, don't forget that multiple people on the self-proclaimed "anti-Puppy" side claimed proudly that they hadn't even read the books nominated by the Sad Puppies before voting against them. This was virtue signaling of course, but the point stands: for the cliques, the content of the works was secondary to the politics surrounding the whole thing.

Sad Puppies: "Vote for works you liked. Here's a list we liked."

Cliques: "Here's a list of how to vote; together we can slap the Sad Puppies down." http://deirdre.net/the-puppy-free-hugo-award-voters-guide/

I know which side I'd rather be on.

Fine, this one then? The site says, and I quote, "If you are voting the strict ix-nay uppy-pay slate, here’s the options in each category" and then goes on to list a voting slate.

Please read http://deirdre.net/the-puppy-f... and then say that again.

Short version: The SJW camp was campaigning for people to vote "no award" just to thwart the people who refused to vote for authors simply because they were bisexual or whatever. The Puppies' camps were talking the entire time about voting for works based on the quality of the work, alone. They did not feel someone should win an award for fiction writing simply because they were of a non-traditional gender or the other reasons the SJWs were nominating stories that were not quality related.

This is a lie and nothing but a lie.

If you do even the least bit of research, you will find pages like this one...

The Puppy Free Hugo Award Voter's Guide

This is where one of the "your genitalia is more important than your writing skills" people was instructing their camp to vote No Award because otherwise the Puppies people might cause an author they voted for based on the quality of the work to win an award.

Granted, I do get a lot of non-MSFT OS users to my site, but here's my stats (from mint): Browser stats and Platform stats. As you can see, even most people visiting my site on Windows must be using Firefox.

Granted, I do get a lot of non-MSFT OS users to my site, but here's my stats (from mint): Browser stats and Platform stats. As you can see, even most people visiting my site on Windows must be using Firefox.

One of my Linuxcare friends had a job interview this morning that I helped set up. If you're one of the LC people looking, I now have even more contacts. Feel free to email me at deirdre@deirdre.net and I'll pass along what I know.

While the prognosis for everyone there is good, the early birds will have more choices.

If you're one of the ex-Linuxcare staff, I'm also asking the companies to show up at the next BALUG meeting as well. And, if you're a company that I missed somehow, just show up. :)

_Deirdre

Credit goes to Bay Area Linux activist Deirdre Saoirse for noticing that the plaintiff was getting away uncontested with claiming that DeCSS was a tool for copying DVDs (which it isn't) as opposed to playing them.

Deirdre got the attention of defence attorney Robin Gross, during a court recess, and made sure they understood the very vital point that DeCSS has nothing to do with DVD copying, which was possible (but uneconomical) before DeCSS was written using other tools entirely. The defence team then explained this to the judge, who was visibly surprised by the news.

The plaintiffs may well have lost the day, right there.