Slashdot Mirror
Hugos Refuse To Award Anyone Rather Than Submit To Fans' Votes
An anonymous reader writes: You may remember way back in April there was a bit of a kerfuffle over the nominees for the Hugo Awards being "too conservative" based on a voting campaign organized by a group of science fiction fans who wanted to promote hard science fiction over more recent nominees. This was spun as conservatives "ruining" a "progressive" award. The question was left: would the final voters of the Hugo awards accept these nominees, or just take their ball home and refuse to give out anyway awards at all? The votes are in and we know the answer now: they'd rather just not give out any awards. (Wired has a slightly different slant on the process as well as the outcome of this year's awards.)
The headline there is stupid. The result IS the fan's votes. In six categories "No Award" won the vote.
I have to wonder why Slashdot ran that submission from an anonymous coward (sorry, reader). The Wired article Timothy mentioned in passing looks like it has a stronger grasp on reality but that submission is what people will actually read. Do we need to start moderating the editors or as the GG/Puppies contingent gotten so strong here that it's a lost cause?
Please explain how a fallacy could be true.
It's literally defined as being a false belief or a failure in reasoning.
It's the "fallacy fallacy."
If you conclude that because a line of reasoning contains a fallacy, the statement reasoned about is false, you just fell into the fallacy fallacy..
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The Sad Puppies won. Yes, they didn't win a single award -- in fact, some really good works lost to No Award, seemingly just to spite them.
But that was the point.
Their stated goal was to prove that there was a group of people out there voting for political reasons and fixing the Hugos. To fight this, they did the unforgivable sin of nominating some good works (such as one of the Dresden Files novels) for a Hugo.
The CHORF / SJWs fell for it en mass, just as George R R Martin begged them not to (archive version) back in April. They proved the Sad Puppies point -- that the Hugos are fixed by a group of gatekeepers.
The Hugos have been fixed for years, to the point that Steven King outright refused to participate due to how bad it became. The CHORFs proved the Sad Puppies' point more than anything else could. The Hugos have been forever tarnished by this -- not by the Sad Puppies voting in the "wrong way" for the "wrong type of fans", but by the CHORFs decreeing that you have to have the right politics, the right thoughts, the right opinions, to be a "real fan" or a "real hugo winner."
This is also, apparently, a huge increase over the last number of people who voted in the Hugos (65% more than last time?) suggesting a significant groundwell.
...or a significant mustering of the troops. If you look at the breakdown of the numbers there an interesting picture emerges. I've also linked to Scalzi telling his minions to vote No Award after their preferences elsewhere on this page, it wouldn't be difficult to organise a couple of thousand people at all.
That's a terrible argument. It's a have cake and eat it argument. If the Beale strategy works, it shows there is no conspiracy. If the Beale strategy doesn't work, then it shows that there is no conspiracy. The only thing that doesn't support the argument is having no one protest against the conspiracy - which shows that there is no conspiracy.
"Puppies supporters say that slew of "eno award" wins this year can at least partially be attributed to the fact that SJW votes were concentrated on that choice, while Puppies votes were distributed between as many as four deserving authors.
First, all of the "no award" wins won by a majority on the first ballot. Even if all of the puppy voters had agreed on a single candidate-- they still wouldn't comprise a majority. That argument is false.
Second, that argument is by somebody who doesn't understand how the ballot functions. It works for the nominations, but not for the actual votes, which use a "single transferable ballot" (aka, "australian ballot"). When your first choice is eliminated, your vote goes to your second choice. So, if the puppy vote was distributed between four authors-- so what? As each candidate is eliminated, that vote doesn't go away.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Not really. The puppies (sad and angry) are both pissy that their favourite stuff isn't getting awards. They claim that their stuff is getting pushed out in place of crap that they hate. Of course there's a kernel of truth: some utter drek has been given awards (the utter shit by RH, for example and bad stories that have a gay person in it, such as the appalingly bad http://www.tor.com/2013/02/20/...).
The trouble is it's only a kernel of truth. The stuff being awarded may have been bad but theirs is, by any reasonable standard just as bad, if not worse.
This is not an attempt to reform or destroy stuff, it's just a massive attempt at shameless self promotion and getting their stuff awarded. Any claims to the contrary are simlpy them making stuff up to rewrite history in otder to make themselves look better, something Vox Dei does a lot.
Anyway as a result, the Hugos are part way to adopting a new voting system which penalises identical voters in order to make it harder to utterly stack the votes.
SJW n. One who posts facts.