Yes. Guardians of the Galaxy was a reasonable nomination and it won fair and square. It probably is not the film I would have voted for but: (a) I didn't stump up $40, so I had no vote! (b) It is obviously a serious nomination in any case.
That article doesn't say what you think it says. The context of that article was a lot of people running around saying that the Hugos were doomed because the various "puppies" groups had managed to nominate some garbage by voting for a slate. Scalzi's article simply explains that while it's possible for a minority to get things nominated, that doesn't mean that it's possible for the minority to get Hugos awarded. In other words, everybody's doom and gloom about the Hugos was misplaced.
It's worth reading his article, because it is quite interesting and it is how I learned a lot about the process.
1. I believe that by using the term, "SJW", you blind yourself to any realistic analysis of the event; 2. I'm not trying to use any sort of jargon. I am trying to explain what I mean; 4. [sic] I don't understand what you mean here. 3.
You've linked to that article but you clearly haven't read it! Scalzi simply explains the rules and how he interprets them. His article was in response to a lot of hand-wringing about the puppies' attempt to vote for a slate. Lots and lots of people were forseeing doom and gloom for the Hugos, Scalzi's article was simply to explain that while it's possible to get nominations on the ballot paper by colluding, it's a very different thing to getting Hugos awarded. You should read the article - it's pretty interesting.
So the people who voted No award are "minions" of John Scalzi. And you're suggesting that he only has to suggest it and hundreds of people with fork out $40 each so that they can do exactly what he says? Are you serious? Novels cost - what - $10? So you think people are going to spend four times the price of one of his novels just so that they can vote according to his instructions. What would they gain from that?
But surely nobody can force anybody to do anything? Anyone can register. Anyone can vote for anything.
ideologues from the outside marched in and started telling everyone...
1. Citation needed; 2. How does this change anything. Anyone could stump up $40 and register and then vote any way they wanted. How would someone telling them what to do change the result?
But anyone could register to vote, including the Puppies and all of their supporters and friends. It doesn't matter if 5000 or 50000 people voted. Anyone could have registered and voted if they had been motivated to do so.
The OP's contention is that: Yes, the social justice clique burned the awards to the ground to stop any Puppy-nominated candidate from winning. This presumes to know the reason that none of Vox Day's nominations won an award. The possibility that the OP thinks is most likely is that there is a "clique" (or some other term) of "SJ" people who all voted together. This fails Occam's Razor test - it's not the simplest explanation. A far simpler explanation is that the works that were nominated by Vox Day were not actually good enough to be awarded Hugos.
Don't be stupid. You can't say, "anyone can register" and then say, "the people who registered prove that it was a fix!". Anyone was allowed to register. The people who registered to vote voted and the Hugos are awarded (or not awarded) as a result.
ANYONE can register to vote. If the majority of people who registered to vote voted in a particular way, ALL that you can conclude from that is that the winners reflect what the registered voters wanted. You can't look at the results and then say, "oh look, the vote was dominated by group X".
Try not using the term, "SJW" to see how absurd your argument is.
The Hugos are not being destroyed. You have to pay $40 to register to vote, so it's not like an Internet poll. The system isn't being "gamed". Anybody can register and vote. The same people who vote also get to nominate for next year's Hugos.
Neither side can "stuff ballots". It's a free vote and anybody can register to vote. This year, the Sad Puppies (and another group I think) created a "slate" to get a number of works nominated. In the main vote, those works did not win.
But anyone can register, so nobody can "stuff ballots".
1. I understood what you were saying; 2. I don't understand what "the Academy" has to do with it; 3. I don't understand the point you are making about feminists and homophobia; 4. I don't understand what Obamacare has to do with it; 5. I agree with you on the point about the use of "SJW". See also "PC".
What you have written here makes no sense at all. Here are some facts for you. 1. Anyone may register (I think it costs $40); 2. Anyone who registers can nominate any work they like; 3. Anyone who registers can vote for any work(s) they like in each of several categories; 4. If someone thinks that nothing in a particular category deserves an award, there is a "No award" option; 5. The voting system for nomination is different from the voting system for the awards;
So how can "SJWs" (or anyone else for that matter) affect the awards of the Hugos? This is a serious question - I really want to know what you think.
The voters for the Hugos are sci-fi fans. There is no "SJW" group that votes. EVERYONE who registers can vote. There are no restrictions on who can register (another poster says that it costs $40). You don't have to attend Worldcon to register. Presumably, those people who register are the ones who are most interested in scifi. But there's no group of "SJWs" (or anybody else for that matter) who can affect the outcome. Everyone who registers can vote.
I'm not sure if you're deliberately being obtuse, but the "self-selected group" that you talk about is everybody who wants to register. Presumably the ones who register are the ones who are most interested in sci-fi. Ancillary Justice was voted for by the majority of voters in that category and so won the Hugo. It makes no sense at all to say that something that won a democratic vote "didn't deserve" to win. It was a democratic vote and it won.
In any case, your criticism that Ancillary Justice is "conservative" is, to put it mildly, contentious.
No upgrade is needed. The voting system to get things nominated is different to the one to make the awards. So it's possible for a small group to create a voting "bloc" to get works nominated, but they are then not able to force those works to win awards.
No he didn't, because he (and presumably you) seem to think that the voters are a closed group. In fact, anyone may register to vote. You don't have to attend Worldcon to vote. So there is no "clique" to sway the vote. There are just fans of scifi who are committed enough to stump up the $40 (or however much) to register to vote.
There can't be a clique. Anybody can register to vote. Presumably the people who register are the ones who are interested enough in scifi to be bothered. But anybody at all is allowed to register to vote.
Wrong! The condition for nominating are EXACTLY the same as the condition for winning the Hugo. Anyone who registers can nominate any work they like (it has to have been published in the relevant year of course).
So the Sad Puppies didn't prove anything, except that they could get works nominated but could not get those works to win Hugos. The reason for this is the different voting system used in both cases. None of this has changed in any significant way.
To put it another way, the changing nature of the types of work that win Hugos reflects the changing nature of the types of people who read sci-fi (or to be more specific, the changing nature of the types of people who register to vote in the Hugos).
Yes, the social justice clique burned the awards to the ground to stop any Puppy-nominated candidate from winning.
Yet another person who just wants to humiliate himself. There is no "social justice clique". It's an open vote. Anybody can register to vote. You don't even have to go to Worldcon to vote. So please explain to everyone, how this clique "burned the awards to the ground".
"Award committee". By which you mean the sci-fi fans who were interested enough to register to vote. Remember, anyone can register to vote - you don't have to go to Worldcon to vote.
You don't know enough about this to comment. Anybody can sign up to vote. The outcome of the vote reflects the will of the majority of those who registered. You don't have to attend Worldcon to vote. So the awards reflect those people who were interested enough to sign up.
Last year's winners were chosen by the same process. The majority of those people who signed up voted and Ancillary Justice won one of the awards. How can you say that it should not have won?
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, but the Sad Puppies would not be sad any more. So your "solution" supports one side at the cost of the other.
This is Slashdot, not Twitter. You can't just make shit up and expect people to believe it. Or, to put it another way,
Yes. Guardians of the Galaxy was a reasonable nomination and it won fair and square. It probably is not the film I would have voted for but:
(a) I didn't stump up $40, so I had no vote!
(b) It is obviously a serious nomination in any case.
That article doesn't say what you think it says. The context of that article was a lot of people running around saying that the Hugos were doomed because the various "puppies" groups had managed to nominate some garbage by voting for a slate. Scalzi's article simply explains that while it's possible for a minority to get things nominated, that doesn't mean that it's possible for the minority to get Hugos awarded. In other words, everybody's doom and gloom about the Hugos was misplaced.
It's worth reading his article, because it is quite interesting and it is how I learned a lot about the process.
1. I believe that by using the term, "SJW", you blind yourself to any realistic analysis of the event;
2. I'm not trying to use any sort of jargon. I am trying to explain what I mean;
4. [sic] I don't understand what you mean here.
3.
You've linked to that article but you clearly haven't read it! Scalzi simply explains the rules and how he interprets them. His article was in response to a lot of hand-wringing about the puppies' attempt to vote for a slate. Lots and lots of people were forseeing doom and gloom for the Hugos, Scalzi's article was simply to explain that while it's possible to get nominations on the ballot paper by colluding, it's a very different thing to getting Hugos awarded. You should read the article - it's pretty interesting.
So the people who voted No award are "minions" of John Scalzi. And you're suggesting that he only has to suggest it and hundreds of people with fork out $40 each so that they can do exactly what he says? Are you serious? Novels cost - what - $10? So you think people are going to spend four times the price of one of his novels just so that they can vote according to his instructions. What would they gain from that?
But surely nobody can force anybody to do anything? Anyone can register. Anyone can vote for anything.
1. Citation needed;
2. How does this change anything. Anyone could stump up $40 and register and then vote any way they wanted. How would someone telling them what to do change the result?
But anyone could register to vote, including the Puppies and all of their supporters and friends. It doesn't matter if 5000 or 50000 people voted. Anyone could have registered and voted if they had been motivated to do so.
How could you possibly know this?
The OP's contention is that: Yes, the social justice clique burned the awards to the ground to stop any Puppy-nominated candidate from winning. This presumes to know the reason that none of Vox Day's nominations won an award. The possibility that the OP thinks is most likely is that there is a "clique" (or some other term) of "SJ" people who all voted together. This fails Occam's Razor test - it's not the simplest explanation. A far simpler explanation is that the works that were nominated by Vox Day were not actually good enough to be awarded Hugos.
Don't be stupid. You can't say, "anyone can register" and then say, "the people who registered prove that it was a fix!". Anyone was allowed to register. The people who registered to vote voted and the Hugos are awarded (or not awarded) as a result.
ANYONE can register to vote. If the majority of people who registered to vote voted in a particular way, ALL that you can conclude from that is that the winners reflect what the registered voters wanted. You can't look at the results and then say, "oh look, the vote was dominated by group X".
Try not using the term, "SJW" to see how absurd your argument is.
The Hugos are not being destroyed. You have to pay $40 to register to vote, so it's not like an Internet poll. The system isn't being "gamed". Anybody can register and vote. The same people who vote also get to nominate for next year's Hugos.
Neither side can "stuff ballots". It's a free vote and anybody can register to vote. This year, the Sad Puppies (and another group I think) created a "slate" to get a number of works nominated. In the main vote, those works did not win.
But anyone can register, so nobody can "stuff ballots".
1. I understood what you were saying;
2. I don't understand what "the Academy" has to do with it;
3. I don't understand the point you are making about feminists and homophobia;
4. I don't understand what Obamacare has to do with it;
5. I agree with you on the point about the use of "SJW". See also "PC".
What you have written here makes no sense at all. Here are some facts for you.
1. Anyone may register (I think it costs $40);
2. Anyone who registers can nominate any work they like;
3. Anyone who registers can vote for any work(s) they like in each of several categories;
4. If someone thinks that nothing in a particular category deserves an award, there is a "No award" option;
5. The voting system for nomination is different from the voting system for the awards;
So how can "SJWs" (or anyone else for that matter) affect the awards of the Hugos? This is a serious question - I really want to know what you think.
The voters for the Hugos are sci-fi fans. There is no "SJW" group that votes. EVERYONE who registers can vote. There are no restrictions on who can register (another poster says that it costs $40). You don't have to attend Worldcon to register. Presumably, those people who register are the ones who are most interested in scifi. But there's no group of "SJWs" (or anybody else for that matter) who can affect the outcome. Everyone who registers can vote.
I'm not sure if you're deliberately being obtuse, but the "self-selected group" that you talk about is everybody who wants to register. Presumably the ones who register are the ones who are most interested in sci-fi. Ancillary Justice was voted for by the majority of voters in that category and so won the Hugo. It makes no sense at all to say that something that won a democratic vote "didn't deserve" to win. It was a democratic vote and it won.
In any case, your criticism that Ancillary Justice is "conservative" is, to put it mildly, contentious.
No upgrade is needed. The voting system to get things nominated is different to the one to make the awards. So it's possible for a small group to create a voting "bloc" to get works nominated, but they are then not able to force those works to win awards.
No he didn't, because he (and presumably you) seem to think that the voters are a closed group. In fact, anyone may register to vote. You don't have to attend Worldcon to vote. So there is no "clique" to sway the vote. There are just fans of scifi who are committed enough to stump up the $40 (or however much) to register to vote.
There can't be a clique. Anybody can register to vote. Presumably the people who register are the ones who are interested enough in scifi to be bothered. But anybody at all is allowed to register to vote.
Wrong! The condition for nominating are EXACTLY the same as the condition for winning the Hugo. Anyone who registers can nominate any work they like (it has to have been published in the relevant year of course).
So the Sad Puppies didn't prove anything, except that they could get works nominated but could not get those works to win Hugos. The reason for this is the different voting system used in both cases. None of this has changed in any significant way.
To put it another way, the changing nature of the types of work that win Hugos reflects the changing nature of the types of people who read sci-fi (or to be more specific, the changing nature of the types of people who register to vote in the Hugos).
Yet another person who just wants to humiliate himself. There is no "social justice clique". It's an open vote. Anybody can register to vote. You don't even have to go to Worldcon to vote. So please explain to everyone, how this clique "burned the awards to the ground".
"Award committee". By which you mean the sci-fi fans who were interested enough to register to vote. Remember, anyone can register to vote - you don't have to go to Worldcon to vote.
What has that to do with the Hugos?
You don't know enough about this to comment. Anybody can sign up to vote. The outcome of the vote reflects the will of the majority of those who registered. You don't have to attend Worldcon to vote. So the awards reflect those people who were interested enough to sign up.
Last year's winners were chosen by the same process. The majority of those people who signed up voted and Ancillary Justice won one of the awards. How can you say that it should not have won?