Saturday, June 06, 2015

Where Are My Nutty Nuggets? I Want My Nuggy Nuggets!

"They told me there would be Nutty Nuggets!
The stated purpose of the slate administrators in Sad Puppy HQ (well, all except for Vox Day and Tom Kratman, who have stated they want to see the Hugo Awards destroyed), is for the Hugo Awards to  supposedly reflect the "will of the people" or something.  That the Hugo Awards should reflect the popularity of works, as based on sales figures.  Or on Amazon rankings, or something.

Sad Puppy Central seem to have given up on their first justification, that there was some Super Double-Sekret Social Justice Progressive Cabal that was blocking the Manly Man Rocket Adventure Stories that they Like So Well from making either the nomination lists or the winning slots.  Except for Freer, who, I guess, didn't get the memo.

This is because they actually swamped the nomination choices.  Now, this has got to be embarrassing, if you're all fired up to crow about having Proof, I tell you! Proof! That it's all a fraud and that we couldn't get on the ballot 'cause there is no way that we could succeed in gaming the system.  There's no way that simple a cheat can get us on the ballot....

Uhh, why does the ballot look like this?

The latest reason put forth for poor prior puppy performance in the ballot is that there has been this long-running con, where each year the convention committee for the WorldCon is purposely making it hard for people to find out how to nominate and vote!  Yeah, that's it!

Well, lets look at the websites for the past 4 world cons:
  • 2011 - Renovation - 08/17/11 to 8/21/11 - Reno, Nevada
    From the front page on the convention website
    we find a link to the Memberships page.
    From the Memberships page we find a link to the "How to sign up" page
    On the "How to sign up" page we have descriptions of the membership types.  Lets look at Attending and Supporting:
    Attending:  "... This membership includes all voting rights in the World Science Fiction Society. This means that you get the right to nominate for the 2011 and 2012 Hugo Awards, and to vote on the 2011 Hugo Awards. You also may attend and participate in the WSFS Business Meeting, which is held at a Worldcon and makes the rules for the Hugo Awards and the selection of future Worldcons. ..."Supporting: " ... A Supporting Membership includes all of the rights and privileges of an attending membership except the right to attend Renovation. You get the Hugo Award and Site Selection voting rights, and will receive all generally distributed publications. This membership allows you to support the Worldcon and participate in it without actually attending the convention.   ..."  
  • 2012 - Chicon 7 - 08/30/12 - 09/03/12 - Chicago, IL
    On  the "membership" tab at the top of  convention web site's main page is a link to the "Membership FAQ"   There, under "What does my membership include" we see:" ...  You can nominate and vote on the Hugo awards and attend the Hugo Awards ceremony, plus you can nominate for next year's Hugo awards as well. You can also vote for the site for the 2014 Worldcon. ..."
    Under the "How Do I Join" heading we have a link to the membership page, When we follow that link, under membership types we find:
    Attending: "... An Attending membership includes all publications, as well as voting and attending rights. ..."
    Supporting: "... A Supporting Membership includes all of the rights and privileges of an attending membership except the right to attend Chicon 7. ..."
  • 2013 - LoneStarCon 3 - 08/29/13 - 09/02/13 - San Antonio,  TX
    On the main web page, about 2/3 down is a "quick link" to "Membership"
    There we find:
    Attending: An Attending Membership includes all publications, as well as voting and attending rights.
    Supporting: A Supporting Membership includes all of the rights and privileges of an attending membership except the right to attend LoneStarCon 3.Now this is not very informative, 'cause I want to know about the Hugo's.  But on the left sidebar we find an entry for Hugo Awards, where we find:
    "... Voting for the Hugo Awards takes place in two stages. The first stage, nomination, is open to anyone who had a Supporting or Attending membership in the previous, current, or following year's Worldcon as of January 31. For LoneStarCon 3, this meant members of Chicon 7 (the 2012 Worldcon), LoneStarCon 3 itself, and Loncon 3 (the 2014 Worldcon). During this stage, members can nominate any eligible work or person.

    The second stage of voting is the final ballot. This stage, which closed on July 31, 2013, is only open to members of the current Worldcon (i.e. LoneStarCon 3). In the final ballot, members choose among the five finalists in each category. ..."
  • 2014 -  Loncon 3 - London, UK - 08/14/14 - 08/18/14
    Main web page  .  Now this website is more problematic.  There is no quick link that tells you what the rights are of memberships.  The info is there, but you need to use a convoluted route to find "All about membership and attendance at Loncon 3"  where we find that there is no description of what the voting rights are.  In fact the only mention of voting rights for either attending or supporting memberships on that page is this bit on supporting memberships "... but is for anybody else who wishes to receive all the publications and vote in the site selection ..." which is incorrect, unless Loncon 3 included the site selection fee in the supporting membership cost.
 Of these four years, only one, Loncon 3, never makes it easy to find out what is the membership classes that can vote for the Hugo.  To me, it looks like there's no conspiracy to make this information hard to find.  Looking over these websites, The only thing I see in common is that everybody makes their own websites, the USA ones seemed to copy a lot of administrivia text, and the site design for London, at least, was considered a real low priority item.  And that leads me to believe that the lack of coherent info about what comes with the membership is an oversight to the site design team:
   "Did you put in membership and voting stuff on the site?"
   "Giles is doing that part of the site."
   "Well, where is he?"
   "Oh, he's fishing in Scotland this week."
   "Well, have him check it when he gets back."

(I was actually going to look at the last six years worth of sites, but the site for Aussicon is now home to some sort of publishing clearinghouse(?) and the Canadian one is just a stub, showing the convention name and logo and the list of corporate sponsors.)


But this also brings up another thing I keep seeing from the puppies about the WorldCon and the Hugos:  they keep claiming that they (the Hugo Awards) have been "broken" for years and they don't "mean anything" anymore, in either terms of a signifier of quality for the winners, or a survey of quality (for the nominated work)

And this brings in something that does get me ticked off:  if these non-followers of the Hugo awards don't like, and have *not* liked the Hugo award nominees/winners for the last 10 years, why the hell are they complaining about it *now?*

Let them make their own d*mn award, call it "Nutty Nuggets" or something.  They can curate, limit it to USAian writers and publishers, have the one foreign language exception Castilia put into the Charter or something and leave the rest of us the hell alone!

It's not like there's not enough prior art around to show them how it's done:  The Prometheus; the Tiptree; the Bram Stoker; The Sidewise; The Shirley Jackson Awards; The Lambda Literary Awards; The Locus Awards.

 Locus maintains a whole database of them - anybody can write to those awards administrators for advice on how to do selection and nominations. 

Hell, the Locus awards themselves are exactly what the Puppies claim they want - recognition by fandom and readers as a whole, an out-and-out popularity contest, not nominations and voting limited by membership in the WSFS rolls.  Why aren't the puppies having this to-do with *Locus?*

No, this is because the SP clique got its ego hurt.  Because they can't win an award they say they "don't care about" and because their own little Dr Evil didn't get the appreciation he wanted from the Making Light commetariat (or maybe because they didn't appreciate his sharks with laser beams?) and has been holding a grudge for a frikken decade.  Hell, even Fred Pohl and Sam Moskowitz stopped taking pot shots at each other in less time than that after the Great Exclusion Act.


Tom Kratman said...

I was somewhere between indifferent and apathetic until the lefty reaction to SP/RP made me actively want the awards destroyed.

BTW: Boston Latin, Boston College.

Craig R. said...

Come off it.

There was no "lefty reaction to SP/RP"

The "reaction" was readers were pissed off that writers who couldn't get the awards on their own gamed the system and that those same writers had let themselves, in turn, be gamed by a neo-nazi who was nursing a 10-year-old grudge.

Tom Kratman said...

Utter nonsense.

Craig R. said...

Prove it.

Prove that it's "utter nonsense"

Tom Kratman said...

Go to Mike Glyer's blog, file 770. Identify the lefties and social justice warriors. Find the number who have not been rabid about SP/RP. It is only sllightly above zero and the rest turned on that one. Go to Nielsen-Hayden's making light. Note that the blog is generally lefty. Note their reaction to SP/RP. Note lefty David Gerrold's reaction. Note Irene Gallo's comments on facebook, which were not only lefty and rapid, but libelous, to boot.

How much proof do you need? If it's more than that, there's no hope for you.

Craig R. said...

OK, so now your goalpost is that "lefty reaction" is that the people having the reaction are "lefty?"

Not that there is something in the substance of the reaction that is "lefty?"

So, if the same arguments and complaints about authors' works being undeserving of the Hugo Award (that is, "not well enough written") and the absurdity of a grudge-keeping twit calling the shots, had been made by, say, people who identify with the "right wing" of American politics, then that reaction would be OK? But not if it's made by "progressives?"

So it's not the stance taken, your complaint is the people taking the stance?

Tom Kratman said...

No, try that there are lefties, who have had a pretty uniform reaction. That reaction has beem vile enough to have made me want to see them no award the Hugos, this year, so that the RPs and SPs and general non-lefty fan base can no award in perpetuity.

I don't know of anyone on the right who has, but you may.

But I perceive there is no hope for you. Oh well.

Anonymous said...

To be fair there was a lefty-reaction to the RP/SP - it is just that it was one of many reactions from a politically diverse range of people.

I think the issue is people in RP/SP not being able to make any political distinctions beyond their group.

Enigmatic Wombat said...

Wow - even Scott Adams has gotten into the Tom Kratman/Hugo action - check out todays Dilbert!

Craig R. said...

From Kratman's reaction *here,* I don't think that it would have mattered what the actual things said were - if it came from a Progressive source, unless it was abject surrender it would be perceived, by him, as the wrong reaction, and grounds to use a counter-attack

I'm just still croggled that, even if individuals were mean to him that he would want to destroy the institution.

zhochaka said...

It's always perilous to judge an author's personal politics by whatever bias there may be in his writing, but from Tom Kratman's work it looks plausible that it is hard not to be a lefty from his point of view.

But my personal viewpoint is pretty left-wing to start with. And I am with the people singing La Marseillaise. Mr. Kratman is, no doubt, shocked to discover that vote-rigging is taking place on the premises.

Tom Kratman said...

Actually, it's very easy not to be a lefty from my POV, especially since I am only at the right edge of the middle third. Look for my columns in covering the political optical illusions.

Tom Kratman said...

You have a bad case of projection, Wombat. My condolences.

Tom Kratman said...

I'll save you a little trouble; Part I was, IIRC this:

Tom Kratman said...

No, start here:

Roguecyber said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig R. said...

The Management wishes to remind patrons that food obtained and eaten
off-premises may not have been properly decontaminated.

In other words, Kratman, feel free to advertise your stuph elsewhere.

Any more advertising here, without in-place exposition, in a courteous manner, willbe deleted.

My space, my rules.

Tom Kratman said...

Then kiss my ass and live in ignorance. You're not worth retyping that crap for, pseudo-Bostonian, nor even copying and pasting.

Craig R. said...

Goodbye Sir.

Have a nice day.